Petra
Cult Mother and Simpering Cunt
If Canada goes, the US will be right behind. I can almost bet all the right wing nutjobs are sitting there rubbing their sweaty little palms together, hardly waiting to implement this.
Are there any british people on this forum?
- Thread starter raimmi
- Start date
If Canada goes, the US will be right behind. I can almost bet all the right wing nutjobs are sitting there rubbing their sweaty little palms together, hardly waiting to implement this.
They're actually more likely rubbing their sweaty little dongs as fast and hard as they can, so they can see as much porn as possible before they decide they have to shut it down to keep up appearances.
Oh sorry Andi, this is way beyond opt in. Have a look at ATVOD, to see what is happening in the UK. Webmasters must prove you are 18 before you see any 18+ video. You prove it by using a CC . Fancy moving to the uk?
It will be interesting to see how everyone complies with this.
What will FO and all the other free sites do to comply?
Miss Hybrid
I wonder what percentage of all bandwidth is porn? I am sure a 720 5mb/s video is a lot more demanding than the BBC home page in terms of bandwidth.
Miss Hybrid
Ps
Mine is about 100% minus a tiny bit.
Miss Hybrid
Ps
Mine is about 100% minus a tiny bit.
Ace Boobtoucher
Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
Nope. No fogbacks here. We're all straight. It's in the bylaws.
I can see it already. We already have right wing nutjobs (such as Rick Santorum) who support an all-out ban on pornography, so I could see this becoming a debate in the next 5 years.
I don't really understand what all this porn thing is about. Having said that I am only 6.
HehehehehehehehehehahaHyena
Closed Account
ASL? What do you look like? What are you wearing?
My Spiderman outfit. As if you had to ask.
I believe I'll start dressing like this.
It's been discussed but the ISPs have pretty much told the government not to bother as it'll be too hard to implement and instead told them that parents should install filters in place themselves and proposed running an education campaign on that instead. ISPs here have said they have no problem blocking child porn sites but blocking legal porn sites starts becoming a slippery slope as they're not illegal and I honestly don't see this passing here.
I'm British and I just tried to post this in separate thread:
But thread posting is moderated for new members so I'm not sure if my thread will get posted and when.
But thread posting is moderated for new members so I'm not sure if my thread will get posted and when.
bobjustbob
Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
May not rep.
You are only touching on what is going on here. Search a little deeper and you will see that sites such as FO will have to display no +18 content unless they have proved the viewer is over 18. This is way beyond the opt in debate.
Cameron is a chameleon and always has been. This isn't even about pornography, which is a convenient red herring because it's a socially contentious issue that's sure to distract most shallow-thinking people from the real implications of this legislation. The implication here being mass censorship of the Internet (and perhaps eventually every other form of media). Shame on this government for using children as an excuse to bring about Chinese-style mass censorship for the benefit of the political and economic powers that be. Shame on their cynicism. However, this is a natural and very logical conclusion in a syllogism which has as its premise pervasive welfare-statism. Nanny Cameron to the rescue, a politician (no less) who believes himself to be the arbiter of morality in battle against "the darkest corners of the internet", armed with 'will someone think of the children' legislation. Of course, millions in England and Wales will agree with this excess (especially parents) because they would rather the government take the initiative in raising their children than they themselves.
Just look at these enlightened gems of supposèd thought from other likeminded Puritans:
and:
And meanwhile, this government has cut funding to the very-much-needed Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, whose erstwhile head Jimmy Gamble essentially said as much: that no one is attacking the root cause of the illegal pornography problem, which is those producing it. Placing restrictions on online pornography (with the abuse of that old trope 'we must stamp out child pornography', because this is what the real problem is, after all) is likely only the first step in what may perhaps be a series of systematic repressions of freedoms. Nanny Cameron will have you convinced that in the end freedom, after all, is slavery, and that nanny knows best!
Just look at these enlightened gems of supposèd thought from other likeminded Puritans:
and:
And meanwhile, this government has cut funding to the very-much-needed Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, whose erstwhile head Jimmy Gamble essentially said as much: that no one is attacking the root cause of the illegal pornography problem, which is those producing it. Placing restrictions on online pornography (with the abuse of that old trope 'we must stamp out child pornography', because this is what the real problem is, after all) is likely only the first step in what may perhaps be a series of systematic repressions of freedoms. Nanny Cameron will have you convinced that in the end freedom, after all, is slavery, and that nanny knows best!
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
This is one issue where the left and the right tend to work together in the U.S. The far left feminazis and the far right Evangelicals can hold hands and claim that they're just trying to protect us from temptation and other bad stuff. When Reagan was President, remember that Ed Meese, Jerry Falwell and Gloria Steinem were all joined at the hip on the issue of porn. And with feminist extremists having a heavy presence in the Obama administration, I wouldn't expect him to side with any position that upsets the far left apple cart. Petra probably knows better than I do that any sort of extreme maledom/female sub porn will get the eye of the U.S. Justice Dept. and maybe Interpol, while identical (in theme and/or harshness) femdom/male sub or gay BDSM porn won't even get a glance. It was no different in the late 80's than it is now in that respect. It's just a question of whether it's a leftie or a rightie (or both) stinking up the room with hypocrisy and double standards.
"Well, Andrea Dworkin and I — she’s my colleague –define pornography as the sexually — a practice of sex inequality, and defined as the sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures and words that also includes a list of other very specific activities. In other words, it’s defined in terms of what it actually does. It subordinates women as well as being a sexually explicit medium. There are other media that subordinate women but are not sexually explicit, and therefore don’t have the same effects."
- by Catharine MacKinnon, author of "Obama Is the Way Forward for Women", radical feminist, prominent Obama supporter and anti-porn crusader.
If you look carefully at what this hypocritical feminazi is saying, sexually explicit images of a woman dominating a man or a man dominating another man would not be defined as "pornography" by her (or Andrea Dworkin's rotting corpse).
Left-wing people who have described all male/female sexual relations as "violent by nature" and those who agree with that belief, to me aren't any better or more trustworthy than the flakey, right-wing whack jobs, who believe that the earth is 10,000 years old and Noah guided two dinosaurs onto his arc.
Similar threads
- Sticky
