1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Cameron to announce block-by-default web filters

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 22 Jul 2013.

  1. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    EEeeewww :hehe: now im going to have to walk around with that image in my head all day :waah:
     
  2. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    13,932
    Likes Received:
    2,906
    I can beat that: some wag suggested this as the "so you're trying to watch porn, eh?" pop-up.

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,217
    Likes Received:
    1,660
    Just use your mental visualisation filter. :p

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

    LennyRhys Oink!

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    5,978
    Likes Received:
    468
    @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. :sigh:

    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.
     
  5. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,217
    Likes Received:
    1,660
    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.
     
  6. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    13,932
    Likes Received:
    2,906
    And yet we have absolutely no issue with Hollywood films depicting gruesome murders - and, yes, torture - for audiences' titillation. Despite it being "a horrific thing in reality" and society "opposing murder and torture, campaign against it, offer counselling for attempted murder victims and those left behind and also offer an immersive 'virtual murder/torture' experience for people who want to enjoy it legally, time and time again."

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to shoot prostitutes in the face in Grand Theft Auto IV then watch a Saw marathon on Blu-ray in glorious high-definition. Sorry, what were we talking about again?
     
  7. Shirty

    Shirty W*nker! Super Moderator

    Joined:
    18 Apr 1982
    Posts:
    12,446
    Likes Received:
    1,657
    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.
     
  8. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Oink!

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    5,978
    Likes Received:
    468
    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?
     
  9. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    13,932
    Likes Received:
    2,906
    I already did: the government has no business telling two (or, as you pointed out, more - or, hell, fewer) consenting adults what they can and can't pretend to do with or to each other. Note that I'm not talking about the people downloading the porn, here, I'm talking about the people in the porn. Sure, you can talk about the 'moral majority' - but what if the moral majority finds the thought of a man sticking his winkie up another man's uh-oh 'detestable?' Whoops, we just banned gay porn. Sorry, gays, the curious, and women with a certain kink. Better luck next time.

    The double-standard, by the way, is far from a red herring: like I said, a big chunk of the porn due to be made illegal under the revised law is significantly milder than the 2009 film Antichrist. Where is the line drawn? What if Antichrist had been released on the internet instead of in cinemas? What if the actors in porn were household names? Would we be banning things the other way around?
    Show me where I said that. If you want to debate, then you need to debate - not make up quotes that support your own suppositions. Otherwise, we end up with this: LennyRhys said "all porn is bad, and I love sticking my pee-pee stick in watermelons."
     
  10. Xir

    Xir Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    26 Apr 2006
    Posts:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    94
    Just happened in Russia.
    And it wasn't the "moral Majority" that decided it either...
     
  11. liratheal

    liratheal Sharing is Caring

    Joined:
    20 Nov 2005
    Posts:
    11,874
    Likes Received:
    1,349
    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.
     
  12. impar

    impar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    24 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    41
    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.
     
  13. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,217
    Likes Received:
    1,660
    Coming from the guy who de facto argues for absolute standards. :p
     
  14. GeorgeStorm

    GeorgeStorm Aggressive PC Builder

    Joined:
    16 Dec 2008
    Posts:
    6,597
    Likes Received:
    383
    Something a friend just posted on a thread containing a couple of posts about this:

     
  15. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Oink!

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    5,978
    Likes Received:
    468
    @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. :cooldude:
     
  16. CrazyJoe

    CrazyJoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    1,412
    Likes Received:
    119
    Just checked my phone, no blocks and I've never opted in, or I don't remember doing so :worried:.
     
  17. GeorgeStorm

    GeorgeStorm Aggressive PC Builder

    Joined:
    16 Dec 2008
    Posts:
    6,597
    Likes Received:
    383
    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.
     
  18. liratheal

    liratheal Sharing is Caring

    Joined:
    20 Nov 2005
    Posts:
    11,874
    Likes Received:
    1,349
    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.
     
  19. CrazyJoe

    CrazyJoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    1,412
    Likes Received:
    119
    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.
     
  20. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    13,932
    Likes Received:
    2,906
    No, as I clarified: I was speaking about the people in the porn, not the people watching the porn.
    Again, you've misunderstood me. However, that's an easy question to answer: our legal framework in the UK is well established, and has plenty of rules about what kind of porn can be filmed or disseminated in this country. Nothing with children in, for example. Nothing with animals. No snuff. Nothing that shows anybody being genuinely hurt. These are all examples of what a true anarchist may call 'censorship,' yet I am in complete favour of these laws.

    What I am not in favour of is the criminalisation of play. Let's say a man and a woman enjoy so-called 'rape-play.' They're married, if it makes any difference, and love each other very much. However, it's their kink that, every now and again, one takes on the role of a submissive 'victim' while the other adopts the opposite role of a dominant 'attacker.' Not my taste, for sure, but they both enjoy it, they both get off on it, and they take all the usual precautions with explicit consent and safewords.

    I'm sure you'd agree that it would be remiss of the government to arrest them and cart them off to jail, right? Even if you, personally, like myself, find the thought of such bedroom activities distasteful.

    Now, what if they decide to set up a camera in the corner of the room? Same activity, same people, same consent - but now they're guilty of possession of what has suddenly become 'extreme pornography.' If that gets out, however it may, they can expect a jail sentence and to be forced to sign the Sex Offenders' Register for the rest of their lives. They don't even have to film themselves after the new law comes into effect: if they've got a long-forgotten VHS under their bed, and it should come to the attention of the police, they're in trouble.

    Unlikely? Sure. Unheard-of? Absolutely not. Remember how Gary Glitter's proclivities for children - which is, rightly, illegal - were found out? It happens.
     

Share This Page