[IMG]http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/19917467/2/stock-photo-19917467-blond-9-year-old-boy-makes-interesting-discovery-on-laptop.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE][B]MPs have warned it's too easy for children to watch online pornography. But could the internet be regulated to protect children? And should it?[/B]
[U]Internet freedom campaigner Jim Killock, Open Rights Group[/U]
[IMG]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/59850000/jpg/_59850012_jimkillock.jpg[/IMG]
[B]Default filtering is a form of censorship[/B], is not simple and will not work technically. It's also a strange argument for the Conservatives to argue - that the state knows better.
If ISPs and the state decide what children can see, by default - automatically generated lists based on key words - an eight-year-old would probably still be able to find highly unsuitable, upsetting non-adult material, perhaps sites slagging off racial prejudice, perhaps sexist sites, perhaps sites slagging off religion.
[...]
[B]So the nanny state approach will make parents feel safer, will make them think that the problem is taken care of, but default blocking is actually deeply irresponsible because it will fail to protect the most vulnerable children.[/B]
[U]Andrea Leadsom MP[/U]
[IMG]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/59850000/jpg/_59850417_andrea304.jpg[/IMG]
[B]It's very important that something drastic is done to change the ability of parents to control how much pornography children can access[/B]. At the moment, children are often the most savvy person in a household in terms of IT, and there are multiple points of access to the internet in a household, so even if parents are extremely capable they struggle to always be on top of it.
It's not just pornography that is an issue, it's self-harm, anorexia, bomb making sites, suicide sites.
Society has always held the view that it has been a right of parents to protect their children - to decide when and what they eat, when they go to bed etc. But with this "wild west" that has developed, parents are neither capable nor have the time to ensure they can. With internet enabled TVs coming, they will be completely sunk.
Things can be changed in one of two ways. At ISP level, they have the ability to block sites. They should take the initiative, and when adults sign up they should offer a parental filter. There should be a range of choices - from blocking pornography or self-harm, or bomb-making websites. Adults sign up and pay the bills so they should have the ability to change it at their own behest. They could introduce different passports for different family members as well.
[U]Johnny Anglais, porn performer and former teacher[/U]
[B]Viewing the act of sex is not damaging, it's very normal and might even be helpful for young people[/B]. Yes, there are certain types of pornography like rape that are wrong but the principle of seeing people having sex is not damaging.
The problem is in Britain we see sex as something we can't talk about and if we do it's in a comedic, immature way.
And yet after eating, drinking and oxygen sexual gratification is one of our essential needs. The Dutch have far less teen pregnancy because parents talk to their children about sex. So the problem is not porn, it's our maturity about how we deal with sex.
[U]Feminist activist and writer Julie Bindel[/U]
People need to recognise that [B]pornography is a depiction of horrific sexual violence[/B], where real women are hurt. It is not just pictures. If we didn't have misogyny, we wouldn't have these depictions of women being hurt.
Contradictory to what pro-porn libertarians say about the feminist position on this, it does not say a man reads porn and goes out to rape women - it has never sought to prove cause and effect. It is about misogyny, and creating an environment in which it becomes a normalised part of popular culture, that is objectionable - that people expect women to engage in humiliation and painful acts.
Pornography online goes far beyond what it was like 10 years ago, it gives people anonymity and they don't need permission to be on a shelf.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17826515[/url]
Read the full article, it is very interesting
no
Nein
Is that a challenge?
Of course not.
adults: Kids can't handle the truth!
kids: At this point we have probably seen more than you. And we are still functioning.
I tried and it didn't work out.
[QUOTE]Feminist activist and writer Julie Bindel
People need to recognise that pornography is a depiction of horrific sexual violence, where real women are hurt. It is not just pictures. If we didn't have misogyny, we wouldn't have these depictions of women being hurt.[/QUOTE]
Wow, not a real feminist.
Oh god the stock image.
[IMG]http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/19917467/2/stock-photo-19917467-blond-9-year-old-boy-makes-interesting-discovery-on-laptop.jpg[/IMG]
I think he found the 'would you fap to this?' page.
Shit....:suicide:
Julie Bindel is dumb.
Nyet
It is the parent's job to control what their children do online. NOBODY ELSES!
if a kid wants to look at porn, he's going to look at porn whether you try to make it more difficult or not.
Why does it seem like the entire previous generation of people think that children are their possessions, rather than actual people?
That idea really fucks things up for a lot of kids.
Non
[QUOTE=Vasili;35722871]if a kid wants to look at porn, he's going to look at porn whether you try to make it more difficult or not.[/QUOTE]
Or he'll just imagine it instead, you just can't win.
non
*dammit*
[QUOTE=danielplazzy;35722882]Why does it seem like the entire previous generation of people think that children are their possessions, rather than actual people?
That idea really fucks things up for a lot of kids.[/QUOTE]
Probably because how fucking stupid kids/parents are nowadays.
Don't deprive horny teens from seeing zoobies. You're just going to increase rape or teen pregnancy or something idk. And don't act like women can't enjoy sex and mutually profit from it.
yes lets remove one of the last outlets left for young people to explore their sexuality safely and privately
sexual repression solves everything!
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;35722858]Julie Bindel is dumb.[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Bindel#Transsexualism_and_transgenderism[/URL]
[quote]Bindel's writings on gender reassignment surgery, transsexualism and transgender issues have upset people in transsexual and transgender communities, particularly the 2004 piece that cast transsexual people as ungenuinely transitioning while ridiculing their experiences.[43]
Bindel's first published article on transsexualism was a December 2003 Sunday Telegraph Magazine report; it was the first example of coverage of a narrative of 'transsexual regret' in the UK media. Bindel interviewed 'Claudia', a post-operative transsexual, who regretted her decision to have surgery and felt that the psychiatrist involved did not take sufficient care in reaching a diagnosis. Bindel questioned the medical approach in the article.[44]
A month later a piece, "Gender Benders, beware" was printed in The Guardian concerning her anger about a rape crisis centre's dispute with a transsexual rape counselor; the article also expressed her views about transsexuals and transsexualism.[43] Many considered the language used to be offensive and demeaning. The Guardian received more than two hundred letters of complaint from transsexual people, doctors, therapists, academics and others. Transgender activist group Press for Change cite this article as an example of 'discriminatory writing' about transsexual people in the press.[45] Complaints focussed on the title, "Gender benders, beware", the cartoon[46] accompanying the piece,[47] and the disparaging tone, such as "[B]Think about a world inhabited just by transsexuals. It would look like the set of Grease[/B]" and [B]"I don't have a problem with men disposing of their genitals, but it does not make them women, in the same way that shoving a bit of vacuum hose down your 501s [jeans] does not make you a man."[/B][43][/quote]
Julie Bindel is a transphobic idiot
that stock photo jesus christ what an ugly child.
No and stop asking.
No
Here's another idea - Could people in general be stopped from listening to dipshit control freaks like these bozos?
Why do you keep finding these stock images of children
I think Bindel watches a bit too much torture porn.
The sooner the government stops trying to censor our Internet away, the better.
It's weird how last generation stocked porn mags under their bed but still won't allow their children to watch porn. My dad allowed it and was quite cool with it. Though when my aunt came over she was all like "nonono bad!"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
