>If the children are so young that the parents do not want them to have access to sex-education sites, then why are they being allowed onto the internet unsupervised?
It depends what you call unsupervised. Parents have blocked access, much like putting up a stair-gate and then not bothering to keep an eye on the child all the time. Now you can let them playing that game on the ipad without worrying too much about accidental internet access. Of course it isn't perfect, it's about risk not perfection. The kids are in the garden, they might eat dirt and get sick, but I still put limits up to prevent them from wondering down to the park whenever they feel like it.
As far as the LGBT lifestyle thing goes, BT says they don't discriminate between that and hetro. If you define your lifestyle in terms of sex, you have to expect to fall foul of those who don't want to know about your sex life. If I put up a blog about "hetrosexual lifestyle" I'd expect to be filtered too.
There also appears to be a lot of hormone-driven adolescents out in the forums today. Here's a hint: it isn't always about you. When my kids are 6 years old, they don't need to know about STI's and how to use a condom. Yes, I could use squid to block redtube and they probably wouldn't stumble onto it anyway, but if I'm happy to live with the restrictions or don't fancy running a server 24x7, why are *you* expressing so much righteous indignation?
I am going to teach them how to deal with such things, but not yet. They aren't hormone driven and children learn a lot through imitation. I see plenty of children imitating adult sexual behaviour (inappropriate dress, inappropriate dancing) and its disturbing to see sexual behaviour in a child. Obviously it isn't hormone-driven, its pure learnt behaviour through observation probably from the media. I wish the schools had libraries instead of pushing kids onto the internet but I can't control that either. So maybe a filter is one useful tool.
Some parents limit the time on the internet to what is reasonable for homework and rely on a filter during that time. Others have the time to watch everything. People are different.
Lots of people here appear to be concerned about the content of the filters. I don't understand that. It comes across as ethical imperialism - you will listen to and watch and believe what we want you to. Maybe I don't want to see girls shaking their breasts at me while I look for a torrent on TPB. That isn't your call. Maybe my kids are wondering around and may ask in public why daddy had pictures of "mummy" without her top on, on the computer. Not even an up to date episode of Grey's Anatomy is worth that.
Get off your high-horses. This isn't an ethical move by anyone (as if a BT or the government has ethics!), its the government trialling control of the internet at a national level. Its a way of them showing that they are "doing something" while they achieve nothing of importance.
It's creepy, invasive, but that's the whole "internet filter" thing. The content of the filters is irrelevant.
Oi BT! I don't mind you offering filtering to those who want it, but *OFF* by default please. On by default makes you look even more like a corrupt government pawn.
For those of you who are adults and pay for your own internet connection and don't want the filter. Turn it off, complain to your MP and move ISP. If you aren't all those things, sorry, it isn't your choice to make.