Comments about ‘Matthew Sanders: More countries should follow David Cameron's defense of children, attack on pornography’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, July 26 2013 12:10 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Bifftacular
Spanish Fork, Ut

I agree with every point in this article. Pornography is a scourge on society.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

More than a billion people spent yesterday malnourished. I guess you have to pick your scourge.

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Ir don't think that filtering will be that effective. BUT it would be dumb not to try. Good for Cameron.

Brother Benjamin Franklin
Orem, UT

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.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

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.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

So --

Which is it?

Freedom without big old mean nasty Government,
or
Socialism and less pornography?

Conservatives childishly want their cake and eat it too.

Midvaliean
MIDVALE, UT

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.

Johnny Moser
Thayne, WY

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?

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

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 them.

Contrarius
mid-state, TN

@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"??

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

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.

Contrarius
mid-state, TN

@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.

nhsaint
PETERBOROUGH, NH

@ 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.

Contrarius
mid-state, TN

@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.

BusStopRatBag
Layton, UT

@Contrarious

The 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.

Contrarius
mid-state, TN

@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 Association...."

----------

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments