Trooper wrote:
There is a huge difference between that and stating that "most of the girls doing hardcore porn are human slaves" as that patently isn't true.
Really depends on how you define human slaves (or sex trafficking)
Brooke Magnanti has a blog which she updates regularly with some of the background for this which I do find fascinating
http://sexonomics-uk.blogspot.com/Latest post
Quote:
To absolutely no one's surprise - no one, that is, who followed the hype and to-do surrounding the sexualisation "debate" these last few years - it is announced that Prime Minister David Cameron will be meeting with four big internet providers to discuss schemes for limiting access to porn.
At this point it's unclear if the approach will be opt-in (objectionable content turned off until you declare you want it) or opt-out (all content available unless you say no). Since the latter option is more-or-less what's already available with various kinds of blocking software, my guess is we'll see the ground shift from opt-out to opt-in. Early news reports are saying the same.
In other words, if you're a customer with BT, Sky, Talk Talk, or Virgin, expect to be sending them a copy of your passport in the not so distant future.
The impetus for this meeting is the Bailey Report on sexualisation from this summer. A document that was light on facts, heavy on misinterpretation, and ripe for ridicule among those who can, ya know, actually evaluate evidence. And yet any critical discussion was at best muted, apart from some bloggers. We all think we know what sexualisation is, how it happens, and what it does. What many of us don't realise is who's really pulling the government's strings here.
Executive summary: the evidence for connecting sexualised materials to younger sexual activity is questionable, the evidence for connecting sexualised materials to violence against women is nonexistent, and conceptual problems start from sentence 1 because no one even bothers to define the word "sexualised". Given this lack of proof, many are understandably concerned about the government's involvement.
Parents have a right to be concerned about and involved in deciding which media their families consider appropriate. But I can guarantee the things you are worried about with regards to your children are not in line with what the government proposes. And that if you knew just who the current government take their policy cues from, you'd be afraid... you'd be very afraid.
And interestingly, there are suggestions that the ISPs are not as on-board with Cameron and the Mothers' Union as early reports suggested. "We all want to make the internet as safe as possible, but we can't completely eliminate all risk - at least not without seriously affecting the vibrant and beneficial nature of the internet. The primary responsibility lies with the parents, who have a responsibility to supervise how their children use the internet."
I use the word 'interesting' because you would have had to be a blind child in a deep cave with a blindfold on and your hands cut off not to detect this one coming. No one at Sky, BT, et al. thought maybe this cooperation could be construed as colluding in censorship? Really? Cry. Me. A. River.
But after such an inevitable lock-step to this point, and with so little in the way of vocal criticism from the entire country's mainstream media, it's hard for me to get more than mildly exercised by what's happening to internet providers. This has been coming for a long time. I'm surprised at the people who are surprised. And with the state of the economy, it's equally unsurprising that the current government are trying to make porn and immigration stay above the fold. Bread and circuses, kids. Bread and circuses. Only wasn't there a time when these circuses used to be more entertaining?
And the options on offer really solve nothing. Me, I'll be dusting off my command line skills, as I fully expect trading dirty pics via Usenet to make a comeback any day now.
Register
Calendar
FAQ
Search
