Saturday, 3 August 2013

Prime Minister's Ban on Internet Porn Blasted 'Ridiculous'

Prime Minister David Cameron
I never thought I'd be writing about this but after Jimmy Wales - the founder of Wikipedia - blasted David Cameron's plan to ban pornography in the United Kingdom as 'absolutely ridiculous', it's found itself back in the news. If you missed the initial story, it goes along the lines of porn being blocked by default in 2014 to everyone unless they opt out of it. The scheme was proposed by Cameron in an attempt to ban the
viewing of sexually-illicit material (especially involving children) and make the internet more child-friendly. However its emerged that porn isn't the only thing that's going to be blocked - with smoking and alcohol related content all being suggested. If someone wants to view such content then they must explicitly opt out of the block meaning British IPSs will then have record of who is watching pornography and what they are watching. It's been argued that these IPSs are working closely with the Government, so not only do they have a record of your internet history but also your own Government is keeping tabs on you.

Cameron has made it clear that this proposal's sole purpose is to 'protect the children' but is that not the parent's job? There are numerous filters these days that block content for children under a certain age which are available for parents to implement and that's their responsibility and not the Governments'. Rather than wager a war against extreme pornography like child porn, by attacking the sites that post the videos and go after those who produce the material, they ban porn all together - and if you wish to opt out then you must accept that a record of what you watch will be kept

It shows how out of touch the Prime Minister is when he's insulting thousands of citizens in this country who watch such content by making it out to be disgusting. People have sex. Some people have sex and film it for other people to watch, but it's still sex. If David Cameron thinks sex is disgusting then he needs to look at his own children and wonder where they came from. Some pornography is not appropriate for anyone to watch (and I'm sure you know what kind I'm referencing) and I'm not against the Government trying to take it down but why is 'soft' porn being placed under the same category? There is nothing wrong with that kind and punishing the whole country because of the few sick people who want to watch the hardcore illegal stuff isn't fair.

The debate is still ongoing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For more updates click 'join this site' to follow the blog, 'like' to follow the Facebook page and 'follow' to keep up-to-date on the Twitter page.



2 comments:

  1. Apparently 70% of teenagers will be able to bypass the system and i assume anyone younger wouldnt be looking for that sort of thing anyway. I understand that removing rape images and child sex offences is necessary but to remove them they need to put more money into the organisations that will stop them not take it away from them and expect better results. Most illegal images aren't found via search engines because theyre automatically taken down. I don't watch it but find no problem with porn if they people in the videos are consenting adults. It's like you said censorship

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey, I nominated you for a Liebster award. I enjoy reading your blog and hope you keep it up! Thank you! http://thejumbledthought.blogspot.ca/2013/09/liebster-award.html

    ReplyDelete