back to article BBC accused of coming out for porn opt-in?

The BBC was today accused of ignoring its own charter requirement to offer balance by coming down firmly on the side of opt-in in respect of internet porn regulation. An "alliance of the concerned" drawn from academics and individuals representing the adult film industry added their voices to a chorus of dissent, claiming that …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. MonkeyBot

    "commercially favourable to the BBC"

    I'm not sure how a porn opt-in is favourable to the BBC.

    It's not an excess of free porn that's stopping me from watching Eastenders.

    1. Jon Double Nice

      For me it's the fact that it is a:

      "Soap opera so transparently fictitious it might as well be set on the fucking Moon"* that stops me from watching it.

      *To quote TVGoHome

    2. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      Because...

      It would be commercially favorable because a lot of internet bandwidth *is* porn related. By embarrasing consumers into an opt-in system, the likes of the BBC hope to free up more bandwidth on the net for their own services, like iPlayer. BBC also wants to be in with the current government to secure its future funding. No matter how impartial the BBC claims to be, it always protects its own interests at the end of the day. Just look back on its history, you'll see the pattern of self preservation.

    3. Chris Parsons

      Too bloody true

      Getting rid of the tv was one of the best things I ever did.

  2. Mr Larrington
    FAIL

    Tony Livesey???

    As in former editor-in-chief of the Daily / Sunday Sport which makes much of its income from "adult" advertising?

    Suxx0r.

  3. Al 4

    Bigotry and hatred

    Does this mean that religious organizations will be paying for education on racial bias and bigotry and the problems they cause for society since they're the ones that seem to promote it?

    1. Kay Burley ate my hamster
      Thumb Up

      Lets not forget

      Sexism and Homophobia, the god blatherers invented that stuff.

      1. Galidron
        Stop

        Religion

        Religion didn't create sexism it just validated and reinforced existing cultural behavior at that time. Homophobia I'll give you. Several cultures used to accept and sometimes encourage homosexuality.

  4. Bernard M. Orwell

    Bias? Really?

    The BBC? Biased?! Shocking!

    I mean, I'd never think they were biased given their incredibly balanced views in all other areas such as religion, social demography, sexual equality and climate change...

    ....ah...wait....

    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Happy

      Bernard M. Orwell

      Should have included <sarcasm> </sarcasm> tags.

  5. JaitcH
    FAIL

    The BBC is like SkyB except that ...

    it get free handouts from the taxpayer who must support under threat of fines or jail.

    At least we know what Murdoch is, the BBC just pretends to be balanced.

    1. Tempest
      WTF?

      Only the BBC would bring us an idiot like ...

      Stephen Fry who knows diddly squat about technology and so many other things.

      Who else would hire him?

  6. Oliver 7
    WTF?

    And I quote...

    "F-king agenda driven judas. And you can quote me on that."

    Ha ha, classic! I missed the programme but it sounds like a typical example of nu-Lab spin. There was a puff-piece in the Scotsman by some sycophantic journalist recently where Jacqui sheds tears in an attempt to show she is actually human but merely betrays her profound ignorance more with each utterance. She is nothing more than an uptight, hypocritical fraudster and it's very disappointing that the BBC is allowing her to pursue her prudish personal agenda, whilst attempting to regain some public credibility!

  7. Nic 3
    Troll

    annoyed of England writes

    Just to clarify I did not WTFP however I am strongly against this kind of move toward censorship. I am all in favour of the sex education component provided the funding is is the form of sponsorship.

    Can you imagine.

    Kids, welcome to your sex education lesson sponsored by Fleshlight!

    :)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Nic 3

      I was thinking more on the lines of:

      Today we shall be learning about oral sex. Your tutors for the lesson will be Miss. Martha Melons and Mr. Whopper Chopper, take it away folks........

    2. Circadian
      WTF?

      sex education sponsored by...

      I will admit, this did sound ... intriguing? Especially if the content is also provided by the industry.

      "Now children, please watch the video for the sex position of the week. Our show is sponsored by [insert porn producer brand name of choice here!], purveyers of quality porn. Don't forget - those over the age of consent may be interested in the jobs fair being held next month - [brand] is at stand #16."

      Is that why the powers that be have recently allowed company advertising within shows to be allowed too?

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    heh

    ""I didn’t feel it was necessary for me to watch violent porn in order to legislate against it." After all, she hasn’t taken drugs either and was still able to legislate on that."

    And we all know how evidence based drug law is.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      What is a drug?

      Can't remember, but was Ms Smith the Home Secretary when 24 hour drinking was brought in? (or was that he colleague Mr Straw).

      Either way, the Labour government legislated to increase use of this dangerous addictive drug that is known to cause numerous social ills, increase violence and crime, and cause a huge strain on the NHS.

      Ho hum

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Unhappy

      Assumption

      I'm assuming the comment was el Reg's little jibe at the fallacy of her logic. I would assume (though I know I'm wrong) that despite not taking drugs, she would be presented with evidence that they're harmful in order to legitimately legislate.

      I wasn't aware that "violent porn" was harmful to anyone, assuming that it's acted out. I would also wonder at where the line was drawn with non-pornographic films that acted out violent sexual behaviours - presumably that's ok as long as it's not explicit?

      At the end of the day though, I know that it's just a case of knee-jerk reactions and reverse-causality at play. No doubt there were cases of (actual) sex offenders who liked some of the pron that's been banned, and therefore in the head of Wacky, the converse was also true. Ergo ban it and sex offenders will cease to be.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        the extreme porn law

        The old Extreme porn law was brought in on the coat tails of the guy that strangled a woman, he happened to be into his hardcore hardcorez. That was more or less the extent of the evidence.

        And the modification to cp law to include drawing was just brought in on the flights of fancy of morons, (oddly I happened to discover I know a reasonable number of morons personally.)

        and again the subtle implication that if you don't support such censorship and bizare laws you are somehow closer to being a sex offender, so most people tow the line and if it went to a vote I suspect it would get passed with a healthy majority in the streets aswell as in the commons.

        Likely wouldn't get passed the lords though, although it may do given the laws New Labour put in place to stop the Lords debating these things (they placed certain time limits so people supporting the government whip could drone on and take up all the alloted time meaning nothing could be discussed afterwards, this happened with both EP and CP mods.)

        New Labour knew full well what a pain in the arse the lords could be and intentionally went out of the way to sabotage the only part of our system that properly balances the media fags and lobbiests that make up the rest of government. Not being elected give you a wonderful insight into things.

  9. hplasm
    Grenade

    I denounce Smith as a witch.

    I demand trial by ducking stool, as is my right.

    Yrs, Outraged Viewer.

    That should have the same standing as her deranged rants, and a possible cure for them.

    1. irish donkey
      Megaphone

      Burn the Witch

      Before she starts uttering a spell to be bedevil us all.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      It's a fair cop

      Does she weigh more or less than a duck?

  10. Dick Emery
    Paris Hilton

    More control via the backdoor (Ooer missus)

    Wackie Jaqui is just another talking head for the function creep brigade who are more interested in controlling what we can see or do on the interweb thingie. She like the other whipping boys need to be put out of our misery. Preferably by being thorwn against a wall, bound up in leather bondage and have custard thrown over them whilst being forcibly licked clean from head to bottom by Ms Smith. I'd pay a dollar fer seeing that!

    1. The BigYin

      There is another thing...

      ...she fail to understand the Internet. All blockages will be routed around, without exception.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        RE: There is another thing...

        Tis true, thy vpn vanquishes the firewall o greatness easily and grantith access to thy facebook, thy twitter and thy iplayer, blessed be thy vpn.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    As expected...

    I didn't bother to watch this as I could tell from the trailers and by who was presenting it, it would be a pile of unbalanced claptrap. Looks like I was right...

    1. Wayland Sothcott 1

      "I didn’t feel it was necessary for me to watch violent porn in order to legislate against it."

      Same as Jackie, good one.

  12. Shonko Kid
    FAIL

    Don't know where to start on this one..

    Can we not just send her a document that says all porn on the internet has been eradicated and she can now finally take a break from here long struggle against our freedom? If we 'opted-out' her ISP she'd never know the difference...

  13. Anonymous Coward
    WTF?

    I Call Bullshit

    Had never watched pron? At her age? Nah, don't believe it.

    Didn't see the documentary, but might have to watch it so I can see what the fuss is about.

    1. The BigYin

      She saw the cover...

      ...but didn't open the case.

      As in, she puffed but did not inhale.

      1. Jedit Silver badge
        Joke

        It's her husband I feel sorry for

        "I tried porn, but did not impale."

        1. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

          Re: It's her husband I feel sorry for

          Ha!

    2. steogede

      Re: I Call Bullshit - her ignorance is incredible, but not un-credible

      >> Had never watched pron? At her age? Nah, don't believe it.

      If you had heard the documentary, you might change your mind. Her level of ignorance is staggering, though hardly surprising if you saw what a waste of space she was as Home Secretary (she is clearly ignorant of many (most?) things).

      There is a point where she says that one of the things which surprised her most was the amount of material that was available for free, and therefore without enforcible age restrictions. That was the part where I realised that she was as ignorant as she making out - I bet she was really kicking herself about her husband's charges to her expense account. In case you have forgotten; he watched porn, the tax payer paid, she got into trouble and it all (except the first bit) could have been avoided if he had just used the web to do what it does best.

      >> Didn't see the documentary, but might have to watch it so I can see what the fuss is about.

      That sounds like an impressive radio you have got there (okay to be fair the article didn't mention it was on radio).

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    wondering

    Wondering, why hasn't anyone poured a bucket of water over her head? Not that I would, as it would mean putting my pneumatic hammer shlong away and going outside, but the porn, it keeps on calling me.

    "I'm Melting~~~~~"

    The other thing, is it going to be as shit as the mobile one where if you want to use google translate or other translation programs you'll need full fat porn internets anyway?

  15. Christoph

    Just doing their BEEPing job

    If these people are in favour of porn then they might use bad language as well. So obviously the BBC has to BEEP out anything they say. In the interests of fairness and balance, like.

  16. The BigYin

    It's really easy

    Where does the censorship end? Porn off by default. Anti-Semitic off by default? Pro-ana off by default? FPS gaming off by default? Government criticism off by default?

    You may or may not like porn. I am may or may not like many things, but I am not advocating censorship just because I don't like it (although...I'd probably not complain too loudly if religious and intelligent design sites/pages were "off by default"). Anyway...censorship is wrong. Period.

    The responsibility lies with the parents and no one else.

    Don't want your kiddies to get run over? Teach them how to cross the road and not to play on the motorway.

    Don't want your kiddies to see porn? Learn how to install a proxy and don't allow them on the Internet unsupervised.

    Do not abdicate YOUR responsibilities to MY wallet.

    ---

    And as for Ms Smith - never seen porn? Bullshit. Has she never looked inside "The Sun"? Impartial outsider? Should more like a puritanical vigilante if you ask me.

    1. Just Thinking

      Your missing the point

      The difference is, porn is dangerous. Especially dangerous porn, which is really dangerous.

      1. Smallbrainfield
        Coat

        But not a dangerous as high explosive porn,

        which of course is the most dangerous porn of all. A friend of mine lost an arm when he stumbled across a cache of unexploded porn.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Coat

          Surely you're forgetting...

          ...nuclear pr0n.

          1. John I'm only dancing

            Good pr0n. bad pr0n

            This is very reminiscent of Brass Eye. Good electricity and bad electricity...If only Christopher Mrris had given Jacqui Smith the... Nicholas Parsons, Darkus Howe, Carla Lane, Bernard Manning etc treatment.

            1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
              Happy

              @Joh I'm only dancing

              Christopher Morris could not make up someone like Jacquie Smith.

              Don't forget the Brass Eye that *really* got lots of grief was his superb hatchet job on media hysteria over CP, "Stranger danger" and other assorted BS in the British Isles, or rather the "Paedo Isles" as he called them.

              I think youtube search on brass eye paedogeddon will get what you need.

              1. John I'm only dancing
                Happy

                Brass Eye

                Thanks for the info John but I have the entire series already.

        2. Someone Else Silver badge
          Coat

          Lost an arm?

          Usually, you only lose use of your hand...

  17. Richard 33
    Megaphone

    Please no more

    I really hoped after the last election that we'd never have to hear from "wacky" Jacqui Smith and her half-baked primary-school teacher theories again. If we just stop talking about her, hopefully she'll go away.

    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Happy

      @Richard 33

      Yes it would be a good idea to deprive her of the oxygen of publicity.

      Although I can't help feeling a few people would settle for depriving her of the usual sort as well.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Unhappy

    Representative Democracy in Action

    "Ms Smith began by positioning herself as impartial outsider. She had never seen porn before, but explained: "I didn’t feel it was necessary for me to watch violent porn in order to legislate against it." After all, she hasn’t taken drugs either and was still able to legislate on that"

    So wacky Jacqui is operating from the assumption that the UK drugs legislation is sane and coherent, despite blocking any scientific evidence the contradicts the "moral minority"'s view.

    But hey, MPs voting of stuff they don't understand and can't be botherered to research, is no different from the majority of the voters in the popularity contest that elected expense fidling vote grubers.

  19. Chris Jasper
    FAIL

    So....

    .....apparently having your husband caught out for watching porn and 'mistakenly' claiming it on expenses makes you qualified to judge and decide the viewing habits of the entire British public.

    Wouldnt mind if it really was to protect the children, but its just another prudish, christian right wing fundamentalist telling us whats right and wrong.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      WTF?

      "Spending more time with the family"

      Surely, after being sacked as minister and then losing her parliamentary seat she should have had more time to spend with her errant husband who could teach the difference between good porn and bad porn with practical demonstrations for family and friends? Fulfilling her wifely duty would surely keep those base urges from him. On second thoughts, it was may have been fulfilling his manly duties that drove him to porn in the first place.

      Can you claim ignorance and bigotry on expenses?

  20. DrXym

    Nanny state

    It's not a porn "opt-in", it's a net censorship opt-out, and it is one which is completely intolerable.

    It isn't even necessary either. Here is how to avoid it quite simply.

    1. User signs up for ISP

    2. ISP asks do you have kids?

    3. User says no, okay no further action

    4. User says yes, okay we'll email you a details on how to install a free parental control filter or a small app that sets browser to use ISP supplied web proxy, or use the BUILT-IN parental controls that OS X and Windows Vista / 7 already supply.

    Simple, straightforward. Filtering is opt-in and left to parents. Nobody from the government on down should be putting up with an opt out system. It WILL lead to a more general national firewall within time, one that arbitrarily starts filtering torrent sites, porn sites, political sites, D-notice sites and so forth.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      you forget

      You forget, it has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with controlling society, ever so subtly (or not so) it plants the seeds porn is deviant, those who request porn are particularly deviant, we have lists of the deviants, want to work with kids? Have you requested porn? What do you mean you only wanted it for the google translate?!

  21. Tron Silver badge

    Expect more.

    The BBC will be sucking government cock for the forseeable future, running scared, fearing yet more cuts. The understandable ones, where they have gone way beyond their remit (garden/car shows) and the shameful ones that are just attacks on public service culture (hacking bits off the World Service).

    Puritans are nasty people. They have serious hang-ups.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    Moral Minority

    If the law is there to protect those that can not protect themselves, and to maintain a stable society, why do we have legislation on matters of personal choice that effect nobody else?

    If we live in an authoritirian state, then the state can dictate it's morals and values upon the populace

    If we live in a free society, then the state should not be legislating on matters of personal choice that effect no other person.

    If you look at prohibition, this was inflicted on the US by the moral minority, bring the law into disrupute by people ignoring, and create the organised crime that we are still dealing with today. Given the moves in societies opinions on areas covered by the obscene publications act, etc. the UK is running the risk of repeating the experience.

  23. Wayland Sothcott 1

    Lies and deceit at the BBC

    This is perfectly normal for the BBC. Just because someone claims to be unbiased does not mean it is so. TV tells a story, it's never reality, how can it be on a little flat rectangle! The important thing is are they attempting to tell the truth or persuade us of something important using lies?

    The BBC is mostly about persuasion, possibly with the best intentions. It's a bit like the scene in Family Guy where the educational film shows gays has having corosive acid for blood. Obviously a lie but if it puts people off gays the makers feel it's justified.

    I suspect that the only people who enjoyed Jackie Smiths programme are those who already agree with her. By now most people must have figured out that the BBC is like a parent who lies to their child to keep them safe.

    I think the TV licence fee is worth it because I do watch Family Guy and can only get Radio 2 on the car stereo. Mind you if I fixed the radio and stopped watching Family Guy I could save some money. Come to think of it, they keep showing the same episodes, not really worth the fee.

    1. DPWDC

      Box Set

      Get the box sets, works out cheaper.

    2. Bernard M. Orwell

      @Wayland Sothcott

      Your license fee pays for UK BBC radio broadcasting too.

  24. Loyal Commenter Silver badge
    Flame

    Where to start with this...

    The BBC need to be stamped on hard for presenting the opinions of this neo-puritan troll as fact, despite all and any evidence to the contrary.

    That is all.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    My experience of online censorship

    I remember I once tried to buy a knife online but my mobile Internet provider (vodafone I think) wouldn't let me browse the site - a site that sells outdoors equipment - I had to go through a process to prove that I was the bill payer and that I wanted the restrictions taking off (it was buggy and didn't work of course). No problems accessing porn on the same network, just legitimate retailers of legitimate tools.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Big Brother

    Big Sister Knows Best

    It's probably the only way a certain ex-home sec. can control her husband's viewing habits

    Cunning clue to be found at news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7972137.stm

    (moderater please read this before bouncing stuff, just because you have a short political memory)

  27. Cunningly Linguistic
    Paris Hilton

    It seems...

    ...that we now know WHY her husband was watching porn.

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    BBC balanced?

    The population of Scotland (AKA BBC North Britain) will be pissing themselves laughing at this level of naivety.

    For readers not in North Britain, I should perhaps explain that the BBC in Scotland is rabidly pro-Labour and has been 40+ years.

    Leader of Glasgow council does a runner abroad, drugs & gangster links abound, police were aware of his drug taking - BBC Scotland ignores it for over a week then puts a 30 second piece up. This is a guy in charge of £2.3 BILLION and it gets ignored - can you imagine that happening in England?

    Leader of "Scottish Labour" (a party that doesn't legally exist) admits on video she accepted illegal donations. Not reported that way by BBC Scotland.

    Glasgow city councillors outsourcing services to KNOWN gangsters and being paid for doing so? Not reported at all.

    However the contrast when its not Labour is astonishing - BBC Scotland bought the interview tapes on the Sheridan case (illegal in itself) and then advertised the subsequent programme WHILE THE TRIAL WAS ONGOING. Sheridan of course is loathed by "Scottish Labour" so BBC Scotland followed orders and put the boot in. Worth noting that the main Scottish law review journal is up in arms about the case.

    Goes on and on and on.

    This is quite apart from 95%+ of BBC money being spent in London/Manchester despite the BBC being obliged to spend LICENCE PAYERS money according to population.

    If anyone was willing to take an honest look at the BBC you'd find it breaches its charter so frequently that the only logical assumption is that the charter is largely ignored.

  29. Steve Brooks

    no drugs, ok

    " After all, she hasn’t taken drugs either and was still able to legislate on that"

    So, next time she gets a serious injury, no painkillers of any kind, no anasthetic for the operation, better yet she may get cancer, so no drugs there either.

    Job done, another dea pollie!

    Hmm, to harsh? Nah, I'm from Australia, we know what politcians are like!

  30. Stuart Castle Silver badge

    A bit of balance, perhaps?

    Before I start, let me be honest about one thing. I like porn.

    I also don't support unnecessary censorship, but I do support an opt in system for Porn. Why? Simple: I believe that porn can be dangerous for society, if not for the participants.

    The problem is, no one knows the effects that long term unrestricted access to Porn (and I am not just talking about the soft and hardcore stuff here, but things like bestiality and rape as well) by children will have on society. The effect could be beneficial ( a more relaxed, less uptight attitude to sex), but it it could be harmful (e.g an increase in rape although I know rape has little to do with sex).

    Would an opt in system work? In a lot of cases, I believe it would. It depends how it is implemented.

    The only slight problem is where the person who wants to view the porn is both of an age where they can legally do so and where they aren't the account holder (although, again, that depends how the system is implemented).

    Those who are yelling censorship, please bear in mind that no country in the world offers uncensored access to infornation. We, however, have freer access (even with an opt in porn system) than others.

    One thing does need to change though. Porn is viewed as something seedy and dirty. It shouldn't be.

    I haven't heard the documentary, I'll admit. However if the BBC has presented a biased documentary, they should redress the balance.

    1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

      You appear to be conflating the issue

      I don't think anyone is arguing that images of rape and bestiality should be unregulated (although there is an issue here with the fact that entirely made images, such as cartoons depicting such are currently illegal in the UK).

      However, there has been no causal link shown between the availability of such images and people actually committing such crimes. The fact of the matter is that a group of people, with whom our beloved Jacqui is affiliated, is known to deliberately misrepresent statistics to try to claim that there is. How many times have we heard politicians warn us about 'snuff movies' when no such thing has ever been shown to exist.

      What is actually more likely is that if people are taught that sex is bad and evil, they will believe it to be so. This weakens or removes the moral barrier between consensual sex and rape in peoples' minds and could be said to lead to increased incidences of sexual offences.

      A parallel can be drawn between prohibition in the US and organised crime such as racketeering. Since people had to commit a crime to produce or obtain alcohol, they had already entered the land of the criminal, so why not engage in a bit of racketeering while you're at it?

      Anyway, my point is this - you are conflating the availabilty of pornography with the availability of images of sex-crimes. The two are not the same, so your argument here is disingenious. Similarly, you conflate censorship in the interests of state security with censorship in the name of moral puritanism. These things are not equivalent.

      There is also the issue of 'being of an age where you can legally view pornography'. in this country, teenagers can get married, have sex and have children legally at the age of sixteen. However, they have to wait a further two years before it is legal for them to view images of other people having sex. This, to me at least, is a patently ridiculous situation and serves only to highlight the Victorian attitude we have towards sex in this country, where we seem to think that not having access to pornography is the only thing preventing teenagers actually having sex. The fact that we have the highest teen pregnancy rates in Europe shows this to be the obvious fallacy that it is.

      Smith's ideas are factually and idealogically wrong. Worse than that, they are arguably harmful to society, and it is shocking that in this day and age they should be presented as fact, especially by a supposedly impartial body like the BBC. It is, in fact, the job of the BBC to NOT present individual, political or religious views as facts.

      Whilst the previous government were in power, the impartiality of the BBC was broken over the David Kelly case. The BBC was then stuffed with political appointees with New Labour leanings. Maybe now would eb a good time for the BBC to have a 'spring clean' and to correct this matter that many would see as political interference, by replacing these figures with politically neutral appointees.

    2. Graham Marsden
      Thumb Down

      @Stuart Castle

      "I believe that porn can be dangerous for society"

      You are falling for the "Precautionary Principle" fallacy of "well, we don't know if it's dangerous, but let's ban it anyway, just to be on the safe side" which Wacky Jacqui and her cohorts used to justify passing the Dangerous Pictures Act outlawing so-called Extreme Pornography.

      As for "no one knows the effects that long term unrestricted access to Porn" I suggest you look at the work of Milton Diamond PhD of the University of Hawai'i who studied exactly that by looking at the situation in the USA and Japan (where there is *all sorts* of extreme porn easily available) and concluded: "It is certainly clear from the data reviewed, and the new data and analysis presented, that a massive increase in available pornography in Japan, the United States and elsewhere has been correlated with a dramatic decrease in sexual crimes"

      See http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1999-effects-of-pornography.html

      Opt-in systems are just a way of restricting people's right to see and view what they choose, I don't have to say "Please Sir, may I look at this stuff if it's ok with you", unless there is a legitimate and verifiable reason for restricting access to something (eg child porn) then there is *no* justification for preventing or limiting my access to it.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Happy

        Japan, crime and public behaviour

        The only caution i would put on a research using japan to try and predict western models, is that japan has a number of atypical behaviours. (even if they have very good records useful for researching subjects)

        for example, people getting plastered on booze, this is common in japan and the UK, but whilist in the UK this leads to a lot of violence in town centres, historically in japan this has not been the case.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          and interestingly

          On the Japan note it seems an ever growing percentage of people are becoming disinterested in Sex from teens to middle age (down like 30%), I doubt it's porn alone, likely a mixture of work stress, educational stress, social demands, etc. Also over 70% of people coming of age were single and had no real interest in changing that (I think coming of age in Japan is 20).

          It's a funny country, but it's also rapidly dying of old age and xenophobia, a model perhaps of how the UK will die a half century later I suppose if things continue as they are.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Up

      Re: A bit of balance, perhaps?

      A cohesive argument for the opt in system, hence the thumbs up.

      However....

      Whilst I also have never come across a scientific paper on the long term effects of exposure to obscene material (as defined by the OPA), one could point out the holland has a lower level of censorship than the UK, and also has lower levels of teenage pregnancy

      The OPA talks about material that has the potential to corrupt and deprave, but if you are intentionally viweing the material you are (by it's definitions) already corrupt and depraved, hence logically no harm is being caused. (logic not being a barrier to legislation)

      The opt-in system has one fundemental flaw, in that the political estiblishment could (illegally*) use the information when conducting smear campaigns (think about what Dr.Kelly went through as a result of blowing the whistle on bLiar's dodgey dossier, and what a certain AC would have used if it had been available)

      So whilst a well put case, I personally think there are additional factors to consider, and therefore the conclussions you have put are flawed.

      * bare in mind what the whitehouse did to one of it's own CIA senior agents for the same reasons

    4. Charlie Clark Silver badge
      Welcome

      There are no technical solutions to social issues

      Anyway any problem is less in the consumption of porn than its production.

      I, for one, welcome our new Pornosaurus lords.

      PS. Pornography is literally dirty, "dirty writing" if memory serves correctly. Whether this includes erotica and violence is a matter of mass debate.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Stuart Castle

      Your argument is fallacious for one reason*:

      If you have an opt in system then the people who would be damaged by accessing porn** would opt in and still be damaged. Technically astute parents would install some kind of nannying system (whether technological or social) anyway, and technologically "special" parents would very likely find their kids opt them in anyway (through social engineering or just borrowing credit cards etc.)

      "Those who are yelling censorship, please bear in mind that no country in the world offers uncensored access to infornation. We, however, have freer access (even with an opt in porn system) than others."

      What a monumentally stupid statement. I have had a word with my friend and he wants to seriously assault you and rob you of £1000***. I would rather just rob you of £1000***. So please send me the money - no point in arguing that it is theft, it is less theft than it could be so you should be fucking grateful. So grateful in fact that you should send me a thank-you card along with the money.

      Now do you see how silly you are being?

      *Actually there are thousands of reasons why the opt-in idea is very silly, but the one I mention is a game killer.

      **No existing evidence suggests that porn itself is harmful - the porn that could be classed as disturbing is so because of the [non-sex] act that is disturbing rather than the fact it is porn.

      ***You seem a little pumpkin positive so I should point out that is satire and not actually a threat - until we get the technology to be able to reach down a phone line ala Dastardly and Muttley you should be pretty safe from people on the interweb.

  31. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Where's the harm

    Of course our hospitals are full of people harmed by watching porn. If everyone swapped their booze for porn, we'd have a happier and healthier society, and the NHS would save billions.

    1. Smallbrainfield
      Coat

      And massive

      forearms.

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Unhappy

    BBC yeah right!

    I think you hit the nail on the head with the text "full establishment weight of the BBC". The BBC is essentially State Run Television. We are forced to pay for it and suffer its teachings. The is backed by the establishment hence why there will always be a queens speach. They need to keep their noses out as it is nothing to do with whether prnography is wrong or not it is about liberal choices and for people to make their own decisions on what is acceptable. It is another case of nanny state with just a different hat this time.

  33. Ministry of Truth
    Stop

    How the fuck has...

    ...that rabid self promoting no-mark ignorant bitch got more exposure in the media?

    I'd hoped after she lost her seat that she'd crawl back under whatever rock she came from.

    Someone please pour concrete over it.

  34. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Opt in

    I guess her household will be on the opt in list so hubby can watch pr0n. Then again, now he has to pay for it himself he probably doesn't

  35. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      O2 Fiasco

      The O2 thing really has me worried. This is a system that has applied censorship of the mobile network (not WifI .. yet) and requires users to opt out of the censorship before they can have unfettered access

      It nannying on a grand scale. O2 have taken responsibilty away from the individual and denied access to everyone until they have proven their age.

      A more responsible approach would be to provide tjhe facility and then say to users "If you want access restictions on such and such a phone please tell us".

      The idea of applying censorship and then an individual asking if they can opt out is wrong, wrong, wrong

    2. DAN*tastik

      O2 Has Already Started This

      And 3 mobile too. In case some people are considering them and not aware of this!

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Unhappy

      Re: O2 Has Already Started This

      o2 actions are not about morality or protecting minors, it's about bandwidth.

      mobile companies having been flogging 3g data links like mad, but haven't put the money into the infrastructure to support the increased usage, hence the need to artificially throttle the demand.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      RE: O2

      Weirdly enough I phoned them up, shouted at them about how they believe I am 18 when they make me honour my contract but then want me to give my credit card details to a third party to prove I am old enough to look at nekkid boobies. I then shouted at them that if their customers with kids want to give the kids an iPhone without any restrictions then it is the parents who are not doing their job and why should I be inconvenienced just because O2 can't trust its paying customers to make appropriate choices with regards to their own children.

      They then asked me my date of birth and unblocked the porn when I gave them a date that is more than 18 years ago.

      I have completely failed to see the funny side of this.

  36. John P
    Paris Hilton

    same old crap

    Even when they are not in power, Labor still manage to cause a furore by trying to ban things that don't need to be banned.

    If the logic is that porn turns you in to some sort of sexual deviant rapist/murderer (I agree with AC @ 12:36), then surely there is a greater case for 'default off' for all religious sites, as religion has caused far more deaths than sexual murderers have (I should think so anyway, much like Jacqui, I don't need to have all the facts to pass a judgement).

    Labor - ousted from power and still in search of WMBs (Weapons of MasTurbation).

    Paris - when we're talking about porn, no other icon will do.

  37. Nev

    "She had never seen porn before..."

    Until it was pivotal in her embarrassing expenses scandal episode that had her ridiculed thought the land.

    I now what I find distasteful and it's (mostly) not pR0n....

  38. The Alpha Klutz
    Alert

    It was an inside job,

    by the well connected.

    Your little protest, so merrily rejected.

  39. Graham Marsden
    FAIL

    Ms Smith began by positioning herself as impartial outsider

    Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce!

    She is from the ex-Government which brought us Policy Based Evidence Making, ie deciding what they wanted the law to be then canvassing only the opinions of those who agreed with that to justify their positions.

    That Government brought in multiple Nanny State laws to "save" us from Dangerous Pictures, Dangerous Cartoons, Dangerous Drugs and so on without *ANY* proof that they were actually dangerous, but that didn't matter because Wacky Jacqui and friends *believed* that they were, so us poor, weak minded and morally deficient people *needed* to be protected from such things!

    Jacqui Smith is not interested in anything which contradicts her views, she knows best what is good for us and even though she has absolutely *no* credibility in these matters somehow she still gets the oxygen of publicity to spread misinformation and biased opinions, ignoring all the facts that show how utterly wrong she is.

  40. a_c_g_t

    Nothing left?

    Jaquie Smith,

    Mary Whitehouse of the New Millenium.

    All I can do is "Sigh" hold my head in my hands and hope she crawls away and leaves us alone.

  41. Anonymous Coward
    Joke

    I think Jacqui...

    ...accidentally the entire thing!

    Surprisingly (or not as the case may be) little coverage of the debate on the bbc news website...

  42. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Brit parents can't!

    Net filtering to protect kids?

    Use a baby sitter, or even spend time with your mistakes, instead of making me responsible for them!

    Learn how to use your computer, maybe spam levels and other nasties would reduce. Put the readily available controls in place.

    Done!

    What a competent and caring parent I am!.

    I have no need to feel SHAMED.

  43. Anonymous Coward
    Joke

    porn is not harmfull says wank merchant ..

    > Speaking to The Register today, Jerry Barnett, Chairman of the Adult Industry Trade Association (AIT), said:

  44. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    BBC Bias?

    The BBC is not biased, it... Oh wait, lets just quote my favourite movie.

    "our job is to report the news, not fabricate it; that's the government's job." - V for Vendetta.

  45. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    We gave her a break,

    stayed our hand, didn't deliver the coup de grace, so she could crawl away in her red-faced shame. But here she is, back again, at it again.

    I believe we have unfinished business?

  46. Mark .

    It's opt-out, not opt-in!

    The filtering system being proposed is opt-out - i.e., it would be on by default, until you opt out. That's what opt-out means.

    The Government MPs in question are spinning this as "opt in". They don't mean that you'll choose to opt in to the filtering system. No, they mean it'll be on by default, but you can "opt in" to view pr0n (nevermind that the filters cover anything 18+).

    It's grammatically wrong (the filtering system is what we're talking about, not pr0n). It's technically wrong (suggesting that the default is an Internet with filtering enabled). It's misleading. Let's not let them get away with this spin.

    If we talked about an opt-out organ donation system, it would mean organs are donated by default. No one would call this "opt in" claiming "You're opting in to keeping your organs"...

  47. Mark .

    On bias

    Whilst in many occasions the BBC News strive for non-bias, and they are better than many news organisations, this unfortunately is not always the case.

    With Section 63 ("extreme" images law), the BBC over a period of years gave coverage to Liz Longhurst for the campaign in support of the Government; getting an opposition viewpoint to be covered took a great deal of work and protest. (See http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/08/all_sides_of_the_story.html - the BBC were overwhelmed with complaints, and they did to be fair change their coverage of the story. However, since then they often flipped back to only giving a say to the Government and Longhurst.)

    Radio 4 also covered the issue on Today (entirely giving a pro-Government law viewpoint), and Women's Hour (where they had a "debate" featuring two people in support...)

  48. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    WTF?

    "Impartial outsider"

    I think I have finally found something *worth* complaining to the BBC about. That statement is an outright lie.

    Now if they stated

    "This is a highly personal (IE totally biased) documentary made by an *outside* production company (as something this slanted usually is) written and presented by a person whose personal public timidity* is matched only by their vindictive and rather shrewish nature, and who cannot bear to be have their views ignored *despite* just avoiding prison for a £22k expenses claim which most people would take as a hint to keep their head well down"

    That would have been *honest*.

    *As Home Secretary she did not like to go out alone in London at night much. Alone as in her and a car load of armed police officers that is.

  49. Anonymous Coward
    Grenade

    Smith, do us a favour

    Don't stop porn for everyone just because you want your husband to stop watching it. It is a case of if I can't have you no one can. He is watching porn because you are boring in bed.

  50. Smudge@mcr

    As in Monty Pythons The life of Brian...

    I enjoy watching porn and so does my wife.

  51. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

    The sex industry should be thanking Wacqui

    Labour worked hard to drive students into poverty. So how can a girl pay off her student loan?

  52. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    More nanny state nonsense...

    More dumb ex-MP nonsense. I want unrestricted internet with some minimal of traffic shaping (yes I want VOIP prioritised over torrents!)

    I am a parent, and if my kids can't bypass these kinds of restrictions by the time their 11 I will be very dissapointed.

    Bring back the real hereditry lords and bring back hanging for MP expenses fraud!

  53. Rob Moss.
    Megaphone

    Australian great firewall of china, now available in...

    ....British

    We defeated this stupidity, you can too. Rise up against the opt-in opt-out 'tards that would seek to intrude on what you do at home and in your own time

    There were many commenters on the Australian firewall issue that were very positive, and there were some that were not. To the not positive commenters, please poke yourself in the eye now

    Also, our Communications Minster, Stephen Conroy is British, please take him back as we don't want him

  54. VulcanV5
    Flame

    The only obscenity is Ms Smith. . .

    Never mind debating the actual programme, how about asking on what grounds the BBC decided to waste licence fee income on publicising a shallow shoddy over-promoted and finally chucked-out ZanuLabour politician?

    It surely couldn't be that Ms Smith is still in the address book of all those sycophantic luvvies running the Beeb whose familiarity with what is laughably described as the "Westminster Village" makes them feel so very, very important?

    As there are infinitely better reasons for *any* poster on here getting a BBC documentary of their own ("a personal view", as the simpering Beeb describes it) then I'd be obliged if El Reg could contact the BBC now with a view to setting up 50 or so documentaries exploring the "personal views" of El Reg readers. These could range from topics such as: "are paper aeroplanes the future of commercial aviation?" to: "are failed Home Secretaries entitled to any kind of platform other than that of a railway station's during a train strike?" to: "should Stephen Fry be now sold off as a national treasure to the lowest bidder?"

    The fact that El Reg readers are instantly disqualified by virtue of being rational, articulate, competent and honest will ultimately count against 'em but that shouldn't stop El Reg from asking.

  55. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    heh

    anyone see this weeks Waterloo Road? I think it sums up the bbc's attitude to porn.

    Good story though.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like