News Cameron to announce block-by-default web filters

EEeeewww now im going to have to walk around with that image in my head all day

 

Just use your mental visualisation filter.

EDIT: gee, thanks, Gareth. Now I have to switch on mine as well... Fifty Shades of Dave...

 

@Gareth, the government absolutely should be allowed to determine what is available to two (or more) consenting adults in their own private space, based on common decency and consistency with state law. If rape is a horrific thing in reality, why should people be permitted to use accurate depictions of rape for sexual gratification? To me it's a glaring inconsistency with the law: we oppose rape, campaign against it, offer counselling for rape victims... and also offer an immersive "virtual rape" experience for people who want to enjoy it legally, time and time again.

Furthermore, 24 wasn't produced with the express purpose of sexual gratification, nor does sexual intercourse take place in the rape scene (it's not even depicted). It may be violent and offensive to some, but it's not Baise Moi, so it's not a valid comparison.

@ Xir, I couldn't give two sh*ts if my Newsagent had that info. Your point?

And who should decide what "extreme" is? Well, it seems that the legal system already has working definitions, seeing that rape, child abuse, bestiality etc. are all illegal, and they are all extreme forms of pornography.

 

I think we have a pretty dim view on shooting people as well. But we have FPS games. We have physical violence in movies and TV. All done in the best possible taste, of course.

No, but it was produces with the express purpose of violence gratification (yes, really).

You would if you were buying porn from him.

Yup, but now it is going to be the government who decides. Note how the CPS is not involved in this political debate.

 

Make sure you only shoot the prostitute in the face after you've given her your money and had your fun. You can pick the money up again then. BJ cost = 1 bullet.

 

I never once said that there are no double standards, but let's keep this thread on topic.

The proposed ban concerns violent material of an extreme nature (rape, abuse) which is produced with the express purpose of sexual gratification, and I wholly agree with the ban on the basis that it is consistent with the law and (hopefully) the general attitude to rape in our country: it is detestable.

Defend simulated violent rape for sexual gratification on its own merits, if you can. Stop with the red herrings.

So far, Gareth has said "because people should be free to watch what they want." OK - why?

 

Just happened in Russia.
And it wasn't the "moral Majority" that decided it either...

 

I'm becoming rapidly more disenfranchised with this country.

I can see how people become radicalised on a topic close to them - Especially when it's something that's being rushed, won't work, and will undoubtedly be used to filter legitimate things for their* own agenda.

*Whoever happens to be in power.

 

Greetings!

Politicians want to control what people do\see\think\feel, nothing new here.
Its a test on UK society to see if it can oppose a policy that wants to take the filter one more notch up.

 

Coming from the guy who de facto argues for absolute standards.

 

Something a friend just posted on a thread containing a couple of posts about this:

 

@Gareth, OK I apologise for misquoting you. Your first objection was that the government "should have no say over what two consenting adults get up to in the bedroom...", which implies that people therefore should be free to choose what they watch for thrills, no matter how objectionable it is to the "moral majority." Again - why? And why does the government have no business telling people what kind of porn they are permitted to film or disseminate? Is that not part of the government's role - to protect as well as to serve?

@Nexxo, very funny.

 

Just checked my phone, no blocks and I've never opted in, or I don't remember doing so .

 

It definitely depends, I know Virgin have some kind of system in place, not sure about other providers, as I said, it wasn't me who asked it but it was an interesting question.

I'm presuming the answer is because it's the company's choice rather than the government's.

 

I think Gareth's point about what happens in the bedroom stays between the two parties involved isn't so much about "It's okay to rape someone, if it's in private!" more that it's not okay for someone to dictate based on their moral objections what you can do in the bedroom if both you and your partner are willing.

For example. I have an exit only policy on bums. It's not for me to say that you, or anyone else, can't put your wang in someone elses bum if they're willing to let you.

 

Of course, all this aside, this won't actually change anything. People wanting consensual violent porn will still watch it, they'll just have to use the darker side of the net where they will also stumble across real rape videos and other really nasty stuff.