Crap Here we go...

[Poag]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying you believe whether someone watches porn or not should(/could) be used to define their character in court?

Its not whether it should or could. Its whether it will be.

And if it exists, and if it can be obtained under FOI..then it will once the gloves come off and people start going after each other. In court people will use any edge they can get regardless of if its right or wrong..it simply has to be legal.

 

[Tom]

My contention would be it shouldn't be regarded as "evidence" in the first place. Evidence of what exactly?

Evidence that might demonstrate a person's inability to properly look after their children. Just like evidence of "going dahn the pab" and "being into fast cars".

Your contention is that the court is only entitled to hear about certain aspects of a person's life. My contention is that the court is perfectly capable of making a distinction about what is and is not irrelevant. And considering that family courts are normally private, or secret, and cannot be reported on, I don't see what the problem is.

 

[Scouse]

Evidence that might demonstrate a person's inability to properly look after their children.

So. Is porn use evidence that you can't properly look after children, Tom?

 

[caLLous]

Seriously niche: http://www.reddit.com/r/powerwashingporn

I actually found myself in that sub a few weeks ago, I think one of the threads made it to the front page.

 

[DaGaffer]

Evidence that might demonstrate a person's inability to properly look after their children. Just like evidence of "going dahn the pab" and "being into fast cars".

Your contention is that the court is only entitled to hear about certain aspects of a person's life. My contention is that the court is perfectly capable of making a distinction about what is and is not irrelevant. And considering that family courts are normally private, or secret, and cannot be reported on, I don't see what the problem is.

No, my contention is that until yesterday this is an aspect of a person's life a court would never have heard about, but now you have a situation where there is state-sanctioned bias against you from the outset. You're showing the exact problem here; "Evidence that might demonstrate a person's inability to properly look after their children". It doesn't show that. At all. But that's how it will be used. Your other examples aren't equivalent; evidence that shows you go down the pub a lot would need to be presented to a court with a context ("spends all the family's money", "knocks the wife about", "been up on charges"), or the car one ("spends all the family's money etc.", "wiped out a busload of nuns doing 90 with the kids in the back"), otherwise its not evidence in a court situation, its hearsay and not admissible, but this is admissible if its on the public record.

 

[Tom]

So. Is porn use evidence that you can't properly look after children, Tom?

It might be. Then again, it might not. That's why we have judges.

 

[Raven]

Oh my.

 

[Tom]

No, my contention is that until yesterday this is an aspect of a person's life a court would never have heard about

Nonsense. I would bet significant sums of money that the subject of pornographic material use has been used in family disputes for decades. Now it will be easier to prove.

but now you have a situation where there is state-sanctioned bias against you from the outset.

Well I simply don't agree, for reasons I've already stated. You want porn on the internet, you have to click a box that says "yes I want porn on the internet". You want porn in a shop, you have to reach for the top shelf and pulll the wrappers off. You want to watch strippers et al, you have to go into a private building, out of public view. People who call for a completely unrestricted internet often forget that life is very, very far from unrestricted.

You're showing the exact problem here; "Evidence that might demonstrate a person's inability to properly look after their children". It doesn't show that.

Blanket statements like that are ridiculous. You know full well that pornographic material is generally considered unsuitable for viewing by young children. If someone, through lack of care, was to cause a situation where a pre-pubescent child had access to egregious pornography, then I would certainly expect a family court to be made aware of this.

Anyhow, I've made my point and that's that. Note that I still don't support this new measure, I just don't think it's as big and scary as some people make out.

 

[Scouse]

You know full well that pornographic material is generally considered unsuitable for viewing by young children

As opposed to tribal life where full sex occurs regularly in full view of children.

Porn just ain't that big a deal. Neither is nudity. Censorship IS.

 

[Raven]

Fine. But wouldn't you agree that an opt out option would be better all round? A solution that exists now. ...and in fact would work a whole lot better because it would be device specific. Parental locks on the kids computer/tablet/phone etc. Those that want to continue watching porn can do so without worrying about some list somewhere.

 

[Tom]

Fine. But wouldn't you agree that an opt out option would be better all round? A solution that exists now. ...and in fact would work a whole lot better because it would be device specific. Parental locks on the kids computer/tablet/phone etc. Those that want to continue watching porn can do so without worrying about some list somewhere.

I completely agree.

 

[TdC]

Note that I still don't support this new measure, I just don't think it's as big and scary as some people make out.

Bit odd Tom. Imo you would be one of the people making a lot of noise about this. Note: I do not mean the literal pron issue but the glaring sense that this move is a precursor to worse and worse things.

 

[rynnor]

I think the big mistake is making it opt out - coupled with my very low expectations of how blunt an instrument the block will be I can see people routinely avoiding it.

If lots of people end up watching mainstream porn on dark nets is that a win or a loss?

 

[Tom]

There already are "worse and worse things". On my scale of "things I should worry about", this rates at less than 1. I'm more concerned about the lack of politicians willing to do anything about the prevalence of the motor car than I am about a bit of online tat.

 

[bainteor]

Porn is a sad reflection of society's continued decadence, that has been accelerating in the 21st century. It is a poison.

However, I do feel uncomfortable that the British Prime Minister plans to censor it in this way.

 

[Scouse]

Porn is a sad reflection of society's continued decadence, that has been accelerating in the 21st century. It is a poison.

I'd actually say our society's (and your) attitude to porn is a outdated hangover from a censorious and un-natural christian morality.

It's certainly not a 21st century "problem".

Sex is great. It's interesting in every way. Humans have been depicting porn, trying to watch people have sex, having group sex, fucking animals of different species and those of the same species in every conceivable hole, and inanimate objects, their hands and holes in the ground since before we were even human.


Get over yourselves. There's fucking nothing wrong with it. It's ACE

 

[Raven]

Asexuals and deviants usually have a problem with porn.

 

[bainteor]

The picture that you have posted is art. Porn is misogynistic, mindless debauchery that is in no way spiritually and morally progressive, unlike art.

 

[Job]

Well it is better than shooting each other.
.Im not against porn..its just the amount of it...I mean how the fuck do they make money from it anymore...who the fuck is paying for it?

 

[Mabs]

its all over the top and a bit sad really
as previously stated, where do you draw the line ? surely ANYTHING "pornographic" will have to go
so this site for starters, google ?
wont solve anything, the stuff people need to worry about is already illegal and still goes on ,kiddy stuff and so forth, look how succesfully blocked that is

wont work, will cost a lot of money, and makes people look a bit sad really

and on a final note, PARENTING ISNT A PART TIME JOB, parent better, expect other people to do it for less

 

[Tuthmes]

The picture that you have posted is art. Porn is misogynistic, mindless debauchery that is in no way spiritually and morally progressive, unlike art.

 

[DaGaffer]

Nonsense. I would bet significant sums of money that the subject of pornographic material use has been used in family disputes for decades. Now it will be easier to prove.

You're proving my point (again), it won't be easier to prove, but it will be used that way. Opting in for porn is not an indication you're letting your kids see it, but you're actually showing how the "no smoke without fire" approach will be used. Prior to this, as I said in an earlier post, rules of evidence applies, so if porn use was used in a custody case it would have to be proved, now you just have to show this opt-in and a magistrate will jump to exactly the same conclusions you're inferring.

Well I simply don't agree, for reasons I've already stated. You want porn on the internet, you have to click a box that says "yes I want porn on the internet". You want porn in a shop, you have to reach for the top shelf and pulll the wrappers off. You want to watch strippers et al, you have to go into a private building, out of public view. People who call for a completely unrestricted internet often forget that life is very, very far from unrestricted.

But its not the same. I don't have to register my intent to buy Razzle in a shop and have it put on a database. I don't have to phone a call centre to get permission to go to Spearmint Rhino. That's a ridiculous argument.

Blanket statements like that are ridiculous. You know full well that pornographic material is generally considered unsuitable for viewing by young children. If someone, through lack of care, was to cause a situation where a pre-pubescent child had access to egregious pornography, then I would certainly expect a family court to be made aware of this.

Anyhow, I've made my point and that's that. Note that I still don't support this new measure, I just don't think it's as big and scary as some people make out.

And once again, you're missing the point. Opting in on the database doesn't show you're letting your kids see porn. But that's how it will be used in court. In reality, most people with any savvy are going to opt out simply because the filters will break the internet. Anyone who's found themselves blocked from looking at a football story on The Sun website on a corporate network will know this. Network filtering is a blunt instrument.

 

[Mabs]

worth a read


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/micwright/100009396/david-cameron-cant-protect-us-from-child-porn-because-he-doesnt-understand-the-internet/

 

[MYstIC G]

Well I simply don't agree, for reasons I've already stated. You want porn on the internet, you have to click a box that says "yes I want porn on the internet". You want porn in a shop, you have to reach for the top shelf and pulll the wrappers off. You want to watch strippers et al, you have to go into a private building, out of public view. People who call for a completely unrestricted internet often forget that life is very, very far from unrestricted.

That's the point though, the porn is there already. Those who choose to find it distasteful can choose to look the other way for your shelf example. To me it follows that they should choose to call their ISP and ask them to turn a filter ON. What kind of society do we live in where someone else can decide for any arbitrary reason that they dislike something and then everyone else has to suffer as a consequence?

 

[eksdee]

Not to mention if you go and buy a jizz mag in the newsagent you don't have to tell the shopkeeper your name and address.

 

[Scouse]

 

[rynnor]

Hah - bit of a spat between an MP who's website has been hacked to display porn(because shes a vocal supporter of the block) and Guido Fawkes.

She's accused him of being behind the attack apparently without any proof - pretty stupid and she has just dug herself further in when challenged.

Nice little windfall for Guido in defamation settlement methinks...

 

[Scouse]

Aye rynnor, I read that too. She's one of the bitches pushing for the porn-block. Probably worried that her husband likes the women in the porn more than her - which he probably does given her ridiculously retarded personality

Anyway - properly uploading that image that I posted last night and doesn't seem to love linking:

 

[Ctuchik]

Not to mention if you go and buy a jizz mag in the newsagent you don't have to tell the shopkeeper your name and address.

But you still have to make a conscious decision to buy those mags.

And you're not gonna end up going home with a porn mag when you tried to buy nothing but a comic or a newspaper. On the internet however you can click on a seemingly safe link and end up staring at a page full of god knows what weird shit.

Yes i can understand that it might be shameful to ask your ISP to let you watch porn, but is that really so fucking bad when you look at the big picture?

In a perfect world every single one that own a computer would know how to block out porn by themselves, but there's a LOT of people with kids that doesn't have a clue for one reason or another.

So why not at least make sure their kids can't see it?

I mean, it doesn't take much to be able to watch porn again so why make such a big deal out of it?

 

[Raven]

Yes i can understand that it might be shameful to ask your ISP to let you watch porn, but is that really so fucking bad when you look at the big picture?

In itself, no - it will most probably be just a tick box anyway. It's the fact that the information will be missused when frankly, whether someone watches porn or not has absolutely no bearing on whether they are a good or capable person. The courts will use it, employers might use it, social services might use it.

Porn isn't a problem, sexualisation of children through the media is.