• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

Status
Not open for further replies.
17,600
Posts
19
Years
  • Age 31
  • Seen Jan 1, 2024
Every household in Britain connected to the internet will be obliged to declare whether they want to maintain access to online pornography, David Cameron will announce on Monday.

In the most dramatic step by the government to crack down on the "corroding" influence of pornography on childhood, the prime minister will say that all internet users will be contacted by their service providers and given an "unavoidable choice" on whether to use filters.

The changes will be introduced by the end of next year. As a first step, customers who set up new broadband accounts or switch providers would have to actively disable the filters by the end of this year.

The moves will be announced by the prime minister in a speech to the NSPCC in which he will unveil a series of measures to reduce access to pornography with a particular focus on illegal child pornography. He will say:

• The possession of "extreme pornography", which includes scenes of simulated rape, is to be outlawed.

• The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) is to draw up a blacklist of "abhorrent" internet search terms to identify and prevent paedophiles searching for illegal material.

• All police forces will work with a single secure database of illegal images of children to help "close the net on paedophiles".

In a separate move, Twitter is to introduce a tagging system to prevent such images being posted on its service. There are now millions of pictures posted among the 2bn tweets every five days. The intention is to introduce the system, which uses a Microsoft-developed industry standard called PhotoDNA, this year if possible.

The prime minister's speech is designed to answer critics who accuse him of talking tough but failing to take action. In the most significant step he will outline detailed plans to limit access to pornography.

The Daily Mail, which has been running a campaign to crack down on child pornography, reported that the prime minister will say: "By the end of this year, when someone sets up a new broadband account the settings to install family-friendly filters will be automatically selected. If you just click 'next' or 'enter', then the filters are automatically on.

"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. 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.

"Once those filters are installed, it should not be the case that technically literate children can just flick the filters off at the click of a mouse without anyone knowing. So we have agreed with industry that those filters can only be changed by the account holder, who has to be an adult. So an adult has to be engaged in the decisions."

The prime minister will also announce that possession of "extreme pornography", which includes scenes of simulated rape, will be outlawed by the government. It is illegal to publish such pornography and illegal to possess it in Scotland but not in England and Wales.

Cameron will say: "There are certain types of pornography that can only be described as 'extreme' … that is violent, and that depicts simulated rape. These images normalise sexual violence against women – and they are quite simply poisonous to the young people who see them."

The Rape Crisis group welcomed the announcement by the prime minister, who will also say that the government is to legislate to ensure that videos streamed online are subject to the same rules as those sold in shops. Fiona Elvines, of Rape Crisis South London, said: "We are heartened by the government's announcement that it will close the loophole in existing extreme pornography legislation.

"The government today has made a significant step forward in preventing rapists using rape pornography to legitimise and strategise their crimes and, more broadly, in challenging the eroticisation of violence against women and girls."

In some of his toughest language against the world's largest internet providers, the prime minister will warn them they face a duty to block "sick" people searching for illegal sites online. "I have a very clear message for Google, Bing, Yahoo and the rest. You have a duty to act on this – and it is a moral duty. If there are technical obstacles to acting on [search engines], don't just stand by and say nothing can be done; use your great brains to help overcome them.

"You're the people who have worked out how to map almost every inch of the Earth from space; who have developed algorithms that make sense of vast quantities of information. Set your greatest brains to work on this. You are not separate from our society, you are part of our society, and you must play a responsible role in it."

The move by Twitter to introduce a new tagging system, revealed exclusively to the Guardian, has come independently of UK pressure.

Source

tumblr_mnhvjiryh81r5gvg1o1_400.gif


tumblr_m6nbhnjQic1qkfkbqo1_500.gif


VbOggQ6.gif
 

Belldandy

[color=teal][b]Ice-Type Fanatic[/b][/color]
3,979
Posts
10
Years
Cameron will say: "There are certain types of pornography that can only be described as 'extreme' … that is violent, and that depicts simulated rape. These images normalise sexual violence against women – and they are quite simply poisonous to the young people who see them."

Let's make this a D&D and say that I agree with this point lol No doubt that just like some people use GTA and CSI-like shows to elaborate and construct their crimes, so do paedophiles and rapists use violent media / pornography as gateways to "ideas" for real-life assaults. It might not reduce the amount of rape, but it may lead to people being less desensitized about violence against women / rape victims (women and men alike) because of it being normalized by media, esp. pornography.

3scjj8.jpg
 

droomph

weeb
4,285
Posts
12
Years
I…don't watch pornography?

Idk I've never been interested in lady bits (and I have the other one so……) so I don't really mind.

But for those who do, I think this is kinda rude, though "extreme pornography" should be reduced somewhat.

Though I think they should be done by other means rather than "no internet for you mister pædophile"
 
5,983
Posts
15
Years
I think torrenting websites will still host the material. Unless this is a perfect excuse to shut down Piratebay and such.
 

Trev

[span="font-size: 8px; color: white;"][font="Monts
1,505
Posts
11
Years
  • Age 27
  • Seen Nov 15, 2023
I highly doubt this is gonna be carried out correctly. I mean, I understand that the motives are to prevent child porn/rape idolization, which I support the blocking of because that stuff is disgusting and terrible, but there's no way this is gonna work if they block everything. There's an old saying that if something changes, people will evolve to get around it. Everyone's gonna find some way to get around this, one way or another. The sick, twisted people of the internet have their ways.

Everything would be easier if people just used their imagination and mentally did it with whoever they found attractive instead of posting their fantasies all over the internet. There are some screwed-up individuals in this world *shakes head*
 
Last edited:
10,078
Posts
15
Years
  • Age 32
  • UK
  • Seen Oct 17, 2023
Our government tend to declare things rashly, or in some cases the media blow things out of proportion and exaggerate claims.

I doubt this will actually happen, or would be an 'opt in' idea rather than opt out. Saying that, my phone-network provider actively blocks anything it sees as rude (including some PC threads :S). So maybe we're not that far away from a pornless world.
 

Nihilego

[color=#95b4d4]ユービーゼロイチ パラサイト[/color]
8,875
Posts
12
Years
I'd put money on this never happening. Like, quite a bit. I think it's been in the news three times already and never happened?

Our government is super lazy about doing things it actually says it's gonna do. If something happens, they sure as hell didn't warn you about it beforehand. The most I can imagine happening is there just being some anti-porn parental control setting on routers or something. If you guys all lived in Britain, you'd just roll your eyes at this story and move on pretty quickly. d:
 

New Eden

Ascension to heaven
406
Posts
10
Years
Eh, affected people will probably find a loophole that allows them to keep on going pretty quick. No matter how bad it is/what it may take.
 
10,769
Posts
14
Years
Surely it's a better idea to do this the other way around and ask people if they want to voluntarily opt-in for a program that censors what they can access instead of censoring all except those who say they don't want to be censored.

And, really, what will happen if you've got the censoring in place and you want to read up on breast cancer? Oops, can't do that since you can't look at breasts.

I'm all for stopping rapists, but I think time and money would be better spent doing that by giving it to police and other law enforcement types.
 
12,201
Posts
17
Years
StarTrekFacePalm.gif


David Cameron everyone! Let's give it up for him. WOOOOO! *CLAP CLAP*

I am joking, this guy is such a douche. He has helped further ruin our country. This is one of the most stupid things I have ever heard in my entire life. I heard it this morning on the radio and I just shook my head. We have millions out of work, house prices plummeting, petrol and oil prices sky rocketing and he is cracking down on porn. Just wonderful.

It is a smoke screen for everything else that is going on that they can't control; it is pretty obvious it is. They say that the reasoning behind it is 'it is ruining children'... well, their lives are going to be ruined by the mess your government has created for them, so you aren't exactly making their world a better place to live in, just because they can't see no more boobies on the internet.

I am done with this government.​
 

François2

#FutureSun&MoonMod
396
Posts
11
Years
Surely it's a better idea to do this the other way around and ask people if they want to voluntarily opt-in for a program that censors what they can access instead of censoring all except those who say they don't want to be censored.

Yes and no. While opt-in seems like a better (not to mention less awkward) plan at first glance, if this has been proposed primarily to restrict the access kids have to pornography, then opt-out is better, solely because it means parents have to actively do something to allow their children to get adult content (unless that child is clever with the internet). The proposal seems to me to largely exist because parents can't be trusted to actively censor what their kids see, so while calling up to say you don't want censorship is a bother, I still think this is more effective than allowing parents to choose censorship (which you know, they can kinda do already anyway). It's debatable as to whether or not children accessing pornography is a bad thing, but the government obviously think so, and if you're of that belief then this plan is fairly solid.

It may seem like a move that cuts down on freedom of media and so on, but at the end of the day opting out is all you have to do (unless you want to access extreme stuff), so I'm not going to start yelling "ALL HAIL AMERICA" (much as the Lana gif is appreciated) just yet.
 
3,655
Posts
16
Years
StarTrekFacePalm.gif


David Cameron everyone! Let's give it up for him. WOOOOO! *CLAP CLAP*

I am joking, this guy is such a douche. He has helped further ruin our country. This is one of the most stupid things I have ever heard in my entire life. I heard it this morning on the radio and I just shook my head. We have millions out of work, house prices plummeting, petrol and oil prices sky rocketing and he is cracking down on porn. Just wonderful.

It is a smoke screen for everything else that is going on that they can't control; it is pretty obvious it is. They say that the reasoning behind it is 'it is ruining children'... well, their lives are going to be ruined by the mess your government has created for them, so you aren't exactly making their world a better place to live in, just because they can't see no more boobies on the internet.

I am done with this government.​

I think it's time I take over the United Kingdom y/y?

Attempting to eliminate pornography could very well cause more harm than help. I'm sure most guys will understand that sometimes when you're feeling really frustrated and angry, it just REALLY helps to whip out le penis and give it a good thrashing. If pornography is removed then a lot of males may be unable to fulfil their innate desires and therefore succumb to the torrent of rage within and end up destroying everything. Furthermore there may very well be people out there who crave 'violent' sex scenes but by watching it they receive fulfillment and may have less of a desire to actually go out and rape someone instead.
 
10,769
Posts
14
Years
Yes and no. While opt-in seems like a better (not to mention less awkward) plan at first glance, if this has been proposed primarily to restrict the access kids have to pornography, then opt-out is better, solely because it means parents have to actively do something to allow their children to get adult content (unless that child is clever with the internet). The proposal seems to me to largely exist because parents can't be trusted to actively censor what their kids see, so while calling up to say you don't want censorship is a bother, I still think this is more effective than allowing parents to choose censorship (which you know, they can kinda do already anyway). It's debatable as to whether or not children accessing pornography is a bad thing, but the government obviously think so, and if you're of that belief then this plan is fairly solid.

It may seem like a move that cuts down on freedom of media and so on, but at the end of the day opting out is all you have to do (unless you want to access extreme stuff), so I'm not going to start yelling "ALL HAIL AMERICA" (much as the Lana gif is appreciated) just yet.

Personally, I'm not of the opinion that porn necessarily harms children (any more than, say, television or whatever - the devil is in the details) but either an opt-in or an opt-out plan has problems even if you feel porn is bad. If you don't like it you'll want it censored except for the people who will want it, but those people may accidentally get censored against their desires. And if you do want it, you might accidentally get things you don't consider porn or harmful censored along with the stuff you don't want.

Wouldn't it be better to say "Hey, here is this thing, this censoring thing we can do for you. It's not perfect, but if you're okay with that then here you go." If something isn't to your liking then you can at least say that you went in knowing it wasn't perfect. That seems better than forcing it on people, problems and all.
 

droomph

weeb
4,285
Posts
12
Years
let's all just move to Sweden and enjoy something of a government that actually half-functions above the details.

because trust me, USA isn't much better on that than UK or pretty much any country except for maybe Somalia and the Congo and the ones without a government.

In fact, I think we should go back to the mafia-feudal days - sure, bad things happen, and they're pretty crazy, but at least they do something good and visible. Besides, it would actually give use to the "protection money" they so often "charge" now that "stable government" is in charge…


idk I just think this is stupid and the "war against porn" in general is kinda stupid, especially when we could spend that money and effort on education and stuff.
 

Gyardosamped

entering snake habitat
1,462
Posts
18
Years
This is a bit too extreme if you ask me. I understand banning pornographic material that portrays rape and or encourages sexual violence, but banning pornography as a whole? I don't even think that's possible. It'd probably be a better idea, like others have mentioned, to have people voluntarily opt in or out if they'd like to, but the British government is creating a sort of false dichotomy here, forcing people to have to choose between the two options with no exceptions. I don't understand the government's argument stating that pornography has an influence on childhood. I hope they know pornography isn't just found on porn sites, but rather all over the Internet (ads, random websites, etc.).. and, like Scarf reiterated, I don't see how pornography has more of an effect on people than say television, their friends, school, relationships, etc.. Just to think that an entire government wants to censor porn from millions of people.. Seems almost impossible, especially with all of this bypassing technology people are free to use. Let's just say there are more important issues in the world that need some discussing. This issue of porn is irrelevant at this point, and given how it is so widely available online, this matter really has no remedy anyways.

Doesn't seem like this is gonna happen, but we'll have to wait and see.
 
Last edited:

Belldandy

[color=teal][b]Ice-Type Fanatic[/b][/color]
3,979
Posts
10
Years
I'm sure most guys will understand that sometimes when you're feeling really frustrated and angry, it just REALLY helps to whip out le penis and give it a good thrashing. If pornography is removed then a lot of males may be unable to fulfil their innate desires and therefore succumb to the torrent of rage within and end up destroying everything.

Yeah, but you can still do it without it being violent porn. It also doesn't say that nudey mags are outlawed or erotic shops are banned, so you could still in theory pick up some spreads at the corner store or pleasure store in your neighbourhood.

And you make men sound like natural monsters lol If you really wanna beat off, you'll just do it, magazine or nothing. It's almost as sick and demented as this guy on POF telling me that, "He's a man" so one-night stands are "acceptable." It's a different sex, not a different species, and women like sex as much as any guy and you won't see 'em out killing people because they come home, stressed from work and kids or whatever, and instead of there being their favourite pseudo-Twilight porn on TV there's an infomercial. If you go all psycho because you refuse to beat off to anything but a video or image of a woman (or man) being chained up and raped by one or many dudes, then perhaps a psychologist is in order.

Noting that "you" doesn't mean "you" as in Drakow. It means "you" as in "the audience" or a general term for whoever it may apply to.

Just so that's clear.
 
25,439
Posts
11
Years
So... to reduce sex crimes they are going to crack down on porn?
I'm pretty sure I saw that given as a reason.
What?

How is creating more sexually frustrated men and women going to act as a preventative, if anything it is just going to make these things more common.



Bad for children? I couldn't disagree more. If a young person is actively seeking out pornography because they enjoy it I think it quite healthy to be honest. Exploring your sexuality is a huge part of growing up.

I'm all for cracking down on kiddie porn but I can't help but think even the (staged) more violent and extreme stuff should be left uncensored. Better people who are into that sort of thing watch it than try it out themselves and hurt people.

The money that would be spent on this would be far better being spent on something like education - hell how about improving sex ed, since pretty much every country everywhere does terribly in that subject area. Honestly, as has been said, not only is this an inherently stupid idea anyway it's also just a smokescreen to hide the real problems facing the country.
 
5,983
Posts
15
Years
I can agree very much with Drakow's perspective. Society often needs safety valve institutions to channel its rage and discontent, and removing easily accessible pornography can add a chilling effect to that. Of course, somebody should do the research or propose a model estimating how many more riots or crimes would occur should pornography be banned ^^ <- off-topic, but I have a bit of an academic interest in this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top