"All computers should be provided with net filtering software loaded - and the default position for such filters should be on." That is the view of Miranda Suit, one of the organisers of Mediamarch - a voluntary group seeking to reduce the harmful effects of the media on our children, families and society. Ms Suit was speaking …
If (and that is a big if) anyone is actually addicted to porn they must have an extremely high threshold not to be throughly bored by "samo samo". (Boy meets girl, get naked, girl plays with boy, boy enters girl in one or more of three ways - film ends). Must admit that I did see Sound of Music some 26 times but that is beside the point.
The main objection these people probably have to raise is that they themselves feel inadequate in comparison to the actors used in porn - true some of the positions are impossible unless you are more than well endowed but what the heck - if you can at least do some of them there is a chance that a boring routine could become fun - treat porn as an eye opening information manual and it might just cut down on some unhappy marriages; perhaps it should be mandatory for all to watch some at least for one hour a week.
(Married 38 years and still having fun)
Mines the one with the condoms in the pocket.
The Department of AdultERated Learning. One of Mandy's Surprise Packages?
Is there a leading niche market then for responsible phornographers? Binary Wizards and Digital Witches in Love with Nymphs and Satyrs.
HeXStream CodeXSSXXXXX :-) Manna to Man and as Sticky Sweet as Running Honey.
With Sir Tim Berners Lee on the Web 2.0 Flight Deck, is not the Virtual World Ours to Create and Copy to Earth with Creative Media Placements.
Virtual Realities Delivered to Enabling Administrations and Exciting Executive Executable Interests. ..... is the Present Reality Posited and Deposited and Registered here.
From Russia with Love, M'Lud.
It never rains but it pours, in heaven. :-)
Dont make me laugh
I mean the average eight year old is going to have it removed in minutes, if parents really care about their children theyd sit with them & teach them - but I daresay half of them are muppets that dont know what theyre doing in the first place
if you want a reasonable content filter use Open DNS
otherwise, she can Fuck Off!
@ Gary M
You forgot human sacrifice in your list. Yes, in the name of Yahweh.
Phorm aren't for net censorship -- Phorm are for targeting advertising, and there is too much money in porn and gambling advertising for Phorm to ever be against THAT. Just like in the early days of home videotapes, the money is in things that people would rather do in privacy, and are willing to pay for in some way...
By the tone of the first few pages of results on porn addiction she means being a homosexual, s&m, and 3 in a bed. Probably sex toys aswell.
Porn as scape-goat(se)...
Once again we see those who wish to enforce a Nanny State blaming the "evil internet porn" for problems which existed long before the internet ever came about.
And, of course, when they talk about "acceptable content" what they mean is "content that is acceptable to THEM"
Well I find their content "unacceptable" so obviously it should be banned.
...we can see that this poor woman is either ignorant or demented, but an awful lot of people agree with her. And when politicians who don't know their ASDL from their arseholes can see votes in it, they will try to make her harebrained vision reality. And no-one is going to publicly oppose it because they can be cast as 'promoting porn for kids'.
Perhaps we should be pointing to the wave of sexual crimes and deviancy that has swept across the world since porn came to the internet. If not 'wave' then 'huge rise'. Perhaps 'a statistically significant figure'. Anything?
Poor supporting evidence
Maybe I have too much time on my hands (ok, I do) but I felt like checking out:
"The evidence cited on the Mediamarch site [indicating] that "exposure to pornographic material puts one at an increased risk for developing sexually deviant tendencies, committing sexual offences, experiencing difficulties in one's intimate relationships, and accepting the rape myth"."
which is presumably the article entitled: "A meta-analysis of the published research on the effects of pornography referred to here:
Although they don't provide a full reference (first alarm bell) and my university doesn't carry that journal (second alarm bell), the title was easily Googleable. Anyone with even a tiny bit of experience with meta-analyses will see the failures straight away.
Now, back to better quality research...
Big censor lists like those that the chinese use will only work in big populations like China. Where they cna hire slaves to browse the internet looking for not so friendly websites. And add them to lists.
Whilst many commenters have latched on to the censorship aspects of this interview...the original comment about having filters on as standard emerged from a conference at which there seemed to be very few arguments against that proposition.
Therefore...would be very interested to see if anyone has a simple rebuttal of it. I'd guess it may be a bit of a redundant chunk for some systems...and possibly assumes some commonality between OS's... but if the pc owner can turn it off... not altogether sure that it is an issue.
Couples? So you CAN'T make the man in this couple who likes to look at porn install a filter, but you think you can get a GLOBAL consensus for ALL MEN to install filters?
Oh please, Nanny Jacqui is gone, the rest of the nannies will be ejected soon enough. If you're husband feels sexy looking at porn, then why not join in and quit being such a prude? Anyone that takes their husband to a therapist for being attracted to visual images of sex, is ending their marriage. Men are programmed to be attracted to visual images of sex FFS.
Suits you, Miranda
Why would we want to submit ourselves to censorship that is based on a premise that is unsupported by one single iota of evidence. C'mon Miranda, give us the research papers, the statistical evidence, the field trials, and if they really support your assertion that the world will be a better place if the internet is fed to us through a gauze filter then we might be persuaded to give it a go. In the absence of any such evidence please just go and fuck yourself.
The .sig of a /. poster I see frequently seems to be particularly apposite:
"Everyone that has pr0n less nasty than mine is a prude.
Everyone that has nastier pr0n than me is a freak."
"Porn addiction is a serious issue, which neither government nor computer suppliers are currently taking seriously enough," she said.
Well, maybe they arnt but i take internet porn very seriously. There just isnt enough of it. Too many damn social networking sites, businesses, tech sites.... really, just get rid of all this crap and restore to us our beloved 100% interpornwebcloud
I can accept this as a problem*, in the same way as anything can be a problem. But the accepted solution to addiction is individual treatment of the person addicted, not the wholesale banning of something that might be addictive. Unless this is a backdoor plan to criminalise porn because it does not meet mediawatch's view of wholesome family values**
I am also pretty sure that being religious, their idea of deviant sexual behaviour also includes anything homosexual which would upset gays, lesbians and those who like to see videos of 2 women going at it in showers.
*I think it is bollocks though.
**yes there is a certain irony in porn being non-family friendly when sex is the root cause of families in the first place.
Another thing we have to consider before dismissing these people that a large number of the Parlimentary labour part (including Brown - and Blair when he was about) are members of the "Christian Socialist Movement" http://www.thecsm.org.uk/Groups/87270/Christian_Socialist_Movement.aspx puts alot of the moralist laws into context doesn't it.
Uhh... because it would set a precedent saying that government control of your access to media and communication is A-OK? Just maybe?
"In the UK, they came first for the buyers of pre-built PCs, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a buyer of pre-built PCs..."
Have you seen her
The people who complain most about porn in relationships are munters.
Check Miranda out:
She would have a big reason to feel threatened in a relationship =)
As usual a bunch of religous nuts band together to opress the moral majority.
Alien, because its better looking then her, go alien porn!
Not sure what the quote of rape myth meant in this context, but there's at least one study of it's acceptance change after seeing a few movies.
They found there was no change after seeing movies, so I doubt there's a change with porn.
Usually with these censorship group the goal is defined first, and reasoning for why you should do as they say, after. Reasoning is a house of cards as the main reason can't be uttered; "we want it censored because we don't like it."
But wait a minute here...
I was under the impression that with Japan's under-censorship, they had less sexual offenses committed...
Am I wrong here, or did I just hear this from some pro-hentai perv?
They're doing it wrong.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." (Ephesians 6:12)
So this means that MediaWatch should be more concerned with MPs, expenses, spin-doctors and ultra-nationalists (hello BNP), than such fleshy concerns as pornography, surely?
I'll just get me coat.
Most child accessable PC's have a filter already
Theyr'e called parents
of course they only filter if they work.
...pre-load porn on computers instead!
The really scary part of this article was Mediawatch trying to look like a more moderate and reasonable counterpart to Mediamarch while actually having far more sinister ambitions.
Quick, round up every teenage boy for treatment!
"Sexual deviancy" - not this effin stuff again. Whenever I hear that phrase, I know that there is there is some idiocy involved.
Rather try to raise awareness that internet access is something you can just give your kid and expect that nothing bad will ever happen. I mean most parents know that a child's TV consumption should be monitored closely, ditto for PCs.
how about a god botherer filter?
I personally think that most religion is evil, after all, look at the number of religious officers molesting children etc etc
So how about a filter that blocks all religious output with a default set to on, then if you want to hear what they have to say simply allow the cults of your choice to get through on your interwebs.
Alternatively, I am all for freedom of speech, so if they want to spout there crap they should let the rest of us enjoy watching some bird with big plastic hooters getting rogered senseless over a bad soundtrack.
Paris - She doesnt do censorship either
A fair chunk of the world's population probably think that homosexuality is 'deviant' so I wonder where he enlightened souls at Mediamarch stand on that? Don't expect Mandelson's support if you get the answer wrong.
@John Oz - Devil's Advocate
A simple rebuttal of having the filters default switched on?
Certainly: Opt in or opt out?
Phorm wants us to have to opt out of their service.
118800 wants us to have to opt out of their directory.
This bunch want us to have to opt out of their filtering.
I prefer to make choices like this myself.
Stop offering them advice
Stop advising them about the difficulty of filtering. They could use a system of online updates... Doh!
I do have a failsafe filter for them however:
Close your eyes put hands oveer your eyes and scream, "LA LA LA LA I'm not listening!"
But her wackiness is gone.
Who will champion such "needed" policies?
Most likely the same bunch of annonymous authoritarian senior civil servants who used the same TOTC malarkey every previous time.
Well after reading this...
stumbled across this last night whilst doing some browsing...
Time Top ten absurd covers...and one was on Pornography.
Why So Worried?
Porn, Time says, is sweeping the country, leaving our deflowered Puritan sensibilities in its wake. "The First Amendment may safeguard the rights of pornographers and their audience," the magazine posits, "but surely the majority of Americans who find porn objectionable have rights as well. Must they and their children be under constant assault by the hucksters of porn?"
Cue Ominous Music:
The article quotes U.C.L.A. psychiatrist Robert J. Stoller, author of Perversion: The Erotic Form of Hatred, who warns that porn "'disperses rage' that might tear society apart, but also threatens society by serving as propaganda for the unleashing of sexual hostility."
Oh, Just Settle Down:
Time was right about the increase in production and availability of pornography in the 1970s, it was just wrong about the effects. Two years after this cover appeared, the number of reported rapes in the U.S. began a 30-year free-fall, a period over which pornography became increasingly easier to obtain. Today, porn is more abundant and ubiquitous than ever, while incidence of rape in the U.S. is at its lowest rate since the government started keeping statistics.
I look at Porn with my partner, we both enjoy it. But to say that people who watch porn are more likely to be deviants is a very broadsweeping comment.
I for one think that woman needs to get out more, and maybe get laid and should she not be a looker then the unfortunate person could choose which bag, Paper or Plastic.
Paris...no explanation needed..
They seem to have two separate and mostly unconnected agendas here, to which I will respond individualy-
1) 'Won't somebody please think of the children'. Yes. Somebody should think of the children - The parents. Why not make the person providing net access to children legally responsible for what they do online? I'm not suggesting that a technologically-impaired parent would be able to keep a l33t kiddy-hacker from circumventing controls, but they should at least TRY. A properly secured PC with profiles configured correctly and parental control software installed would keep the vast majority of the little darlings from getting anywhere near germanmarmiteminers.com or those other sites Ms Suit hates so much (but seems to know a surprising amount about).
If you allow a child unsupervised access to a PC with no parental controls you should be held accountable if they find stuff they shouldn't. Most tech-illiterate people buy their pcs from big retailers like PC World. They should be required to remind the purchaser of this legal obligation and offer parental control software. They would be happy to do it as they would make some extra income from selling said software. Schools should already have such controls and internet cafes should be required to do the same for machines that will be used by the under 18s if they don't already. Job done.
2) 'Consenting adults look at too much porn and it is bad for them'. Fuck off and die. Seriously. Fuck. Off. And. Die. What possible right do you have to impose your subjective morality on the rest of the population? You don't like porn. We get it. We really do. I'm not a big consumer of grumbleware myself. The difference is that I recognise that other people like it and as they are adults and aren't hurting anyone else I have no bloody right to stop them. Get a life.. And maybe a dildo - You obviously have a lot of repressed energy you need to work off.
That is all.
Mediamarch don't speak for all Christians
I am someone with Christian beliefs, who is horrified at the thought of centrally imposed net censorship. I am all in favour of client side solutions being available to users, to install at their own wish, and for ISPs making filtering software "available" to customers to install if they wish, but I quite simply DO NOT TRUST ANY CENTRAL AUTHORITY to censor the net for me. If content providers are hosting ILLEGAL material then take them down via the law of the land. If individuals are caught downloading illegal material then prosecute them. But once the state or the ISPs start pretending to be "looking after me" then I am very very worried. The fact that they have chosen China as an example is laughable - where net censorship is used by the government for political repression. And the church in China doesn't exactly get very sympathetic treatment from the state either, does it? Christians in China are victims of state internet surveillance and censorship as much as political dissidents are.
MediaMarch do NOT speak for all Christians, and there is a strong tradition of Christian radical DISSENT on this matter, standing out against censorship, and in favour of freedom of expression under the rule of law, civil liberties and religious tolerance. I'm currently active in the campaigns against the use of Deep Packet Inspection by ISPs to profile customer browsing because I have concerns about privacy and liberty, and it is my Christian beliefs that motivate me in that involvement. The issues are related.
We used to look after our society by prosecuting law breakers and using the threat of being caught and punished as the main form of deterrence, as well as taking responsibility for encouraging responsible and caring behaviour. Now we seem to be moving towards a "Minority Report" type of society where the balance is on "preventing people breaking the law". That is dangerous - whether it applies to police powers on demonstrations or net censorship by the state. I'm against it, and it is my Christian faith that motivates me against it, and I am happy to identify with those of all faiths or none, who also share that same concern.
The experience o this sort of scheme in Australia should be enough to warn us of the folly of moving further down this road of censorship - lets have decent law enforcement rather than censorship. That way the villains suffer instead of the innocent citizens.
Don't know about you but once I've blown my load, I'm no longer interested in seeking out pr0n (for a few hours anyhow).
Religous extremism. Dangerous no matter what flavour it comes in.
As for encouraging "deviant" behaviour. Jesus H Christ on a bike! So, "mediamarch" are now to be the judges of what counts as "deviant" behaviour Always good to see tolerance alive and well in the 21st century. Bet "Miranada" and "Pippa" are a right laff on a night out.
Worryingly, this sounds like the kind of half baked insanity that our morally corrupt and deviant Government would go for.
Still, no matter they will be out come next year and "Mediamarch" will move their weird hate filled obsessions onto some other area.
yeah right this made me LOL
if she thinks some crappy pre loaded software is gonna stop them getting porn.
I worry now how am i goingt o be able to even monitor my kids activities when they are older and i bloody well work in IT.
Kids are devious and clever
plus i can see the google most searches for = disable porn filter Mwaahaa.
Can we burn her as a witch now ???
'They' want to depopulate Earth by 90%, so...
...Sex will be illegal soon altogether, except if you pass the required criteria, i.e. your accounts are up to date, RFID implant is active and within range of a pleasure-enabling network node.
Yay verily smote and burn the internet book, and all those who can read or hear, because Earth is FLAT, just like LCD.
Face it folks, it is going to take a while before we get rid of either paedophilia or pietophilia.
Paris, who would barely be known if filters were in place at the 'birth' of her career.
It seems that Ms Suit has been visiting Bob The Angry Flower this week. Full explanation of what drove her to this can be found at http://www.angryflower.com/crashh.html
Fuckit, cross that beast with sexting and phone-dirty-talk filters and some mega databases you may as well arrest everyone capable of reproduction.
One 'abuse of power' is not usually fixed by propagating another, even if it is a profitable enterprise to do so.
Burn all witches and witch-burners too!
THE GOVTS, CORPORATES AND NUTJOBS EN MASSE WANT TO ABUSE ALL YOUR CHILDREN FOR LIFE.
Could it be that the best primary defence is teaching kids how and when to say...
"FUCK OFF NUTJOBS"
to bugger deeply into a sticky tangent for a moment:
a year or two ago the Kenwood concerts were banned - that's a series of around 8 summer saturday evenings when the likes of burt bacharach, the london philharmonic or perhaps some abba tribute regail the good people of hampstead and highgate with background music to accompany their picnics. Sure, they've got a bit commercial recently, with perrier tents etc., but they're good, clean fun. Banned, following some ridiculously small number of noise complaints (some say 3), despite the concerts having run for 55 years. And re-instated the following year following an overwhelming campaign from a group of people who generally thought themselves so mainstream and uncontroversial that they would always be able do what they wanted, because they don't ask much, really. What amazed everyone wasn't the small number of twats who wanted to ruin everything for everyone else, but the way in which the bureacracy failed the vast majority. Health and Safety issues. Production opaquely contracted out to 3rd parties. God knows what other small time politics played a part.
twats, twats everywhere.
I never knew frigid people had their own little society.
for your entertainment
and to make this discussion complete I present a dilbert comic
you may all bow now
@ Devils Advocate
people ignored the pre installed filters not due to agreement but because it was such a stupid idea in the 1st place. The term beneath contempt comes to mind
Though it was touched upon both by myself and several others
*takes stage, shuffles paper at lecturn*
Ladies and Gentlemen of the press, free thinkers of the world, I would like to put forward a new proposal that will ensure our libertarian, open and free society remains such.
I would like to ban religious opinion on the internet.
There can be absolutely no doubt that religious opinion, moralising and dogma causes the overwhelming measure of harm in our society. From my research, and from the research of many others, all of which is freely available on the uncensored segments of the Internet, it is clear that religion, in all forms, brings nothing but harm.
It is a virus that we infect children with, causing them to believe that 'faith' and the acceptance of that faith, in an unquestioning form, is a virtue. It instills in them a hatred of those that do not share the precise same values as those of their parents and educators. It stifles freedom of expression, art, music and speech wherever such may be in discordance with its own, self-created and highly subjective principles.
It is responsible for wars, torture, persecution, racism and crime throughout both the contemporary world and the entirity of recorded history. It seeks to subjugate and control, never to free expression or explain itself. It holds itself as 'eminent domain' in its hubris, denying the right to question or counter its inexplicable 'reasoning'. It seeks to moralise and to rule where such is both inappropriate and unsolicited. It denys science and reason in favour of 'acceptance without question'.
Worse, and more over, it has become the shelter of those who purport the worst crimes against humanity; Suicide bombings, ethnic cleansing, inquisitional torture and even the sexual abuse of children have all been excused in the name, or with the power, of religion.
Unelected and unaccountable; the perpetrators and supporters of these corrupt values seek to interfere with our freedoms, our rights, every day. They want our obedience and compliance, and they are willing to kill, bribe and threaten their way to obtain that power. They will even inflict the same upon each other in the name of their unprovable gods.
People of the world, I call upon you to reject this thinking wholeheartedly, and to ignore its plaintive wails as such primitive beliefs dies. Look around at the world, and the religious conflict that plagues it; are these not the very death throes of the old beliefs that we are observing? Are they not simply doing battle to see which of their religions will be the last to expire?
I, therefore, call for a filter on the internet, opt-in rather than opt-out, that blocks all religious traffic and information as it is proveably and demonstrably harmful to mankind as a whole.
I call for an end to religion. Before we are all engulfed in its hatred.
*steps down from lecturn*
Pressure Group this:
"Porn addiction is a serious issue, which neither government nor computer suppliers are currently taking seriously enough," she said.
It is not the government and/or computer suppliers job to even remotely care about porn addiction, let alone force upon people some form of totalitarian control. Addictions are social problems and have to be dealt with on an individual basis (as no two humans are alike - start another discussion on 'difference' from here on if you must) by trained professionals, not by some (malicious or otherwise) exploitable process on paper and production line.
'Total Control' doesn't exist, and should you wish to try to enforce such a thing anyway, great opposition will be your breakfast, lunch and dinner for the rest of your life.
If you want people to smart up, educate them on the dos and don't s instead of telling them 'I can't let you do that, Dave.'. You know, where are the parents again? Forgot about them did you.
Further more what China does is it's own business. Wrong business, but their business nonetheless.
- Xmas Round-up Ten top tech toys to interface with a techie’s Christmas stocking
- Xmas Round-up Ghosts of Christmas Past: Ten tech treats from yesteryear
- Review Hey Linux newbie: If you've never had a taste, try perfect Petra ... mmm, smells like Mint 16
- Analysis Microsoft's licence riddles give Linux and pals a free ride to virtual domination
- NSFW Oz couple get jiggy in pharmacy in 'banned' condom ad