LOL IT'S GREAT BEING A EUROFAG AMIRITE?! My Government may spy o me, but at least they ain't taking my porn away. "You're government will follow after us." No proof of that, have fun without your porn Eurofags!

Just gonna copy-paste what I posted in the other thread: Technically speaking, I really don't see how they plan to do that. They're either going to end up blocking relatively safe material because one page of the website says "sex" or it's just going to be laughably weak. Let's take a look at the justifications: [quote]Cameron says that online porn is "‘corroding childhood’". [/quote]So it couldn't be anything else to do with lax restrictions on M+ and 18 rated games, or problems with the school environments, or domestic, social and behavioural problems stemming from national locale thanks to an increased value of non-council housing ala Conservative cuts and tax increases, right? [quote]"‘The Daily Mail has campaigned hard to make internet search engine filters “default on”. Today they can declare that campaign a success,’ Mr Cameron said.[/quote]Yes. Because it's [i]sooo[/i] hard to go and turn it off again. Seriously, people do [i]not[/i] randomly get invited to look at porn. As the OP and Russell Howard said "It's not like some 9 year old googles "Capital of London" and google responds "Hey kid? Wanna watch porn"." [quote]"‘We are taking action to help clean up the internet and protect a generation of children from often extreme online pornography.’"[/quote]"THE CONSERVATIVES, HELPING PARENTS BE LAZY ARSEHOLES AND THEN COMPLAINING ABOUT THEM BEING LAZY ARSEHOLES." [quote]"Pornography involving simulated ra­­pe will be banned both online and offline, and online videos will be subject to the same rules as those sold in sex shops."[/quote]Good luck with that. It's not like the internet is worldwide or you can look at people's HDDs or anything. [quote]"There will be stronger powers for watchdogs to investigate the ‘hidden internet’ – heavily encrypted forums and pages that allow abusers to cover their tracks"[/quote]And this is relevant, how? We're talking about kids here, not corrupt spies. [quote]There has been growing alarm at evidence that a third of children have accessed online pornography by the time they reach ten. Six in ten parents now say they are worried or very worried about their sons and daughters seeing violent and sexual material on the web.[/quote]How about, you know, [i]actually doing your job as a parent and keeping an eye on them[/i]. [quote]‘Not long ago, access to the internet was mainly restricted to the PC in the corner of the living room, with a beeping dial-up modem, downstairs in the house where parents could keep an eye on things,’ he said.[/quote]Aaand, what's changed? Are kids now legally allowed to hide their computers from their parents? Do parents no longer have control over their child's activities? [quote]The Prime Minister added: ‘I’m not making this speech because I want to moralise or scaremonger, but because I feel profoundly as a politician, and as a father, that the time for action has come. This is, quite simply, about how we protect our children and their innocence.’[/quote]I say again, [i]how about actually doing your job as a parent and keeping an eye on what they do on the computer[/i]. [quote]"And, in a really big step forward, all the ISPs have rewired their technology so that once your filters are installed, they will cover any device connected to your home internet account."[/quote]That...isn't news. That's simple fu­cking networking that's been around since the internet. [quote]"No more hassle of downloading filters for every device, just one click protection. One click to protect your whole home and keep your children safe"[/quote]Define "safe". [quote]“The legal situation is that although it’s been a crime to publish pornographic portrayals of ra­pe for decades, existing legislation does not cover possession of this material – at least in England and Wales. ‘Well I can tell you today we are changing that. We are closing the loophole – making it a criminal offence to possess internet pornography that depicts ra­pe." Holly Dustin, of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, said: 'We are delighted that David Cameron has responded to the call by experts and women’s groups to ban pornographic images of ra­pe that promote and eroticise violence against women. 'The Coalition Government has pledged to prevent abuse of women and girls, so tackling a culture that glorifies abuse is critical for achieving this. 'The next step is working with experts to ensure careful drafting of the law and proper resourcing to ensure the law is enforced fully.'[/quote]This actually worries me. How is "ra­pe" defined? Does stuff like hen­tai come under that category? Stuff like tentacles or even rough/play sex? If so, why, and who determines it? Elderly judges? Is it just images or does text-based adult content qualify too? I play a text-based adult RPG game that updates every week that, under these laws, would become illegal because there's a few possible ra­pe scenarios (only if you actually choose though) and I would become a criminal for even playing it. Also why "against women"? It isn't exclusive to females, and anyone with any moral sense won't be swayed by fantasy. [quote]"Online porn is turning children into sex attackers"[/quote][Citation needed] [quote]"How internet porn turned my beautiful boy into a hollow, self-hating shell"[/quote][Citation needed] [i]Really?[/i] [quote]"Online porn is making teen boys see girls as sex objects"[/quote]Er, that isn't porn doing that, at least not entirely. That's the society we live in. There are people who treat females that way who never even grew up with the internet, and now they're blaming online porn for it all? Total BS. That's a societal issue, not an internet one. [quote]"9 in 10 parents want online porn blocked"[/quote]9 in 10 parents are lazy cu­nts. [quote]"The little girls whose killers viewed child porn on the web..."[/quote] "The little girls whose killers drank alcohol." "The little girls whose killers smoked weed." "The little girls whose killers enjoyed football." There's no connection there, it's just grasping at very fragile straws for scaremongering. [quote]"Mr Cameron dismissed arguments from some in the industry that it is impossible to design more effective filters to stamp out vile images."[/quote]So, he's telling the [i]experts[/i] that he wants something that they are telling him is [i]not physically possible[/i], and he's just ignoring them and saying "Well you don't know what you're talking about, so I'll do it", even though he obviously has no idea how the internet works? [quote]"We are already looking at the legislative options we have. This is quite simply about obliterating this disgusting material from the net – and we will do whatever it takes."[/quote]Well he's going to be there a long time then. When will these people learn that there is either internet or there isn't? There is no inbetween, there is no "regulation" and there is no control. It's the internet, it's free space. Furthermore, this coming from a man who sells arms and ammunition to butchers, cannibals, rapists and murderers. WHOO, GO CAMERON! Socially, I find it ridiculous that they propose this ban on internet porn exclusively, but newpapers and "beauty" industries will still be able to churn out borderline porn and the shelves will still be filled with naked and semi naked women. I mean, every reason for banning online porn could also be applied to those too, but that's never going to happen because there's money to be made from it. Additionally, Cameron mentions that anything not found in sex shops won't be allowed online. Either he has no idea what the extent of pornography is, or he intends to suppress fetishists. Not sure about you, but that sounds like religiously inspired point of view to me. Politically, this is absolutely devastating to child protection agencies and child porn investigation units. It creates a thin divide between those involving themselves in pedophilia and understanding how systems like this work, and those who help children buy relying upon those kinds of people slipping up, all for the sake of typical Conservative budget cuts. Total bullsh­it all round. Every reason put forward as justification to go ahead with this can also be applied elsewhere in society (more severely so in almost every case) but nothing's going to be done about that. We've got the world and country going to sh­it, and all our government is worried about is teenagers looking at tits because parents can't be fu­cked to actually take responsibility over their child. What about websites that are not adult orientated, but still contain adult content such as Tumblr, DeviantArt, Reddit, hell even Facebook and Twitter? I also frequent 18+ rated forums, even though my intention isn't usually to look at porn which is present there. 3D modelling communities? Nope, there's bare simulated people in tutorials and such. Image hosting websites? Well damn, I can't see anything. [i][b]YET AGAIN[/b][/i], another example of lawmakers understanding jack sh­it about how the internet works and trying to control it. It's a waste of time, a hypocritical joke, an inhibition of justice and a practical exercise in stupidity. Or, another monitoring campaign, because I seriously can't see all this being set up autonomously or anonymously. Fu­cking disgraceful. I seriously hope there gets to be a substantial protest against this.