Daily Mail calls for online porn ban

Complete Fiction

A completely fictitious quotation from the editor of the Daily Mail (I know it is fictitious because I made it up!!):-

"Here's a convenient bandwagon to jump on."

By jontym123 on 24 Apr 2012

Typical Daily Mail (we take the high ground) rubbish

By Coltch on 24 Apr 2012

Much as I dislike that Daily Fail ...

... I would have to agree that an opt in filter is a reasonable thing to ask ISP's to provide.

Yes, it should be incumbent on parents to supervise their children's internet usage but that does not mean they should be obliged to do it by standing over them all the time they are using it.

Of course, you do have to argue why politicians need to get involved. Surely, if there is a demand for this from parents then the free market will adjust to accommodate it. It's hard to see why internet porn should be a special case that requires legislative intervention. Since at least one company provides this service then all concerned parents need to do is switch to whomever provides what they want. If enough do, other companies will follow suit.

By qpw3141 on 24 Apr 2012

Much as I hate the Daily Fail ...

... I would have to agree that an opt in filter is a reasonable thing to ask ISP's to provide.

Yes, it should be incumbent on parents to supervise their children's internet usage but that does not mean they should be obliged to do it by standing over them all the time they are using it.

Of course, you do have to argue why politicians need to get involved. Surely, if there is a demand for this from parents then the free market will adjust to accommodate it. It's hard to see why internet porn should be a special case that requires legislative intervention. Since at least one company provides this service then all concerned parents need to do is switch to whomever provides what they want. If enough do, other companies will follow suit.

By qpw3141 on 24 Apr 2012

Naomi Gummer

is spot on.

Parents should not be able to abdicate their responsibilities by making the government censor the entire population.

By big_D on 24 Apr 2012

@qpw3141

"... I would have to agree that an opt in filter is a reasonable thing to ask ISP's to provide"

Opt-in, yes, but they want to make it a blanket filter, from what I understand, with opt-out being "the way to go", even for households without children.

Also, an ISP level filter means that all devices in a household are affected, not just those of children.

The Daily Mail proposal sounds like using heavy artillery to squat flies.

By big_D on 24 Apr 2012

No

You already have Parental controls within Windows. You also have ratings control within internet Explorer 9. You already have the .xxx domain name. FORCE pron sites to use the .xxx domain... ALL OF THEM.

My worry with stopping 'porn' on the web would be with all the crazies that use pron to 'calm' their addiction that, without porn, would go out of control and maybe spill onto the streets. Obviously I probably don't know what I'm talking about but I'm sure you get what I mean.

By rhythm on 24 Apr 2012

Campaign to make a Daily Mail Filter

One that should be opt-in as well.

I know, can't do that because it's censorship, freedom of speech. freedom of the press, etc. but then, so is what they are calling for.
Actually, I wonder if the Mail online would get though this porn filter, considering many of the pictures of 'celebs' wearing very little that appear?

However, I'm wondering if there should (could?) be a law - heavily enforced - requiring neutral / unbiased & truthful reporting from the new media.
No doubt most of the tabloid press would fold virtually overnight.

By greemble on 24 Apr 2012

While we're about it...

...let's ban Ann Summers too!

By areluc on 24 Apr 2012

It's at least encouraging

that most of the commenters (and the most popular comments) appear to be telling her to take a running jump.

By nichomach0 on 24 Apr 2012

It is the responsibility of the parent to monitor what their child does online. It is not for the Government to place blanket bans on certain types of sites because some parents are lazy and don't care about their children. If online porn is a risk to our Children then I'd say the Mail Online is a bigger risk to society as a whole.

By stuscott78 on 24 Apr 2012

@stucott78

While the Daily Mail may have some impractical ideas of their own, the government proposal is merely to ask new users whether they want adult content filtering turned on or off. Some mobile operators already do this, and society doesn't seem to have collapsed.

By tirons1 on 24 Apr 2012

"The fightback for decency starts here."

HA!
Daily Mail fighting for decency? The most overtly bigotted paper in the UK.
Yeah, cos porn is a bigger threat to children than the rich establishment slowly strangling our society with greed and lies. If they want to start a decent campaign for children, how about starting with the million or so that are officially below the poverty line.
I totally agree that "news"papers should have a duty to report thoroughly researched facts, rather than enabling ignorance on a massive scale.
*Suitable insulting term here*

By dubiou on 24 Apr 2012

The problem is..

..while the commentators here are technically educated and possess common sense, the MP's that this headline-driven drivel is aimed at, are not.
They will cluelessly pass blanket-censorship laws without a thought (or any understanding) to the consequences and then pat themselves on the back for doing so.
They'll destroy the internet and it's associated economy for the sake of a few music companies and a bunch of parents too stupid, lazy or inept to supervise their children.
Next week's headline, "Britain in list of worst supported countries on the internet". As long as it sells a few chip wrappers, it's okay?

By cheysuli on 24 Apr 2012

@tirons

The Government are proposing to censor the Internet because some parents are too lazy to monitor what their children do. Perhaps the Government could block all sites apart from those with a .gov.uk address unless the user requests otherwise, it's the only way to be sure that we don't let little Jonny accidentally see a boob or two.

By stuscott78 on 24 Apr 2012

Good idea

We have censorship and age ratings applied to games and movies; the problem is that the internet gives anyone access to unregulated adult content 24/7.

Whether it’s an issue of parents understanding technology or caring about what their kids get up to, the point is that it that children can and do access materials that even adults should find disturbing.

The comment by rhythm on “crazies” actually supports better censorship; you don’t stop vice by feeding it.

I can’t see a problem with taking steps to make the internet safer for children from the ISP. Just make it a password protected opt-in service if you want access to adult material; it'll be little different to the way you can opt to reach for the top shelf!

By nugget on 24 Apr 2012

Lets face it

this is the biggest problem that will affect our children today and in the future. Tobacco and alcohol are no problem whatsoever and the daily Fascist will never ban those! I would guess that most kids could run rings around any 'filters' in minutes and will then do whatever they like. I have 3 children and when they grew up I found they had circumvented the software that I had put on their PC to view 'inappropriate' materiel. We had a chat about the whys and wherefores and they agreed that actually they didn't enjoy looking at at and they wouldn't do so until they were older and they were ready. I kept a watch out on their logs on the PC and they didn't (even with any history clearing it can still be traced). So what is the answer? Banning won't work, as history will always show us, so perhaps education at school and home is the way forward.
Also without porn the internet wouldn't have grown so quickly, as video recorders also proved!

By quillon1 on 24 Apr 2012

Daily Mail and Decency...

...two things I didn't expect to see in the same sentence.

By Pantagoon on 24 Apr 2012

You know, I'd love it of they did enforce such a system and the amount of kids viewing porn increases because they wonder what's being blocked.

Seriously, I don't reckon the mail cares about this, they just want to sell papers to the sought of people that thought the Andrew Sachs incident was a sign of the Apocalypse.

By tech3475 on 24 Apr 2012

Something tells me...

...that The Daily Fail's audience aren't going to be up for this particular campaign. The w*****s that they are. ;-)

By Heliosphan on 24 Apr 2012

Ironic

The irony here is that the very parents who think they need this are going to be the ones who need a teenager to turn it off for their own use.

All the cosy photos of families gathered round a PC are missing the point. As well as risking injury from unergonomic posture. It is not families who surf together who are at risk. It is children left to their own devices by parents who don't give a damn. Those parents will get their house opted out for their own benefit.

By CLCKMSS on 24 Apr 2012

Schools have fiilters

Indeed they do. I'm a teacher and I fall victim to the damn things every day. They're rubbish, every single one.

I've worked across several councils, been subjected to an array of different filters and the one thing that they have in common is that they don't work.

Sure, they block a significant portion of material (I'm not going to say "objectionable" or "pornographic" as councils/schools often want to block a variety of sites), but they're nowhere near 100% effective. In fact the biggest headache is the number of false positives.

A nationwide blockade based on these filters would be worse than useless. It would give the Fail readers a false sense of security as they pass on their parental responsibilities to a third party, and cause more adult members of our society a pile of problems until they opted in to fleshy content just so they could access other sites that were blocked as well.

But then, it's the Mail. It's not as if we expect anything like research or accuracy.

By Mosher on 24 Apr 2012

Daily Mail calls for online porn ban

so why are parents again aloud to shirk their obligations-Supermarkets sell alcohol, but it is not hidden in the managers office and only let out upon meeting tight draconian terms.

By invalidscreenname on 24 Apr 2012

Daily Mail commenters

@nichomach0 - It's noticeable that the comments (and voters on those comments) on Daily Mail articles rarely reflect the perceived Daily Mail mindset. I can only conclude that Daily Mail website readers aren't "Daily Mail readers".

By halsteadk on 24 Apr 2012

it should be

The Internet calls for Daily Mail ban

By gavmeister on 25 Apr 2012

Parental Control...

If you are looking for full parental control that monitors and controls everything kids do online (such as Facebook), as well as blocks inappropriate websites, and does linguistic analysis to
watch out for dangerous behavior - such as internet predators or cyberbullying -
check out McGruff SafeGuard's Parental Control system:
http://www.GoMcgruff.com

You may remember McGruff “The Crime Dog” - Take A Bite Out of Crime - from your own childhood

For iPad/iPhone parental control, check out http://www.GoMcGruff.com/browser

By marty9999 on 25 Apr 2012

The far right strikes again!

So is anybody else piqued by the paradox at the heart of this?

Right-wing 'Libertarians' who blame the poor for being 'indolent', because they 'choose' to be unemployed, poorly educated (etc.) suddenly believe it’s OK to abdicate from all responsibility for their kids' welfare.

This position isn't sustainable: simply on the grounds of logic.
When you constantly berate the 'Nanny State' for 'Elf and Safety, or "PC gorn mad", or "Excessive" regulation of Business it ill behoves you suddenly to want to legislate additional blanket bans on anything.
The legislation they so despise is largely there to protect us against things over which we would otherwise have no control. It’s called ‘Society’. Access to and ‘use’ of Internet (or Newsagent) porn is fairly controllable by parents, then a matter of taste \ morality for adults. Being forced to work in an environment choc-a-bloc with asbestos fibres , or toxic chemicals or dodgy electrics isn’t.

By wittgenfrog on 25 Apr 2012

Just a thought

Any rational adult will agree that children should be protected from pornography. Not, as one writer says above, "the occasional boob." Nudity is not pornography - sexiness is not pornography.
One seriously wonders if those who are objecting to protecting children in this manner perhaps are excited by the thought of children viewing hard core porn.
To repeat, rational adults must concur with these proposals.

By HarryB on 26 Apr 2012

What is porn

There are many calls for porn to be blocked but nobody defines porn. We all have our own opinion as to what it is. I have seen a suggestion that any pictures showing people naked should be defined as porn. In that case the National Trust web site would be barred as their pictures of Studland Beach, which the NT owns, include pictures of the naturist section of the beach - naked bodies. Porn! Are medical sites porn? The problem with advocates of this ban is that unless porn is defined closely many innocent website will be caught by these filters and be inaccessible. I do not want to be on record as agreeing to receiving porn, but I do want the freedom to access web sites that might show naked flesh such as the NT.

By ashill on 26 Apr 2012