Online Pornography Being Blocked in the UK, Why It Must Be Blcked in the U.S. Too

[kayem77]

This is more of an opinion article than a news story.

Read the complete article here:
Why Online Pornography is Being Blocked in the UK—and Why It Should Be in the U.S. Too – The Gospel Coalition Blog


The Prime Minister deemed this measure necessary to protect children from the effects of pornography. It doesn't mean people can't have access to pornography, but they will have to ask for it instead of getting it by default, kinda like when you get cable TV and have to ask for specific channels that you don't get automatically.


I wanna know everyone's thoughts on this, as Christians.

 

[David_1]

Just to let you know, they are trying this in Australia too. It has zero to do with blocking pornography, and more to do with secret ban lists of websites, including Christian sites. They will ban pro-life groups etc.

Just a heads up.

 

[kayem77]

David, why do you say this has to do with banning Christian sites? Is this what they have been doing in Australia, blocking Christian websites?

To be honest, I dont see why pornopraphy is allowed to be so out in the open. People, including Christians, protest when weed becomes available, but are okay with having pornography available at the tip of anyone's fingers. At least weed has some (pressumably good) uses....on the other hand, pornography is completely and straight out harmful to the mind and spirit. By the way....I'm not for marihuana legalization, it was just an example.

 

[Ritter]

The thought behind it is good, but the problem it is so widespread that we will never be fixed until our culture seeks to fix itself.

 

[David_1]

David, why do you say this has to do with banning Christian sites? Is this what they have been doing in Australia, blocking Christian websites?

Nah this is not about banning Christian sites specifically. But it has little to do with Porn. Because it's widely known that Pedos and porn people can get around these blocks.

What it is about, is about a government being able to block websites from groups that disagree with them. It's politically based. Just like the Patriot Act in America, was never about keeping their country safe from outside threats.

This sort of thing happens a lot under Conservative governments who pretend to be doing something helpful, but really it's about furthering the wishes of a very powerful and rich small group of people who rule society.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I would like to see porn required by law to be placed on a separate root domain dedicated for it... say <website name>.porn and age verification to access that root required. Then governments could pass laws to go after purveyors of porn outside of .porn root. This would make it very easy to block porn from networks and computers.

But I'm afraid David is right. They have no interest in doing that. What they want is to control information you receive to better control you.

http://christianchat.com/conspiracy...9953-david-wilkersons-vision.html#post1129291

 

[kayem77]

I find it interesting that so many people assume that this is gonna lead to a ban of religious freedom so we prefer to just do nothing about it. To be honest, after much thinking, I find that assumption selfish. As Christians, knowing what damage porn does to families and children, seeing that sex-trafficking is a very real and very terrible reality in the US and around the world and seeing that the root of it is porn most of the times, we prefer to keep it so out in the open just because the government MIGHT use its power to block other freedoms?

We're not even talking about the government blocking all porn, we're talking about pornography not being so available. If you ask for it, you can get it, it wouldn't be illegal. Don't we do that with cable TV? You have to ask if you want the adult programming. We have laws that already protect religious freedom, so assume that A is gonna lead to B doesn't follow. That's my opinion only of course....but I just don't see anything good to protect about pornography and we're not even talking about banning it altogether. I prefer to have that ''freedom'' taken away from me rather than see people stumble and suffer because of it. What the government may or may not do is something I cannot control, but God has control over it.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Yes block it!

 

[JimJimmers]

As a Christian, I would want pornography out of my home. But I would want to be the one to flip the switch, not a bureaucrat. I feel it falls under the "Render unto Caesar..." philosophy.

 

[richie_2uk]

I think its about time the government is actually doing something. Although This is probably there first steps in trying to do something. But By blocking sites with adult pornography is one thing, as its fuelling those of the paedophilia interests. But What the governments needs to do, is look into having a Global filtering system. Were anyone who makes a site through a domain or host or server. They have to go through a filtering system by the government. The Global Filtering system can have for the first time in history, to come together as one huge big protection property for all the policing, and other law and order, all the child protection organisation and agencies, all other protection groups to come together and work together as one, rather than separated departments. The Global filtering System can then monitor the websites through there data base and keep a close eye on the sites.

Any website is created has to go through a server. Why not the government, make by law that all servers has to register there servers to the government and code them on a database list. Any illegal content regarding young children can then be spotted by the government, and deal with the server that allowed for those contents to be uploaded.

The only other thing, if this ever happened, it will push the Paedophiles to go underground. Like in one sense. they use Tor and onion servers to hide there ID and IP and there tracks. Its a big problem the government has. Because it was the government created Tor, and now its got out of hand and now they cant stop it. yet!

Blocking websites is just the start by the British government, in aid to try put some control on this Horrible matter. How ever doesn't it say somewhere in the bible about the increase of sex and perversion in the world will increase before he comes back? So maybe that will tell you that if all the governments of the world is trying to stop this thing, they wont succeed. as this is prophesy in the bible that is to come, if not already here.

 

[danschance]

I agree they should block it.

 

[kayem77]

As a Christian, I would want pornography out of my home. But I would want to be the one to flip the switch, not a bureaucrat. I feel it falls under the "Render unto Caesar..." philosophy.

You would still be the one to flip the switch. If someone wanted porn, they could just ask for it to be enabled in their household . Btw can you explain the ''Render unto Caesar'' part? I didn't get the reasoning .

I understand the fear of the government being in control of our lives, I myself believe the government is getting too big in other issues ... but really, do we want to protect this harmful freedom? There are things that I believe the government SHOULD protect us from. The government already blocks pornographic material from being delivered to our houses by mail. Adult programming on TV is already blocked by default to protect children. Why is this different? If the government were blocking religious or any other kind of material besides porn, THEN I would be worried and would bring up a violation of civil rights' case.

 

[JimJimmers]

You would still be the one to flip the switch. If someone wanted porn, they could just ask for it to be enabled in their household . Btw can you explain the ''Render unto Caesar'' part? I didn't get the reasoning .

I understand the fear of the government being in control of our lives, I myself believe the government is getting too big in other issues ... but really, do we want to protect this harmful freedom? There are things that I believe the government SHOULD protect us from. The government already blocks pornographic material from being delivered to our houses by mail. Adult programming on TV is already blocked by default to protect children. Why is this different? If the government were blocking religious or any other kind of material besides porn, THEN I would be worried and would bring up a violation of civil rights' case.

The render unto Caesar part is how I respond if someone (Not you, clearly, but it happens) says "how can you be a Christian and not be for outlawing porn?" I say I am anti-porn, but I'm anti-censorship as well. I give Caesar the taxes, and God my eyes, and not mix the two.

I don't think the law you posted is a particularly harmful one, or even in violation of The U.S.'s First Amendment. I just don't think they should spend the resources to have a porn center wherein they receive and process requests to turn the switches on and off. I'd rather just make my choice, and not have an additional government program.

I must say though, I totally see your side. Particularly with the older, less tech-savvy crowd who don't know how to turn it off themselves. Moreover, I can see the argument that some of those search terms entered into Google should automatically trigger a police visit.

But as it is in the U.S., I haven't run into any problems with searches that I think could be solved by a government program.

That's my two cents!

 

[Ritter]

But as it is in the U.S., I haven't run into any problems with searches that I think could be solved by a government program.

This sums up the best opposition case in one sentence.

 

[kayem77]

The render unto Caesar part is how I respond if someone (Not you, clearly, but it happens) says "how can you be a Christian and not be for outlawing porn?" I say I am anti-porn, but I'm anti-censorship as well. I give Caesar the taxes, and God my eyes, and not mix the two.

I don't think the law you posted is a particularly harmful one, or even in violation of The U.S.'s First Amendment. I just don't think they should spend the resources to have a porn center wherein they receive and process requests to turn the switches on and off. I'd rather just make my choice, and not have an additional government program.

I must say though, I totally see your side. Particularly with the older, less tech-savvy crowd who don't know how to turn it off themselves. Moreover, I can see the argument that some of those search terms entered into Google should automatically trigger a police visit.

But as it is in the U.S., I haven't run into any problems with searches that I think could be solved by a government program.

That's my two cents!

Hmmmm I think it's just that you see it as censorship and I don't lol. Sorry if I sound repetitive, but why is this censorship and the other examples that I mentioned (like the blocked adult programming on TV and pornographic material via mail) aren't censorship issues? Why do we accept the latter but refuse to ''censor'' porn on the internet?

We could use the ''render unto Ceasar'' example with anything really. I'm sure a lot of pro same-sex marriage use the same example. ''I'm Christian but I don't mix my faith with politics so we should just let everyone marry whoever they want''. Not saying you do that at all but hopefully you see my point. What I mean is that, if we protect marriage from gay marriage with laws (or at least try to) , and our children and ourselves with laws that ban adult programming on tv, and laws that ban pornographic material being delivered by mail.... my question is, why is so different when we talk about internet censorship? We're not talking about the government banning religious material, but pornographic, straight out harmful material.

 

[JimJimmers]

Hmmmm I think it's just that you see it as censorship and I don't lol. Sorry if I sound repetitive, but why is this censorship and the other examples that I mentioned (like the blocked adult programming on TV and pornographic material via mail) aren't censorship issues? Why do we accept the latter but refuse to ''censor'' porn on the internet?

We could use the ''render unto Ceasar'' example with anything really. I'm sure a lot of pro same-sex marriage use the same example. ''I'm Christian but I don't mix my faith with politics so we should just let everyone marry whoever they want''. Not saying you do that at all but hopefully you see my point. What I mean is that, if we protect marriage from gay marriage with laws (or at least try to) , and our children and ourselves with laws that ban adult programming on tv, and laws that ban pornographic material being delivered by mail.... my question is, why is so different when we talk about internet censorship? We're not talking about the government banning religious material, but pornographic, straight out harmful material.

You're one of my absolute favorite people on the site, so please don't take this the wrong way. This isn't even a big issue for me, I just wanted to add my thoughts to the mix.

To answer your question, I do see your point, and I think it's a fair one. One thing you should know about me though, just because the other laws are on the books already, doesn't mean I am okay with them. I'll just give an example, you are forbidden in the U.S. to sell raw milk to people, even if they specifically request it, and have health problems that don't allow them to drink the regular kind. However there is no law forbidding anyone to sell milk with recombinant bovine somatotropin in it.

That being said, I don't think the mail regulation amounts to censorship because you are being sent a physical item by post, that you then have to dispose of in some manner. Also, I can receive adult material by mail if I send a request for it, which is basically what someone does when they go to a website, they send a request to download that page onto their browser.

I must say, from there it doesn't sound like a big step to then put the block in place, does it? I can request the information by opting out of the block, so what's the difference? Here is a sort of counter-point to the original article: Adult content filters can't replace good parenting | Technology | theguardian.com

Also, I can't seem to tell for sure from a quick internet search, but I don't think there is a law preventing you from viewing adult material on TV? I don't have cable TV, so I get the 6 or so channels that come over-the-air, which are regulated by the FCC. But as far as I can tell, the cable provider offers a parental blocker that you can turn on and off, no government involvement. For the over-the-air channels, I think the FCC does an extremely poor job of regulation, with their double-standards and vague rules. I could dig up stories if you want, I recall a semi-infamous one involving U2 frontman Bono using obscene language with impunity.

I think the free-market solutions are out there, you can get content blockers installed at no charge. Like I said before, I do feel empathy for those who are not tech-savvy, and don't know how to install the blockers. This law may very well help them. And I by no means find the law an egregious violation of my rights, I just don't think it's what would help us the most.

 

[kayem77]

You're one of my absolute favorite people on the site, so please don't take this the wrong way. This isn't even a big issue for me, I just wanted to add my thoughts to the mix.

To answer your question, I do see your point, and I think it's a fair one. One thing you should know about me though, just because the other laws are on the books already, doesn't mean I am okay with them. I'll just give an example, you are forbidden in the U.S. to sell raw milk to people, even if they specifically request it, and have health problems that don't allow them to drink the regular kind. However there is no law forbidding anyone to sell milk with recombinant bovine somatotropin in it.

That being said, I don't think the mail regulation amounts to censorship because you are being sent a physical item by post, that you then have to dispose of in some manner. Also, I can receive adult material by mail if I send a request for it, which is basically what someone does when they go to a website, they send a request to download that page onto their browser.

I must say, from there it doesn't sound like a big step to then put the block in place, does it? I can request the information by opting out of the block, so what's the difference? Here is a sort of counter-point to the original article: Adult content filters can't replace good parenting | Technology | theguardian.com

Also, I can't seem to tell for sure from a quick internet search, but I don't think there is a law preventing you from viewing adult material on TV? I don't have cable TV, so I get the 6 or so channels that come over-the-air, which are regulated by the FCC. But as far as I can tell, the cable provider offers a parental blocker that you can turn on and off, no government involvement. For the over-the-air channels, I think the FCC does an extremely poor job of regulation, with their double-standards and vague rules. I could dig up stories if you want, I recall a semi-infamous one involving U2 frontman Bono using obscene language with impunity.

I think the free-market solutions are out there, you can get content blockers installed at no charge. Like I said before, I do feel empathy for those who are not tech-savvy, and don't know how to install the blockers. This law may very well help them. And I by no means find the law an egregious violation of my rights, I just don't think it's what would help us the most.

I do agree that this law wouldn't be the solution for the problem . I think parents should educate their children in God's ways and also set the example themselves for them to learn what is good and what is bad. I can see the argument presented in the article you posted, that at the end the filter would do a very poor job at filtering bad material while at the same time would block the good material that should be read. I think that can have a solution though. If there is technology to wipe out a nation with nuclear weapons and clone animalsm there must be technology to create a decent filter .

What I worry about the most is the easy access that everyone (including children) have to porn, even by accident. But I see your point , and it is a good one . Thanks for sharing your opinion!

Oh and btw there are certain regulations on adult material on TV. In the US, certain shows are only aired in a limited time frame (10pm to 6am), though they are not necessarily pornograpihc by nature. As for explicit XXX rated shows, you need to pay for them. Well at least that's what I read on google on a bunch of websites lol.

 

[xXErraticEmilyXx]

Pornography won't be easy to get rid of, I'm sure.
Honestly, I hope they do ban it- keeps me out of trouble as well as so many other people.

 

[xXErraticEmilyXx]

^ forgot to add that there are so many different kinds of pornography. What is to some people isn't to others. I just don't see how that would come to be.