As I have noted before on this site, Nanny has a wee bit of an obsession about filtering what we are allowed to access on the internet. Nanny uses tired old excuse "won't someone think of the children?" as her rationale for introducing filtering which, she claims, will limit children's access to porn on the web.
Nanny wants people automatically barred from accessing "unsuitable" adult material, unless they actually choose to view it.
Who decides what is "unsuitable" I wonder?
Define "porn"?
ROFLOL!
Clearly the cretins within the government who have come up with this idea have never heard of proxy access. I guarantee that the average teenager/kid is light years ahead of these cretins, and can easily override any anti porn filter.
Anyhoo, aside from this idea being a nonsense, it also sets a dangerous precedent and will tempt future governments to filter other content that Nanny may not approve of.
To this end the Open Right Group are asking people to email them and their MPs if they disagree with this proposal:
"Some MPs and religious groups are mounting a campaign to push 'default on' network level blocking on the UK Internet.[1] [2] There is now a public consultation considering this idea.Here is the link if you wish to send your MP an email Stop Opt-Out Adult Filtering.
However well meaning, we know from our own research [3] what happens when ISPs put blocks on the Internet. Through accident or abuse, censorship leads to lots more content being blocked than originally intended.[4][5]
Sites will get blocked if they casually mention sex. Sexual health sites will get caught.[6] The websites of clubs and bars, personal blogs and community sites get filtered. Chat sites may be banned – because they might not be sufficiently “policed”. In short, if you’re small and independent, you will suffer.
Innovation and free speech are threatened by this clumsy website blocking. And the government is considering turning this on by default.[7] You may be presented with a list of ticked “filtered” categories, and have to untick them if you want to avoid the filtering.
And if this happens at the network, then future governments can easily extend what gets filtered without having to ask you. Mass censorship would be couple of clicks away.
This action helps you submit evidence to the public consultation - and also to your MP, so they know ordinary people are concerned about this."
Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.
Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.
Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.
www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Instead of restricting access to pornography, the question of whether it actually does any harm should be asked.
ReplyDeletePornography has been around since time began, ever since man has been able to express their thoughts through pictures. There is evidence of pornographic cave drawings and all ancient civilizations have used it in one form or the other. Go to Pompeii and the wall paintings and murals that still exist are there to be seen.
As children we all had access to some sort of pornography. In my day it was Hustler magazine and Color Climax movies on VHS tapes. Before that was H&E naturist magazines and projector films. The Victorians had saucy postcards.
We didn’t grow up to be sexual deviants because of access to pornography.
However, take a look at countries where sharia law is practiced. The places where accessing pornography can result in imprisonment or even death.
Do the children in countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Gaza all grow up to be nice, level headed individuals?
I fear you're right Ken: porn today, goodness knows what tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteThe state already effectively controls what many of us have access to through the State's broadcaster and bombard us with their approved messages.
Begs the question, how ever did the human race get to where it is if we "all thought of the children". Less than one hundred years ago folk were shagging in the same room as their kids. Couple of decades earlier than that, simple requirement for warmth had them all in the same bed. If they'd all shagged their siblings we'd not be here today to discuss it. Ignoring religion(*) (the root cause), most animals have an inherent aversion for impregnation of their closest relations. We are no different.
ReplyDelete(*) Does Vatican still have 12 years as age of consent?
Honestly,
ReplyDeletewould anybody want to do it with that Cameron chappie .... oooohh yuk!!!