Published: Friday, July 26 2013 12:10 a.m. MDT
I agree with every point in this article. Pornography is a scourge on society.
More than a billion people spent yesterday malnourished. I guess you have to
pick your scourge.
Ir don't think that filtering will be that effective. BUT it would be dumb
not to try. Good for Cameron.
I am in agreement with the article, that pornography is bad for children, and so
forth. I think this law paints a broad brush and that we need to be more
specific in what exactly is harmful. We cannot be just deleting pictures of
random things just because they might be pornographic. We need to have some
wisdom in dealing with this matter, not knee-jerk reactions.
At BYU, great art is considered porn, e.g., Rodin's "The Kiss."
What would they do with Botticelli's Venus or Michelangelo's David? At
BYU art isn't acceptable unless everybody's buried in robes, e.g. Carl
Bloch ad nauseam. I recognize you have to draw the line somewhere...but I
mistrust a lot of the people who want to draw that line.
So -- Which is it?Freedom without big old mean nasty
Government, orSocialism and less pornography?Conservatives childishly want their cake and eat it too.
Its a waste of money to fight our right to free speech. Spend your efforts
raising good kids that know what how to control themselves and know how to do
the right thing. Stop wasting our taxes fighting our God given rights.
I think the interesting approach that Britain is taking on this is not a
"government" implementation but a provider implementation. The
requirement to provide the filter is mandated by the government but the
implementation and approach is firmly placed on the ISP. I like that approach
and I appreciate the fact that it is not an all or nothing. I believe the exact
approach could be implemented in the US now without impacting anyone's
freedom, explicit or implied.Pay attention politicians and follow
suit in the US. We have made our TV providers give us that feature, why
can't we do the same to the ISP?
Excellent article, but look at how many are supporting the abuse of women and
children by telling us that porn is protected speech. What are they really
saying? What I hear is that they don't want anyone to keep them from
exploiting innocence. They don't want anyone keeping them from profiting
from the misery of others. They want to feed their appetites and passions and
they will sacrifice the pure and innocent to get their "daily dose".Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law for child endangerment.
Prosecute them for causing allienation of affection. Prosecute them for
encouraging the delinquency of minors. Prosecute them for the crimes that they
are committing. We have laws to protect our children. Enforce
@Mike Richards --"What I hear is that they don't want
anyone to keep them from exploiting innocence. "Oh, baloney. The problem here isn't the existence of filters. The problem is
that Britain wants to IMPOSE those filters, just as countries like Iran and
China do. Do we REALLY want to be like either Iran or China??I'm all for the existence of filters. But allow those filters to be
opt-in, rather than mandatory."Prosecute them to the fullest
extent of the law for child endangerment."Are you going to
prosecute people for child endangerment if they keep alcoholic beverages in the
house? If not, then you don't have a leg to stand on in regards to
pornography.And for heaven's sake -- Cameron wants to monitor
your search queries?? REALLY?? Can you spell "Big Brother"??
Some people deny that the government can legislate to protect its citizens from
those who have no respect for society. Do they deny that we have speed zones
near schools? Should we let people choose their own speeds when our children
are on the roads? They would have us think that children should be able to buy
and drink alcohol; that children should able able to buy movie tickets to
R-rated movies; that children should be able to buy and view "adult
magazines". All they're telling us is that children are expendable.When society caters to the depraved, we let them sacrifice our children,
our families and our society to satisfy their own base desires.Human
depravity reaches new lows when those who despise women and children become
society's spokespeople by demanding the "right" to wallow in
pornographic filth and when those "spokespeople" try to deflect
attention from their own depravity by claiming that they have the right to
spread their filth throughout society.
@Mike --Wow. Hyperbole, much?If you've been
following the porn discussions, you may already realize that Utah has the
highest rate of porn cable subscriptions in the entire nation. Are you really
accusing all those fellow Mormons of depravity?Porn perusal is not
illegal. Therefore it has no comparison whatsoever to speed zones and so
forth.If you don't like porn, then by all means keep telling
people how damaging you think it is. But **don't** try to force people to
conform to your beliefs by forcibly restricting legal activities.And
btw, you didn't answer my question. Are you going to try to prosecute
parents for child endangerment if they keep alcohol in the house? How about if
they keep cigarettes in the house? Unless you prosecute for those, you
can't prosecute for porn, either. Alcohol and cigarettes are both addictive
and demonstrably harmful to both adults and kids -- so why are they legal? Why
aren't they prosecutable?Answer those questions, and THEN maybe
you'll have a leg to stand on.
@ Contrarius: It is actually illegal to sell or distribute alcohol and
cigarettes to minor children, even one's own children. Likewise, it is
illegal to sell or distribute pornography to minor children. The difference is,
there are protections in place OUTSIDE of the home to keep children from getting
these things. Alcohol and cigarette sales must be accompanied by
legal proof of age. Distribution to minors is punishable by jail time. All
people are asking is that pornography on the internet have the same protections
for children. Since proof of age is impossible in the cyber-world, parents need
to be able to have filters available to them to keep it out of the home. ISPs
who do not provide filters are actually violating the protection of minors.
@nhsaint --"It is actually illegal to sell or distribute alcohol
and cigarettes to minor children."Yet it is NOT illegal to have
those products in the same house with children."All people are
asking is that pornography on the internet have the same protections for
children. "No, this is NOT all that people are asking.David Cameron is placing mandatory filters on all computer service, REGARDLESS
of whether children are present or not. He is instituting the **monitoring of
personal search strings**. The software to be used in this filtering program
**scans and stores** every URL you visit.That is much, *much* more
than what you are claiming. I can't understand why folks who
are so adamant against NSA surveillance are just fine and dandy with this
one.Oh, and guess what -- his filtering program is run by a Chinese
company. Yeah, those Chinese know all about government-sponsored censorship. A US House Report on that same company concluded that "The risks
associated with Huawei and ZTE's provision of equipment to US critical
infrastructure could undermine core US national-security interests."As I've said before -- I'm all for reasonable, VOLUNTARY
filters. This isn't it.
@ContrariousThe British proposal requires providers to make the
filters available. That's the extent of the requirement. Commentators
take issue with the opt-in nature of the proposal, with the Chinese connection,
with the Big Brother angle and raise the slippery slope argument. All
legitimate points of discussion. Declaring that the filters themselves
aren't VOLUNTARY (emphasis yours) is incorrect.
@BusStopRatBag --From an engadget article: "UK-based Huawei
employees are able to decide which sites are blocked on TalkTalk's service,
and that even users who opt out of Homesafe have their internet usage data
routed through Huawei's system. "That ain't
voluntary.From Businessinsider: "The 'Homesafe'
system...is part of a new plan requiring UK internet service providers to
automatically block online pornography, and has been criticized as a huge
violation of privacy. " "The founder of Huawei, Ren Zhengfei, is a
former officer in China's People's Liberation Army."From Open Rights Group: "the new 'parental controls' will reach
far beyond pornography. By default, the controls will block access to
'violent material,' 'extremist and terrorist related
content,' 'anorexia and eating disorder websites,' and
'suicide related websites.' In addition, the new settings will censor
websites that mention alcohol or smoking. "From Forbes:
"....once a universal filter’s introduced, its remit could be
extended...The current voluntary filter ...offers the option of filtering out
file sharing sites as well as adult material; indeed, (it) was used in 2011 to
block the Usenet indexing system after action from the Motion Picture
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments