Unwanted material is everywhere. I think it would be great to "opt-in"
to certain things rather than have them poured on regardless of our ability or
inability to steer clear. But more important than restricting expression is
teaching children when they are young about uplifting, beautiful, amazing things
in the world while acknowledging the ugly and obscene. I don't have an
umbrella big enough to keep the torrent of disgusting content away from my
family, but I can teach them what I value, help them recognize what makes them
happy, and help steer them through when they encounter things contrary to values
they have helped identify as important.None of us gets through life
unscathed. We might as well be prepared. I don't know what the
ramifications of "opt-in" only are, but I don't want to see
censorship cut into things I think are important or valuable because we stepped
onto a slippery slope and handed control to government. I KNOW the government
doesn't share my values.
@USAlover --"This is about CHILDREN!"Compare
with FISA and the Patriot Act. That legislation was supposed to be all about our
safety -- yet now we have the NSA secretly snooping into every crevice they can
find.Slippery slopes and unintended consequences are important
issues to worry about.
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
@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.
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)?
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.
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.
@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.
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!
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
@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. ;-)
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.
No Contrarius, it' s about porn.
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)
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.