Internet porn - Opt in or opt out? (1 Viewer)

[Generator]

ABC Online: Beazley announces plan to block Internet porn


The Federal Opposition has outlined a plan to block Internet pornography reaching home computers.

Opposition Leader Kim Beazley says a Labor government would introduce laws requiring Internet service providers to offer a "clean feed" without pornographic and violent sites.

Mr Beazley says Australian parents do not want their children to be exposed to such material.

"Block it at the point of the provider as opposed to the point of the parent and if that particular household wants to opt into the pornographic sites then they make an active decision to do so," he said.

"Parents want their kids learning on the net, not exposed to pornography and violence.

"The reality is ... only about a third of the parents put some sort of blocker in relation to the sites on their home computers, it's too hard for most of them but if you did it at the level of the provider, probably very few people would opt in."

So rather than a parent taking responsibility for what their children look at when online, an ALP government would rather force adults to opt in? I do realise that many people may not be able to afford the software required to block internet pornography, that many may not be aware of it and/or that many would find the instructions to operate such software baffling, but doesn't that suggest that the ALP would be better off trying to develop a policy that takes effect at the users' end, or maybe just an educational policy regarding internet pornography?

I do appreciate the concern and the intention, but I think that this policy would be too restrictive for those rational and consenting adults who chose to view and pay for internet pornography.

Edit: Radio Interview - Protecting Kids From Internet Pornography.


Note to all - abuse this thread in anyway and you will be banned.

 

[mr_brightside]

I agree, thats definetly too restrictive.
How would an ISP block certain things? It may block out useful information.

And another thing, say your parents block porn because there is a child in the household but you are over 18. You would lose any access to porn.

Thats why (however expensive) its more beneficial for parents to take reponsibility and buy some blocking software.

 

[davin]

I'm with schroedinger 100%

especially considering how badly blockers tend to be....i remember that astronomy sites used to get filtered for the term "naked eye observing"
to do this would be about on par with, say, banning sites because they have cartoons that some might find offensive...which i believe led to blogspot getting banned in pakistan.

if parents don't want their kids finding porn, don't let them on the internet. or monitor them. if you can afford a computer, you can afford the software to prevent them from looking at what they shouldn't.

 

[Gavvvvvin]

those rational and consenting adults who chose to view and pay for internet pornography.

Rational adults dont look up internet porn, let alone pay for it.

 

[Iron]

Kim's clearly been stood over by the Porn Mag union.

I also think censorship is evil, but the extent and ease in which explicit material is availiable online is too much. It cheapens relationships/self respect etc. It, along with the rest of globalisation, has corrupted our civilization and led to community breakdown.

However, these things cant be avoided (esp activities in chatrooms - the hotbed for this kind of thing)

 

[davin]

that is giving porn way too much credit, imo

 

[Skater_bum]

the goverment is slowly restricting everything , starting on things we can all agree is a problem

 

[gerhard]

pretty lame, beazley.

 

[renton]

Its a pretty wild thing that someone can type the word "Lee", into a search engine and receive results for Lee Jeans, Ben Lee, Lee University, Lee-Valley Gardening Tools and Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee home movies, all on the same page. I reckon Beazley is being naive if he thinks blocking porn sites will make much difference to the final outcome of your typical pubescent Aussie kid.

 

[Iron]

pretty lame, beazley.

Limp response,
Kim's big hard porno policy,
Problem of net porn sexed-up
Labor penetrates concerned mothers over net porn...
-All inappropriate.

 

[stalk_if_u_dare]

Aarr...another plan to control our lives by our wonderful government:rofl:

 

[Iron]

Just occured to me that big men argue for big governemnt, while small men the opposite.
With this sort of insight I should be working for the RAND corp

 

[loquasagacious]

I oppose this.

Whilst I object to porn (or rather what in may do to someone) I object to censorship in all forms. And find this particular move disquieting for several reasons:

Porn filters are uniformly bad and impair functionality of the net for conventional usage.
This would cost money and this would be passed on to consumers (our internet is already overpriced).
The notion of a list of those who 'opt in' is unsettling.

Overall i find the policy a knee-jerk* response to 'interest group' pressure and an attempt to appeal to middle class australia (ignoring thats where the majority of porn users reside).

*See Iron I can do it too.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Pfft, call me liberal, but I think that once a child is old enough to surf un-supervised, they are old enough to see porn.

Personally, I think there are a lot more damaging things out there than porn.

If parents want protection, they shouldn't give their kids access to the net, or should check on what they're doing. It's their obligation, not the state's.

 

[Serius]

Its a pretty wild thing that someone can type the word "Lee", into a search engine and receive results for Lee Jeans, Ben Lee, Lee University, Lee-Valley Gardening Tools and Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee home movies, all on the same page. I reckon Beazley is being naive if he thinks blocking porn sites will make much difference to the final outcome of your typical pubescent Aussie kid.

wrong

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Lee

i dont see any porn sites randomly popping up, and its the kids own decision to click that site aswell.

Porn isnt exactly a new phenominon, and to suggest the fact that it is readily available is "wild" is highly amusing.

I am curious as to how beazley would impliment his new law, it seems foolish to make claims like that, where as any1 who knows about the internet realises it isnt that simple, and it would be funny to see them force isps to do it aswell

Freedom to do what you want, the ISPs have nothing to do with it, they arent at fault its the parents own responsability

Internet browsing is dangerous for young children, its like the road. Does a good parent let their kids play cricket on the road[even if it is a quiet street] without supervision? if they get run over whilst playing on the road was the accident forseeable? you are damn right it is forseeable
We dont suddenly have a "no cars on the street" law so we

fucking fool of a politician trying to cover the asses of bad parents, if they dont understand the technoledgy educate them, teach their puny brains something new! or dont let the kids on the internet at all if its such a "danger"

when i first got the internet i was young and someone linked me to "goatse" [ no iam not going to link you or tell you what it is, google it if your that interested] sure iwas disgusted but it was either my own fault, or my parents fault for not supervising me and i wasnt mentally scared or anything anyways.

freedom to do what you want, you cant censor the internet, if parents are that concerned they can sort it out themselves and you know, do what parents are supposed to

 

[xeuyrawp]

Whislt you took the example of 'Lee' too literally, you have a good point.

Children should be raised in a taboo-less environment that encourages trust and responsibility. Then again, one of my grandfathers was a Wing Commander, the other was a Submarine Chief engineer, at my age.

I think we just expect too little. It just bears down to the parents.

 

[Rafy]

This is a seriously flawed and misguided 'policy'. I'm suprised the party room would approve such a thing.

 

[Iron]

This porn is new. Previously, if you really wanted it you were forced into non-porn related social interaction (buying movie ticket/hiring video/purchasing mag). With this comes considerable shame and high price.
Quite frankly it's was a motivator to get a partner/start a family and build healthy, sustaining relationship bonds.

Now, people need not feel shame. Only the latest fleshlite and lock on the door. In a dark room, corrupting their souls and feeding morbid constructions of the world.

Kim is trying to save the world. Big Kim. On a mission. A missionary mission - he is not taking the missionary position*, but rather promoting core Labor ideals. Good one Kim.

*Loq.

 

[loquasagacious]

You cant sit on this fence - the medium does not change the net effect. If you accept movie/magazine porn then you must also accept more technologically enabled pronography.

And on a nicer note the nature of the internet means that consumers can find porn that is perhaps less chauvanistic than that found in the mags. The variety of the internet could in that sense be good.

The real question is whether or not you view pronography (in any form) as:
A addicktive
B have negative side effects

On that note there is an interesting thread on the tucker max forums regarding the sustained effects of pornography usage on men.

However even if we established it was addictive and had side effects then we still have not established whether or not it is right to restrict access to it.

 

[withoutaface]

Yet another brilliant policy from the ALP.



Fucking cuntstains.