Quantcast

Comments about ‘Petition asks government and Internet service companies to filter pornography by default’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Nov. 20 2013 4:55 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
byufootballrocks
Herndon, VA

Please sign up for this petition. I just signed on to it - the link to it is in this article.

Children and young teens at an alarming rate are being exposed to pornography on the Internet - a 10-year old girl types in the word "cat" to google and before you know it is exposed to porn.

I commend Great Britain and other companies for this policy and hope it is adopted here in the United States.

Anything to protect children is good.

happytobehere
Fillmore, Utah

Many people have expressed concern on other comment boards that this infringes on their rights. I would disagree. But regardless, if people who want to view porn don't want to opt in, then please give me a option to opt out.

Internet filters are not the option. I have tried many different filters at quite some expense. They don't work well and they slow the system down dramatically. I would even be willing to pay for a porn free internet feed if it were just available.

Please let us be free from being subjected to this smut. Phones, ipads, laptops are wonderful items, but they carry huge dangers. If we could elect a porn free feed, the dangers would be dissolved.

freedomforthepeople
Sandy, UT

It is time the US caught up with other countries who have figured out that our childrens' exposure to porn is a violation of their rights. The sexual predators are stealing our childrens' innocence and we need to stop it NOW. Please sign this petition and send to your email lists.

PBA
Alpine, UT

Someone suggested we get Netnanny to solve this problem. Besides only being a partial solution, an internet filter feels like I am the one being punished and locked in the jail for my protection. This problem has been solved in other areas. Movies have ratings, so I don't accidentally walk into an NC17 movies, Cable TV has different channels I can subscribe to or not. Why don’t I have this same freedom to “Opt in” on the Internet?

What if, just like cable TV, all porn came through one channel and all Kids’ shows came through a different channel? Who's rights are being abused if the family content comes through my Port 80 on my computer and porn through port 4? Today the Internet’s Emergency Broadcasts come through port 533 on my computer and my email IMAP comes through Port 220. If everything on my computer has its own channel then why can't porn? I noticed that Ports 4 and Port 8 are unassigned. Let's give pornography its very own separate channel. I vote that we give Port 4 to Porn. This solution gives me a choice. Everyone in favor, press like.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

I agree and will sign the petition.

But, to be clear, sometimes we DO need the government to step in and keep businesses in check.

Mukkake
Montreal, QC, 00

People who support these measures really don't seem to understand how the internet works. It's right in the name "internet". They also don't understand how the filtering technology works. It isn't a magic bullet that can arbitrarily, and to even the majority of people's satisfaction, tell the difference between "good" and "bad". There's a lot of different filtering methods, and none of them are very good. You will either get too much or too little filtering, or, usually, some horrible combination of both, where legitimate sites are filtered and questionable sites allowed.

This is how the internet works. People will eventually just opt-in by default, making these laws moot.

Contrarius
mid-state, TN

This isn't just about porn -- it's about censorship.

Read this telling paragraph again:

"When British Internet service providers were asked by the group’s Jim Killock about what content they plan to filter by default, the companies said that not only would pornography be blacklisted, but also violent and weapons-related material, extremist and terrorist-related content, anorexia and eating disorder websites, suicide-related websites, alcohol, smoking, web forums, and web-blocking circumvention tools."

This is indeed a slippery slope towards widespread censorship of the Internet. Big Brother is getting bigger and bigger all the time.

BostonLDS
Salt lake City, UT

I would LOVE for this to be made into law! It's crazy to me the amount of obscene materials that are on the internet. Just a simple google search can bring up filth. I really hope this passes!

OlderGreg
USA, CA

Try standing on your own hind legs. Not every problem needs to be addressed by a law.

OpenDNS cot com has a preconfigured "family" setting that can be applied to your whole house, or to specific computers. There are free and paid subscriptions ( paid gets you a longer history/ reporting capabilities). You can also customize the available filters.

Yes, there is an ongoing escalation of attack/ defense, so nothing will be 100%. IMHO, this is as close as it gets (short of total disconnect)

jeanie
orem, UT

No Contrarius, it' s about porn.

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Jeanie: You are right. I remembere when Contrarus dismissed your views as a teacher simply because as he said, "You are from a small town in Utah," so you would not know. Well, I think that you have good views so don't listen to him. Keep it up.

It isn't censorship to tell someone that they can't post their sexism anywhere and everywhere. The rest of us who don't want to see it should not have to be hiding behind filters and such. If you want to see it, then you can go and see it or you can request it.

Contrariusier
mid-state, TN

@jeanie --

"No Contrarius, it' s about porn."

Read that statement again. The service providers themselves admit that they will be blocking much more than porn.

"When British Internet service providers were asked by the group’s Jim Killock about what content they plan to filter by default, the companies said that not only would pornography be blacklisted, but also violent and weapons-related material, extremist and terrorist-related content, anorexia and eating disorder websites, suicide-related websites, alcohol, smoking, web forums, and web-blocking circumvention tools."

This is the thin edge of the wedge, folks.

"so don't listen to him"

I'm a "her", thanks. ;-)

raybies
Layton, UT

The only reason pornography isn't already blocked is because there are a lot of users who really like it--and it makes a lot of money--AND because the internet started out as a fringe technology but is now a mainstream societal tool.

This is a natural evolution of this tool. The more mainstream it becomes the more such controls are needed. Honestly, I don't care if you like it, or think it is censorship, children need to be allowed to stay children for a while. Give us all a break and admit that an "Opt In" program robs you nothing. Essentially you get your porn, you just have to make a conscietious effort to order it. While the rest of us can enjoy the benefits of the internet without running into it by accidentally clicking a friend's facebook likes page, or some such other innocuous looking but secretly concealing illicit content.

jeanie
orem, UT

Tekakaromatagi, thanks!

Contrarius, I don't recall seeing a primary source cited to back up Jim Killock's claim, just "he said they said", not real credible.

And there is ample reason to suspect any claims made by people defending an enormous money machine's unfettered access to everyone - regardless of interest or age. Do you not understand the reach and motivation of big business or the power of money?

Putting regulations in place to check this giant and calling it a slippery slope to censorship is about as accurate as saying traffic laws will lead to dictatorship.

The information highway is no different from the interstate. Neither should be strewn with dangerous trash. If people want their trash they should have to pull off to get it!

Contrariusier
mid-state, TN

@jeanie --

"The information highway is no different from the interstate. "

Not a perfect analogy, but it'll do for now.

Now -- imagine an interstate where you aren't allowed to travel on certain roads. You want to drive to Vegas? Too bad! You want to drive to LA? Out of luck!

I absolutely agree that porn is bad for kids. But preemptive censorship isn't the way to go. Parents need to take responsibility -- they shouldn't be relying on the Nanny theory of governmental interference.

"I don't recall seeing a primary source cited to back up Jim Killock's claim"

These same facts are being reported multiple other places on the net, including the International Business Times.

And remember, the company that is doing the blocking for the UK is owned by a Chinese company that has ties with the Chinese government. There's just all sorts of "wonderful" (notice the sarcasm) possibilities here.

jeanie
orem, UT

Contrarius,

Again, you and I will not agree.

One thing that I do know for sure. Parents DO take responsibility, but it is completely ignorant to assume that parents can protect their children from every source of trash. There are times the government has to step in. If not, we'd still have a segregated South.

I hope you understood the distinction that the petition in question is to filter out porn.

If we want what's best for children we'll sign the petition.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Reasons not to ask government intervention:

* they will claim porn is freedom of speech
* porn is a way expressing love, can't discriminate who views this.
* it's people right to view what they want.

If government can legalize abortion, gay marriage, and sending military weapons world wide, they will certainly side for pornography.

jeanie
orem, UT

Contrarius -

Before you answer my last post I have a question.

You have spoken so passionately for the well-being of children in the past. If you do agree that porn is absolutely bad for kids and a "government nanny interference" is not the solution, what is your suggestion to clear the dangerous trash from the roads so they can get to their destinations safely (sticking with my analogy)?

Contrariusier
mid-state, TN

@jeanie --

"it is completely ignorant to assume that parents can protect their children from every source of trash."

That is true of all the dangers in life. We can't wrap our kids in bubble wrap and keep them safely in a box -- and preemptive net censorship won't accomplish that either.

"There are times the government has to step in."

Sure. When illegal activities are going on. But porn isn't illegal.

"I hope you understood the distinction..."

And I hope you understand the principle of unintended consequences. Once you start on a slippery slope, it's difficult to stop the slide on the way to the bottom.

"what is your suggestion to clear the dangerous trash from the roads"

OlderGreg has already pointed out one free solution. For households containing children, there are already blockers available. And if those ISPs wanted to provide voluntary, OPT-IN blockers, I would have no objection to that either.

Russia and China have already instituted porn blocking -- and, in both countries, it has been used to increase surveillance on their citizens. Do a google search for "porn" and "deep packet inspection" for just one example.

USAlover
Salt Lake City, UT

This is about CHILDREN!

The adults who want their accessible, anonymous and easy porn can get all they want and more. How this can be an infringement on their rights and somehow Obamacare is NOT, is simply friggin' ridiculous.

to comment

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