There is a fine line...

[TheRealCJ]

... Between "Nanny State" and "Protecting Children".

And I for one am getting very sick of people thinking that even the smallest amount of censorship is bordering on Fascist totalitarianism.

Take the recent article on this very website, regarding the UK proposal of Internet Port being an "opt-in" service. Most of the replies are "ZOMG censorship nanny state old people!" and the rest are "It's up to the parents to monitor what their children are looking at, if they didn't want them looking at porn they should stop them from using the computer etc."

Am I the only one that thinks that that is a crock of bullshit?! Children are remarkably good at keeping secrets from their parents, and I for one was looking at porn long before my parents wanted me to. They never knew about it. If a parent wants their child not to look at porn, surely an ISP-level block, one that can only be removed by the bill payer (I.E: The PARENT) would be the best thing for it?

But no, any perceived threat to what we laughably call our "freedom" is met with universal scorn and derision, despite: a)It probably won't affect most of those living outside the country of it's origin, and b)You're probably an adult, so the issues don't really apply to you. And if you aren't an adult, stop complaining about not being able to see things you're not legally allowed to anyway.

 

[Berethond]

First of all, it is not nor has it ever been nor should it ever be the government's job to protect children.

Nope. Not at all. Not even a little bit. It's the parent's job to protect children. If they fail at that, why should it be my problem.

 

[BabyRaptor]

If the internet services want to offer an ISP block that people can opt into, then good cookies. When the government decides for people that they're going to take away your right to look at whatever you want unless you jump through hoops...That is censorship.

Furthermore, it's a small step away from "blocking porn because of The Children" to blocking whatever else these people deem "bad" for the same reason.

Lastly, yes. It's a parent's job to make sure kids aren't doing what said parent thinks they shouldn't be doing. If they fail at it, then that's their fault. It's nothing near sufficient reason for the government to block it all for everybody.

 

[Fawful]

But no, any perceived threat to what we laughably call our "freedom" is met with universal scorn and derision

Highlighted for irony, I don't understand, your scornful about other people being scornful about pointless censorship law and about people protecting part of our freedom of information when you say yourself that we have limited freedom as it is?

 

[JezebelinHell]

No block is going to be able to block it all. No block or piece of software is going to protect your kids from pedos and other dangers let alone actually be able to block ALL PORN SITES. It is impossible.

All that block will do is give naive parents a false sense of security and an excuse to not watch their kids. The only security they really have is being responsible for their children and monitoring their Internet access. Sorry, you still have to WATCH YOUR KIDS! You would be doing a huge disservice to unknowing parents that would naively believe that such a block will work.

This is nothing the government should be involved in. An opt in service with legal and educational information about the actual limits of such blocking and additional information about monitoring and checking Internet access would serve the parents and the children better than this "Oh, we can save you all!" line of BS.

 

[Still Life]

... Between "Nanny State" and "Protecting Children".

And I for one am getting very sick of people thinking that even the smallest amount of censorship is bordering on Fascist totalitarianism.

Take the recent article on this very website, regarding the UK proposal of Internet Port being an "opt-in" service. Most of the replies are "ZOMG censorship nanny state old people!" and the rest are "It's up to the parents to monitor what their children are looking at, if they didn't want them looking at porn they should stop them from using the computer etc."

Am I the only one that thinks that that is a crock of bullshit?! Children are remarkably good at keeping secrets from their parents, and I for one was looking at porn long before my parents wanted me to. They never knew about it. If a parent wants their child not to look at porn, surely an ISP-level block, one that can only be removed by the bill payer (I.E: The PARENT) would be the best thing for it?

But no, any perceived threat to what we laughably call our "freedom" is met with universal scorn and derision, despite: a)It probably won't affect most of those living outside the country of it's origin, and b)You're probably an adult, so the issues don't really apply to you. And if you aren't an adult, stop complaining about not being able to see things you're not legally allowed to anyway.

I think you'll find that most people are concerned about the precedent such a piece of legislation would set for a government that's towing the ever ubiquitous "... For the children" policy line. I think education and empowerment tools for parents are the way to go. A top down approach to such a matter is the first step in creating a "Nanny State" in regards to censorship. Blanket censorship established by the government is nothing but a band-aid solution in my books, and does nothing to effectively address sociocultural issues. It is almost like saying that "building more prisons" will automatically fix higher rates of crime -- which in most modern Western nations -- ignores socioeconomic deficits, cultural and lifestyle inconsistencies, etc.

In short: the British government is fishing for soundbites and conservative appeal without actually pausing to think: "hmmm, maybe there's more to this".

 

[SquirrelPants]

My biggest reason that what you're saying is, as you said about the opposite side of the issue, a crock of bullshit, is that the government has no right to tell me what my kids can and cannot see. Just because I'm not "legally" an adult doesn't mean I am not able to understand such a rudimentary issue.

The government in the UK, along with everyone else in the world, is doing the worst thing they could possibly do: they are further demonizing the very thing that our brains have, for millions of years, been hard-fucking-wired to accomplish.

A naked body is not the enemy. Sex is not the enemy. Porn is not the enemy. The reasons people think they are have always been stupid and nonsensical. This is exactly the sort of thing that makes people find their own bodies shameful things. This is exactly the sort of thing that makes the taboo seem cool. This is exactly the sort of thing that causes children to go searching for porn. They don't understand what it is, because we don't teach them what it is, and even after they do know, it's been so far-pounded into their brains that it is such a terrible thing that one should never know of that they find every thought about it they have to be shameful, without even understanding that their brain is wired to think about it at any and all times.

Am I saying children should be having sex? Of course not. There are inherent dangers in that, as with many things at a young age. However, I am saying that a mere mention of sex shouldn't be cause for alarm. It's a perfectly natural process that each and every one of our bodies is built to do.




I guess I'm sorry to rant, and I'm sorry if this is inappropriate. By all means, I will remove it if this is so, but please understand that the root of the problem isn't in sex itself, the root of the problem is in it being so demonized that even the government is taking action to keep it away from the public.

 

[Aur0ra145]

First of all, it is not nor has it ever been nor should it ever be the government's job to protect children.

Nope. Not at all. Not even a little bit. It's the parent's job to protect children. If they fail at that, why should it be my problem.

This. A thousand times over

 

[Hoopybees]

I did not hear about this. Based on what I'm reading here, this is a blocking sevice that can be used household by household? Unless I've grossly misunderstood I don't see the problem. They already have that service on television, my parents blocked certain channels. If you have kids it's something you might want. As long as it's not being forced upon people (and if that is what this is about then I have misunderstood) I don't see the problem at all. Yes, you should definately watch your kids when they're small but as they get older they just don't need supervising as much and really it would be a pain to have to watch them ALL the time. If you need to block porn sites so that your ten year old kid can do his homework without you hawking over his shoulder (which I would have found incredibly annoying as a kid) then why not?

 

[antidonkey]

If only there was some sort of large quantity of software programs that were specificly designed to block questionable content on the web. When will 10 or so companies put out this easy to use and afford product? Why won't they think of the children?!?!?!?

 

[TheRealCJ]

But no, any perceived threat to what we laughably call our "freedom" is met with universal scorn and derision

Highlighted for irony, I don't understand, your scornful about other people being scornful about pointless censorship law and about people protecting part of our freedom of information when you say yourself that we have limited freedom as it is?

Of course we have limited freedom.

That's why you don't see naked people masturbating in public every time you go outside.

 

[TheRealCJ]

First of all, it is not nor has it ever been nor should it ever be the government's job to protect children.

Nope. Not at all. Not even a little bit. It's the parent's job to protect children. If they fail at that, why should it be my problem.

Not at all. Right.

I'm sure that if there were no traffic laws, or murder laws, or rape laws, you'd change your tune pretty damn quick.

People always say "It's up to the parents to protect their children". Parent's aren't omniscient. They can't be everywhere at once. The don't know exactly what their children are doing at this very moment every damn day. But people have no problem with the government protecting their children, unless it infringes on something they personally do, like play video games.

 

[RatRace123]

It really shouldn't be the problem of anyone but the parent, but some parents are just too damn busy to take care of their children, so they want the government to step in and help out.

To hell with making stuff available for people who are actually old enough and have a desire to enjoy it.
Just so long as the little snot nosed shits are "safe" right?

I have no problem with people who want their children to not be exposed to certain things. I do have a problem when those same people want everyone else to share that opinion, and want the government to ban, censor and restrict things just because it makes it easier on them.

 

[TheRealCJ]

I did not hear about this. Based on what I'm reading here, this is a blocking sevice that can be used household by household? Unless I've grossly misunderstood I don't see the problem. They already have that service on television, my parents blocked certain channels. If you have kids it's something you might want. As long as it's not being forced upon people (and if that is what this is about then I have misunderstood) I don't see the problem at all. Yes, you should definately watch your kids when they're small but as they get older they just don't need supervising as much and really it would be a pain to have to watch them ALL the time. If you need to block porn sites so that your ten year old kid can do his homework without you hawking over his shoulder (which I would have found incredibly annoying as a kid) then why not?

It's actually a blanket block that can be removed household to household, essentially boiling down to the same thing.

But that's not the point of the article, the point of the article is that everytime censorship is brought up in any way shape or form on this website, the majority of the replies to the thread or article are "RARGH why should my civil liberties be infringed just to protect some kids that I don't have because I'm an adult now, and that means that everything anyone does to protect young people is bad and wrong".

Videogame ratings, censorship, violent media being pulled off shelves. It all results in the same answer: Children are not my responsibility, why should the government make it so?

 

[M Rotter]

I did not hear about this. Based on what I'm reading here, this is a blocking sevice that can be used household by household? Unless I've grossly misunderstood I don't see the problem. They already have that service on television, my parents blocked certain channels. If you have kids it's something you might want. As long as it's not being forced upon people (and if that is what this is about then I have misunderstood) I don't see the problem at all. Yes, you should definately watch your kids when they're small but as they get older they just don't need supervising as much and really it would be a pain to have to watch them ALL the time. If you need to block porn sites so that your ten year old kid can do his homework without you hawking over his shoulder (which I would have found incredibly annoying as a kid) then why not?

It's actually a blanket block that can be removed household to household, essentially boiling down to the same thing.

But that's not the point of the article, the point of the article is that everytime censorship is brought up in any way shape or form on this website, the majority of the replies to the thread or article are "RARGH why should my civil liberties be infringed just to protect some kids that I don't have because I'm an adult now, and that means that everything anyone does to protect young people is bad and wrong".

Videogame ratings, censorship, violent media being pulled off shelves. It all results in the same answer: Children are not my responsibility, why should the government make it so?

i think its mostly an outcry from people who dont understand the way the internet or all this new-fangled technology works, so they run to the government to "investigate" and come up with a solution without actually having to research anything. I mean when our generation (where most of us get on the internet for extended periods of time and have at least played or know many people who play games) gets into office and become parents perhaps the political climate will change. Or maybe we'll get huffy about a new piece of technology and do the same thing.

i agree that the government shouldn't make it my responsibility but the answer to that is to cure all ignorance.