Playboy fined £100k by Blighty watchdog for FLASHING SMUT at kids Playboy - the world's best-known porn brand - has been fined £100k ($160k) by Britain's communications regulator, after the publisher failed to prevent children from accessing smutty material on its websites. Ofcom said that Playboy TV and Demand Adult had "allowed users to access hardcore videos and images without having …
Again with the 'sex is bad' slant and over reaching 'we must protect the children from smut at all costs' bollocks. Seriously. Humanity is really dumb sometimes (I'd argue most of the time). Children snigger and laugh at sex not because sex is funny (well I do find it amusing but only because others find it offensive). But because we as a species have put it into the category of something that is to be hidden away and ridiculed. That it is something we only talk about behind closed doors. This obviously filters down to our ever so curious children.
I thought we got rid of this silly stigma with the AIDS stuff and sexual education years. Now it seems we are back to prudish moral crusades led by those who have nothing better to do.
Do gooders and prigs the lot of them!
Oh and they should take notes from countries like the Netherlands.
There is a big difference between sex in a loving relationship, general sex with a "fuckbuddy", softcore and hardcore porn, especially the sort of hardcore porn hosted on many Internet sites.
I wouldn't really give two tosses if my kids were seeing the sort of porn that I found in a hedge as an early-teen, however I would be very concerned if they were looking at the sort of porn that has a row of guys fucking a guy/girl several at a time, often slapping them verbally abusing them, pretty much exclusively without any protection. If that's the sort of thing you like, that's fine, but I don't see how it's ok for someone who isn't old enough to drive a car or vote to be able to understand what they are seeing is not "normal" and that there are subtleties to sexual activity which they will learn about in later life. Specifically: Some people like to be degraded, tied up, gang banged, whatever, but this is by no means everyone and certainly not to be expected from someone.
"I don't see how it's ok for someone who isn't old enough to drive a car or vote to be able to understand what they are seeing is not "normal" and that there are subtleties to sexual activity which they will learn about in later life. Specifically: Some people like to be degraded, tied up, gang banged, whatever, but this is by no means everyone and certainly not to be expected from someone."
And I don't see how a country with representatives that find porn so immoral as this seems to indicate, can give serious consideration to allowing kids to vote in a general election at 16, consume alcohol at 16, 'learn' to drive at 16, and do a whole slew of other things that can be deemed in some way wrong or harmful at 16... yet the one thing they actually care about enough to try and stop outright, is watching actors on screen having sex. An act which humans have been doing since the dawn of our time on Earth. And which, if viewed by some speccy loser in his own room, will have no long term damaging effects to him, or - and this is the important part - unlike learner drivers crashing into pedestrians, alcoholic fuelled outbursts of violence, and ruining an economy after voting in the next cool dude politician into office based on his haircut... will harm nobody else!
Now, I'm not claiming that trying to protect minors from more grown up subjects is a bad idea, absolutely not. But I am reaching a point where I'm getting a little fed up with the fact that its always the other people's problem and responsibility, NEVER of the kids or parents themselves.
I know this is not fully comparable but here in Holland its illegal for kids under the age of 16 to own alcoholic beverages. So far so good; I'd say that if you spot a kid drinking alcohol then he or she will get fined, most likely resulting in the parents (who are legally responsible for minors) to cough up some bucks.
But no; that's not the way we do it. We force supermarkets and other shops who sell alcohol to make sure that they don't sell it to minors. If they do they can be fined pretty hefty because this is obviously a very bad thing to do; shame on them! And the kids themselves who bought the alcohol? Well; that's usually way too much effort to bother with. Instead certainly agencies sometimes get a few minors to help them "protect the children" (or put differently: get minors to perform illegal actions by purchasing alcohol, then fining the supermarket for selling it to them).
As said before: having some kind of protection for those kids isn't a bad thing at all, but to fully and whole shove the responsibility onto other people is IMO. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for ones own actions?
Amazing; if you go to the playboy website then chances are high you'll get into contact with adult material. I think almost everyone who has an Internet connection knows that. So if you don't want your kids to get near that; why not block it or (*gasp*) actually talk to your kids about these subjects so you'll know they can deal with it.
But no; we'll just blame it on the others for not blocking it. That's much easier and better. As if those kids know that if you fill in 1960 as the year of birth you'll get access to adult contents no matter what.
not usually, I drank pretty much every week from when I was 15 until I was legally allowed to buy alcohol at 18, (I didn't stop then but that's beyond the scope of this comment). My parents would have been outraged if they had known but I would go out and stay with friends or come back late after they were in bed.
If you have a law that says it's illegal to sell alcohol to minors then it makes perfect sense to test and prosecute shops that don't comply with that law.
so basically thats saying its ok to punish someone for not knowing the age of the person - which always seemed wrong to me and at the same time not punish the underage person who knows full well he's commitining an offense - its got so bad here that my wife who is 34 years of age needs to carry her passport to buy alcohole etc.
If you have a law that says it's illegal to sell alcohol to minors then it makes perfect sense to test and prosecute shops that don't comply with that law.
I suspect part of the point was that the wording of the law is also mistaken.
You are basically saying here that despite you being aware what you were doing was wrong to the point you went to lengths to hide it from your parents, the shop should be punished for your behaviour not you - or your parents (who, arguably, should have supervised you more at that age, given your obvious inability to control yourself).
But yeah, its all the shops fault, isnt it. If they had been better at not selling you alcohol, you wouldnt have found other things to do, would you?
Determining you age over the internet is a joke and will remain so, credit cards or not. I have no solution to this, but porn, how the hell could you get rid of that, and I seriously wonder if there is any sense in even trying (unless you are out for the money, of course).
My last attempt to find the answer to how to determining the age over the internet is some sort of an quiz. Is Lincoln a car or very rich man or a dead president, Is Elvis a cat or a song or man living on the moon.
Might help but I have been wrong sometimes too.
> My last attempt to find the answer to how to determining the age over the internet is some sort of an quiz.
Ah, so you do remember the "age verification" in the old Leisure Suit Larry games :) Is Pia Zadora: a) short b) sexy c) a singer d) all of the above
Though nowadays that probably only tests googling prowess, so that rather defeats the object :)
Icon compulsory
"Came to think of it, kids in demand, will find their share even reading the bible."
"Song of Solomon" was quite erotic for a 1950s generation raised on the totally airbrushed body detail in windblown "Health and Efficiency" magazines. The activities of King David rivalled "Peyton Place". Another source for teenage curiosity was the library's large foreign dictionaries. The Modern Hebrew dictionary scored highest for phallic slang terms.
The local charity shop has a separate book section for kids. Yesterday there was a copy of "Bored of the Rings" alongside the Enid Blyton tales. Someone had obviously read the small paperback's synopsis about elves and thought "lampoon" just meant humour. If they had flicked through it they would soon have realised it is a parody of "Lord of the Rings" - with the "missing" sex scenes. It would certainly have widened a child's vocabulary.
I'm not aware of any sex scenes in Bored of the Rings, unless Schlob complaining about her ex-husband qualifies. I would have assumed it was put there by someone who, like me, thinks the Tolkien output is largely barely readable dreck, and wanted to inoculate kids against believing that, just because it has long words in it and goes on about elves, it's some kind of literature.
Some protective parents like it because, even in the middle of a battle, nobody ever registers the slightest emotion.
In Terry Pratchett's books elves are evil little bastards who would kill you as soon as look at you, which is about what they are like in the original legends.
Simples. The viewer must have a working webcam so their 'age' can be checked by an 'appropriate person'. Said webcam to remain all at all times to prevent the use of a still image to fool the checker, this will also provide instant feedback as to how good the 'performance' is......
I do, don't let kids access the internet unsupervised, until you are confident that they are old/mature enough to understand that there's shit on the internet they'll wish they'd never seen, that it's not how normal people treat other people, and no matter what, they need to treat others with care and respect.
It's that simple.
And I guess, 'allowing' your teenage son to find your stash of Razzle would probably divert their interest from the internet anyway.
It's pointless to try and stop kids accessing porn, they want to and were telling them not to which pretty much guarantees they will give it their best shot (no pun intended). As kids are generally pretty tech savvy they will probably succeed. Even if we were to manage to restrict access to porn to most kids it will only mean lots of nerdy kids driving Porsches as they make a fortune selling porn to their class mates.
"Credit cards, unlike debit cards, are not available to under 18s"
This statement by OfCom is extremely misleading. Pre-paid credit cards are purchased by over 18s and given to under 18s all the time. They serve a very useful purpose, but there is almost no way to tell which numbers are pre-paid and which aren't. The whole "selling knives online" debacle which fell at the first hurdle after gaining so much attention in Parliament touched on the subject, and it would have been the perfect time to address this issue.
A simple solution would be to enter the credit card number and name on card along with a separate over18-pin set up by the card holder. Pins can only be set up on non-pre-paid cards. You don't enter the CVV or expiry date, so no charge can be taken. The three pieces of info supplied are then checked against the card issuer's DB and access is granted. If you're purchasing knives (or other age restricted goods) then CVV and expiry/start date ARE required to complete the transaction.
I'm sure there are holes in this, but you get the idea!
A credit card's first line of defence is to check that the card number is a Luhn number. These are not hard to generate. Since no twelve year old is dumb enough to use any but a stolen card number at a porn site it would be a nice little business for the mathmatically inclined child to supply such numbers for a small fee.
So commentards don't think this has any connection whatsoever with the UK's proposals for ISPs to be required to provide compulsory "opt in" for over-18 content?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/27/childline_calls_on_opt_in/
Nobody?
OK. It seems it's true, too much does wreck your brain.
;)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
