Digital Economy Bill: MPs to greenlight ISP porn blocking plan

"Twitter, Facebook-based porn is much tougher technical nut to crack," admits minister.

Read the whole story

 

[Riddler876]

I'm continually gobsmacked that they don't object to buying games that involve drone strikes, war and generally beating the sit out of each other (which is an activity no one should ever partake in IRL).

Yet watching two people have sex (an activity most people will partake in IRL), well that's just fucking unacceptable.

edit: IMHO the sooner we rid ourselves of the outdated societal view that sex and related matters are taboo and must be suppressed the better off we will be. It's irrational views like that which made (and make still in some places) it difficult for children to get any sex related education - without which they wont learn to approach such situations responsibly.

 

[Riddler876]

TommyGuns[/url]":zisa823c]

Riddler876[/url]":zisa823c]I'm continually gobsmacked that they don't object to buying games that involve drone strikes, war and generally beating the sit out of each other (which is an activity no one should ever partake in IRL).

Yet watching two people have sex (an activity most people will partake in IRL), well that just fucking unacceptable.

The point of the bill is to protect Children. The protection of children from the purchase of violent video games comes at the point of retail.

This bill is daft, but let's be clear what it's supposedly for.

I see your point about them being protected from that at POS. My argument would more be that whats seen as acceptable, and can legally be sold to children IMO doesn't compare to watching two people have sex.

Content rating for (15):

Films under this category can contain adult themes, hard drugs, (frequent) strong language, strong violence and strong sex references, and nudity without graphic detail. Sexual activity may be portrayed but without any strong detail. Sexual violence may be shown if discreet and justified by context. Use of very strong language may be permitted based on frequency and how they are used, as well as contextual justification.

In my opinion (and it is down to personal opinion) I'd rather my children watched "sexual scenes" instead of "hard drugs, (frequent) strong language, strong violence".

I just can't wrap my head around why sex is the bad guy in that list that must be tackled in this way instead of the others. I've seen some pretty horrific violence related videos on the BBC over the years from war zones etc., which they're not mandating this kind of age verification too see. Why isn't that addressed the same way in this bill?

 

[Riddler876]

Thunderforge8[/url]":1spr49ek]In the United States, there has been a lot of discussion about the increasing problem of sexual assault and rape, and pornography is something that is often considered as a possible link. There's certainly been high profile cases, like serial killer rapist Ted Bundy calling an interview hours before his execution to say that his addiction to pornography, and the constant craving for more that came from it, was what he believed ultimately led him to his reprehensible behaviors.

While the plural of anecdote is not data (and not all who view pornography will become serial rapists), I do understand the desire to keep kids from viewing pornography at an early age and in such great quantities if there is even a slight chance that it will lower sexual assault in society as a whole. I'm not qualified to say whether or not this sort of bill would be effective in doing so, but I can definitely understand the desire to have it passed.

Short of some extraordinarily detailed long term studies, I give that link as much initial likelihood as video games turning people into serial killers. I'd say it is far more likely just a way for them to try to rationalize the fact they are a terrible person.