Most households in the UK will have pornography blocked by their internet provider unless they choose to receive it, David Cameron has announced.
Does he realize how
INEFFECTIVE this will be? It's like the whole blocking of piracy sites all over again. It won't stop anybody from actually using it. In this case all it will do is give lazy parents a happy thought blanket of not having to worry that little Jimmy took the entire box of tissues to his room, because their benevolent overseer government has blocked pornographic materials. All it will really do is keep parents out of the loop. The younger generations that have grown up with modern PCs are unilaterally more savvy than their parents or those of the older generation. These blocks will only be a blip on their radar if they really want content, and the belief that the content is being blocked will prevent parents from actually taking responsibility for trying to give their children a moral framework on which to present decisions. As usual when it comes to crack-pots like this guy, they seem ot view morality as a punitive restraint. a penalty that we are obliged to bear for being human. As such it's only natural that such unrealistic doofuses would endorse a standard informed by prohibitions backed by personal threats and psychological and legal sanctions.
In addition, the prime minister said possessing online pornography depicting rape would become illegal in England and Wales - in line with Scotland.
This one seems to be a bit of a slippery slope stemming from the obvious and reasonable illegality of other questionable materials, such as child pornography. However I think in this case it's a lot different. Child Pornography has huge moral and legal issues in that the subjects are never of legal age and cannot consent; additionally the very act of creating the material is child abuse in it's purest form. It's illegal and amoral and the only way a person could thing otherwise is if they themselves are immoral. *cough* Richard Stallman *cough* The difference is that in pornography depicting rape it is actors that are older and able to create and form their own decisions and who willingly take part in such recordings; making this illegal is only done in terms of the subjective moral framework of Cameron himself.
Mr Cameron warned in a speech that access to online pornography was "corroding childhood".
Does he have any peer-reviewed studies that quantify this corrosion? No, of course not. It's a blanket statement made to get the support of old people that are so out of touch with technology they hate everything about it and related to it by default.
Seven years ago David Cameron told a Google conference that politicians should encourage companies to change, not over-regulate them.
Isn't creating legislation on the issue forcing them to change? Also why does this scumbag think his morality is some form of objective truth?
But he hinted that if search engines like Google didn't agree to a blacklist of search terms, he would legislate.
Ahh. Basically: "Do what we say willingly or we will force you to do it." You know who else might say something like that? Rapists.
Back in his opposition days, Cameron made waves presenting himself as a man on the side of parents against firms that sold chocolates at checkouts and children's bikinis.
LOL is this guy REAL?
If he can mould a similar image in Downing St, as a PM doing battle with big business on behalf of fellow parents, he will be more than happy.
He'll never be happy until his own subjective moral code is the moral code everybody is forced to live by through legislation.
Mr Cameron also called for some "horrific" internet search terms to be "blacklisted", meaning they would automatically bring up no results on websites such as Google or Bing.
Thus the above mentions of this giving undue ease to parents. Kids KNOW how to workaround this. It's easy. It's simple. There is nothing hard about it. They are accessing TPB despite the government/ISP restrictions.
He told the BBC he expected a "row" with service providers who, he said in his speech, were "not doing enough to take responsibility" despite having a "moral duty" to do so.
I have no words for the idiocy of this statement.
Service providers provide a service. It is not their responsibility to ensure that the users of that service are subscribing to the moral framework of some arbitrary PM. if parents want to provide and teach their children a moral framework, they should be, you know, parenting. Not sitting around hoping their government will raise their kids for them- that's delegation. It's fundamentally the same as giving their kids a 2000 year old book and making them read it and try to make some form of moral compass from that, even though the rules laid out therein are prohibitions backed by personal threats and psychological sanctions.
He also warned he could have to "force action" by changing the law and that, if there were "technical obstacles", firms should use their "greatest brains" to overcome them.
No matter how much effort anybody puts into these blocks, pretty much any 12 year old will be able to workaround them using proxies. Congratulations Cameron you have won the "Self-righteous Prat of the year" award for doing absolutely nothing useful.
When it comes to stuff like this, I like to cite the
ONE 'commandment' that lies at the core of social altruism.
Don't be a *censored*.
Dave Cameron is defying this altruistic commandment by essentially forcing his own arbitrary moral framework from a position of self-righteousness and moral indignation on everybody, because in his view these things that he is legislating against are "wrong".
Well, here's the problem with that. Here's my massive issue with that.
That same moral indignation and self-righteousness in application of their own subjective moral ruleset through laws goes back through the years through all sorts of other social issues that we now accept as normal and cannot see any moral problem with. Mixed Race marriages were fought in most countries during the 40's through 60's By people preaching from their self-built moral pedestals about how it's "Immoral".
Before that, Abolition of Slavery in various developed nations were fought in many countries during around 1900. The people in favour of slavery stood atop their self-built moral pedestals and told us that it was "immoral" to allow these people to be free, how they "needed our protection and guidance" and thus they should remain slaves.
See a problem here? Neither of these are something we see today. Today any morally upstanding person should see slavery and matrimonial racism as morally repugnant.
It's fundamentally the same here. Some traditionalist kook who has more power than brains has unilaterally decided that
he knows what is right and in the interest of
protecting his subjects he is going to
force them to act a certain way through legislation.
