111–120 of 369 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you think his intention is, to do the right thing? He knows what he's doing and there's no reason to expect him to acknowledge the "side-effects" of an evil regulation. And the reporter is not responsible for realizing this; you are.
So the reporter has no responsibility to uphold journalistic ideals? Good to know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The land which the politicians don't want. They're not ignorant to the outcome here - it's exactly what they want and has been planned that way. This is a serious fucking power grab.
I think this is an attempt to please the party base.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have kids?
I wonder where my kid is supposed to get his porn once he get's older. Did anybody think of that?
In the snow! Both ways!
Darn kids these days have it easy... (grumble grumble)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And on top of this, they want to create a database of all of child porn. ( What could possibly go wrong?)
We already have that in the UK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_sys...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hilarious. In which fantasy land is every outcome of a law predictable before it gets issued.
The land which the politicians don't want. They're not ignorant to the outcome here - it's exactly what they want and has been planned that way. This is a serious fucking power grab.
> This is a serious fucking power grab.
* They realize it could be used for bad in the future, but they have delusions of, "bad things couldn't happen here." [ Sort of like the idea in America that, "Fascism could never happen here." ]
* They are more comfortable with creating said power because they are currently in control of it, and are short-sighted enough to not realize that this won't always be the case (i.e. the 'government' will control it, but they aren't guaranteed to be a part of the government).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they have taken a good step in the right direction. Kids are exposed to too much crap these days. Kids growing up with involved parents and teachers turn out alright, but there are a whole lot of kids who aren't that lucky.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
> Do you have kids?
Meh. I doubt the Tories have a clean house in this regard. Every time some politician or other 'moral leader' starts pontificating about moral panic, I get suspicious that they're just trying to ban their vice. Clearly if they're so vocally opposed to it, they mustn't be partaking, right? Glenn Loury and cocaine. Mark Foley and the exploitation of children. Eliot Spitzer and prostitution. John Ensign and 'family valu…
Spitzer was a dem who became a target of banks and credit institutions afraid of his cracking down on their anti-consumer business practices. He was Elizabeth Warren before Elizabeth Warren, and deserves more respect than to be pigeonholed as a politician with his pigeon in a hole. From Wikipedia: "Spitzer used this authority in his civil actions against corporations and criminal prosecutions against their officers."…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even a opt-in filter on an infrastructure level would imply DPI, and therefore would enable the ability for traffic analysis. And besides it creates a national 'watches porn' list.
In a free market economy, you could provide filtering as a service to those who want it. You get to use whatever setup of proxies and packet sniffers you please, so as long as they don't overstep the users mandate. Routing your other customers past these intermediaries would be a good idea, you can provide each customer the service they want.
And serious they might be indeed, considering they need some cheap win after years of economic mismanagement. The economy keeps stalling and the 2015 General Election is getting closer; considering bureaucratic timescales, if you want anything to actually be done by then, you need to start now.
Sigh. I guess it'll be a win for Swedish VPN providers.
> Every household in Britain connected to the internet will be obliged to declare whether they want to maintain access to online pornography These declarations will only be used to shame public figures once the list is leaked. > The possession of "extreme pornography", which includes scenes of simulated rape, is to be outlawed. Video footage of two consenting adults, acting out a scene, will be illegal to own. With t…
> > The possession of "extreme pornography", which includes scenes of simulated rape, is to be outlawed. > Video footage of two consenting adults, acting out a scene, will be illegal to own. With this on the books, it seems a short hop to outlaw videos of simulated murder. Even without such an extension, aren't there plenty of Hollywood movies which include "scenes of simulated rape"?
There are tricky cases of defensible portrayals of sex involving children, e.g. Schlöndorff's adaptation of The Tin Drum (which was banned in Canada as child pornography), and narratives that document the child sex industry, but they are rare by comparison. With artistically and morally defensible portrayals of rape, the range is huge. sspiff mentions A Clockwork Orange; even Jeffrey Archer (former senior Tory politician) wrote a novel with a rape scene. I also recall that when Virginia Bottomley (another former senior Tory politician) was asked to name her favourite film, she named Hitchcock's Rear Window, which is quite voyeuristic, and Hitchcock has filmed what I would class as morally indefensible rape scenes. The idea that moral guardians go about forbidding various classes of transgressive art forms that they themselves admit to enjoying is quite ironic.
For the sake of having some sort of a list: Bandit Queen, Deliverance, and Leaving Las Vegas all have hard-to-watch, defensible, and narratively necessary rape scenes. The victim in Bandit Queen I think was supposed to be prepubescent. And didn't Slumdog Millionaire have a child rape scene?