What? Blocking Adult Sites by ISP.

It would appear that in UK the government is planning on forcing ISP's to block adult content sites.

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...irm-move-force-isps-blocking-adult-sites.html

I guess the use of VPN server will increase and the use of Tor browsers.
The current multi-platform Opera browsers have built-in VPNs. I'm using such right now to access LIT and other interesting sites. Only problem: the Windows version doesn't play nice with Google Accounts and signins. But I foresee a jump in Opera popularity in the UK and other repressive regimes.

--Hypoxia in Canada (or Singapore) (or Turkey)
 
The current multi-platform Opera browsers have built-in VPNs. I'm using such right now to access LIT and other interesting sites. Only problem: the Windows version doesn't play nice with Google Accounts and signins. But I foresee a jump in Opera popularity in the UK and other repressive regimes.

--Hypoxia in Canada (or Singapore) (or Turkey)

Yeah, the Tor browser does the same thing, sets up a separate network path. When I us mine I'm from some remote mountain server in Tibet. Or Canada. Or Hong Kong.
 
Well, now, that came as something of a surprise. :(
Obviously there will be ways round it, somehow, whenever. . . .

There have been rumours of "limiting adult content". It has to do with a seeming rise in sex-inspired crime, but this is a bit of a shock.

Erm. . . .
 
The old twinkie defense. Or TV violence made me do it. It's all liberal bullshit. I grew up watching all kinds of violent TV and looking at porn. I will admit it was magazines back then, but guess what, I didn't go out and rape and kill and sodomize anyone. I have been around firearms all my life. I haven't taken them up in some tower and started taking potshots at the people down below.

It's not about trying to stop sex crimes, it's about control. The Nanny state wants to control what you see, what you do and what you eat. Pure and simple.
 
First it's porn, then unpopular newx sites ynd suddenly you're only allowed to read Royal Bulletins online.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
 
They ought to know from internet experience with more repressive regimes that the population will find their way around any blocks.

Users are more competent than government techies.
 
The old twinkie defense. Or TV violence made me do it. It's all liberal bullshit.

This measure's being brought in by the UK's Conservative Party. Not exactly a bastion of liberalism.

The pro/anti-porn split doesn't match up neatly with left or right-wing politics. There are people on the left who want to ban porn because they believe it's inherently exploitative of women but there are also plenty from the right who want to ban it because Jesus.

Most lefties of my personal acquaintance are strongly against this sort of ban. One of the left-wing reasons for opposing it is that these systems tend to end up censoring all sorts of LGBT-related content regardless of whether it's actually porn. No surprise for those who remember Section 28.

n.b. - the story that Dan White blamed Twinkies for his crimes is a myth.

They ought to know from internet experience with more repressive regimes that the population will find their way around any blocks.

Indeed, but no politician ever let that get in the way of a bit of law-and-order posturing.
 
They tried it in Germany around 2009/10. Thankfully common sense prevailed that time.
 
There was a short go at "adult content" blockers in Oz a couple of years ago. Didn't last long, every browser slowed right down and benign content was being blocked (including government websites, if I recall correctly).
 
I wasn't referring to the ban and who was doing that. I was referring to the twinkie defense itself.

Still just as likely to see conservative family value types use porn and TV violence as a reason for rape and clock tower shooters. Hardly a liberal stance. Conservatives very likely to use that defence. Blame it on the liberals who allow such things as pornography to exist.

Raging liberalism leading to the undermining of good conservative values!:D
 
Still just as likely to see conservative family value types use porn and TV violence as a reason for rape and clock tower shooters. Hardly a liberal stance. Conservatives very likely to use that defence. Blame it on the liberals who allow such things as pornography to exist.

Raging liberalism leading to the undermining of good conservative values!:D

Then that makes Mayor Bloomberg of New York a conservative. After all he's the one that banned 32 oz. colas because they cause all kinds of bad things to happen to people and people are too stupid to figure it out for themselves.
 
Then that makes Mayor Bloomberg of New York a conservative. After all he's the one that banned 32 oz. colas because they cause all kinds of bad things to happen to people and people are too stupid to figure it out for themselves.

Banning handguns didn't help so..... :D
 
I wasn't referring to the ban and who was doing that. I was referring to the twinkie defense itself.

As noted above, the "Twinkie defense" didn't actually happen. But it was endorsed in court some years later, by one of the most important conservative figures of recent times:

"I don't want a competent lawyer. I want a lawyer who's going to get me off. I want a lawyer who will invent the Twinkie defense." - SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia, United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 2006.

Then that makes Mayor Bloomberg of New York a conservative. After all he's the one that banned 32 oz. colas because they cause all kinds of bad things to happen to people and people are too stupid to figure it out for themselves.

Nobody ever said "only conservatives do this". My point, and Rom's, was that not only liberals do this. For example, one of the biggest anti-porn voices was Phyllis Schlafly, another conservative icon, and one of her arguments was that porn led to violence against women.

(If we're talking more generally about politicians eager to ban stuff to protect people from themselves, well, both sides of the aisle have done that over and over in the context of "drugs".)
 
This is sort of old news. The laws already apply to offline sales of porn such as mags and discs. This just harmonizes online and offline rules under one legislation. If you can't sell it from a shop on the street, why should you be able to watch it online.

You can argue about censorship of porn generally. But this bit of legislation is hardly new and breaking.

There will always be censorship of porn. If you get rid of all censorship you allow pedos to operate. So once you set even a tiny legitimate limit you open the door to increasing censorship.

And with our aging population, who are know to get more conservative as they age, porn censorship will probably increase.

The internet explosion expanded faster than society could bring in laws to corral it.

When I grew up you would have to travel to Europe and visit some seedy back alley porn shop to view bestiality. Now any search engine with family controls turned off will allow you to see stuff like that.

A free and unregulated internet died when ad banners came about.
 
Oh dear...

So what effect will this have on the UK's porn production business? I ask because one of my all-time favorite websites is based there!

-LadyDaisy
 
So what effect will this have on the UK's porn production business? I ask because one of my all-time favorite websites is based there!

-LadyDaisy

Not much. Most large sites already comply with the proposed legislation.
 
Banning handguns didn't help so..... :D
"When taffy is outlawed, only outlaws will eat taffy.
When love is banned, only bandits will love."
--Anon.

Criminalizing something merely creates a new criminal class. We're all felons, all un-indicted co-conspirators. Smile for the camera.
 
Back
Top