Opting into porn? Why not?

I should like, as I’ve said previously, to express my intention to register for Internet porn. And why would I want to do this?

Well, it’s simple, we have a porky, corrupt, arsehole – Cameron, in case that description slipped by you – trying to dictate to us what we can and cannot view on equipment and services that have cost us quite a lot of money. And, of course, is entirely wrong-headed, as is everything the Pink Pillock touches.

Preventing me from accessing Internet porn will not protect a single child from it. Nor should it, that’s not my job – they’re not my kids. Ensuring that their kids stay away from Internet porn – and good luck with that, by the way, kids of a certain age will always find a way, they always have – is the job of parents. Never mind the “It takes a village” crap, it take parenting skills, and those skills do not include censorship of anything outside your own household.

But back to porn. Can there be a single adult – or sub-adult – male in this septic isle who has not, at some point, dipped a toe – or other bits – into porn on the Web? (It’s not Internet porn, by the way, it’s World Wide Web porn – the Web piggy-backs on the Internet proper.) I sincerely doubt it, and any guy who claims otherwise is probably lying his arse off.

So, no, I have no problem with opting in, as a protest against censorship – I’ve been online almost 20 years, and the novelty of real, live, porn has long since worn off, as it has for most guys who have been around the web for years, I should think (though I do wonder why Keith Lemon has one hand bandaged – getting sore is it, Keith?).

True, we do have a scattering of porn addicts, who try to import their fantasy world into real life, but they’re not the issue here, the issue – and it’s very, very,  simple – is the sharp end of the censorship wedge.

I wrote, rather more extensively, on this subject last year, here.

http://ronsrants.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/government-puritanism-is-just-a-front-for-state-control-and-censorship/

About these ads

5 thoughts on “Opting into porn? Why not?

  1. I agree wholeheartedly with you, in terms of it being censorship, but also as a photographer who regularly shoots art nude models. Like others who shoot models I use web sites where both models and photographers advertise to collaborate on projects, and given the way laws can get moulded to suit other situations the difference between art nude and porn could easily be deemed to be negligible by some over zealous keepers of the law. It has already happened with one such site in the USA that was blocked even though the images on it were purely artistic in nature, and the nude/topless images only accounted for about 10% of the total on the site!

  2. My friend has two boys aged 15 and 14, and they both have a laptop in their bedrooms. They both have parental controls on their laptops, so that they can’t access any porn websites. My friend has done her best to make sure that it won’t happen.

    But. . . she has no control over what her boys can watch when they visit their friends houses, or friends of friends houses. She has to trust that they won’t search for porn (fat chance!), and she has to trust that the parents of their friends are as responsible as she is.

    And it’s not only men who watch porn. I knew a few couples who watch it together.

  3. Also agree here. I’m female well over 18 and I decide for myself what I want to watch. This is just a publicity stunt to ‘big’ up Cameron. It makes no difference to the roots of the problem. It also sets a very dangerous president of the gov having a say on how you use the internet.

    • If memory serves, people have already been jailed for accessing alleged terrorist websites, even though, personally, they have committed no crime. This is more of the same.

      It’s also, according to Cameron, going to be a criminal offence to possess images depicting simulated rape. Since when has simulated anything been a criminal act? And what of art galleries? Rape, usually by gods of one sort or another, has long been a popular theme. Are the directors going to wind up in court and the galleries shut down? Because such images are not unique to the Internet, they’re everywhere as, by all accounts, are images of child abuse – a far more serious problem.

      And how are people who have collections of “simulated rape” to be identified? It’s quite impossible to search the homes of everybody with an Internet connection and, in a family home, such images might not be in the possession of the account holder, but of a teenager, say. So who’s winding up in court?

      This is going to be a shambles, because like every other idea this lunatic has had, it hasn’t been thought through – or thought about at all. The first thing he has to do is enlist the co-operation of the service providers and they, with no desire to anger paying customers, are likely to dig their heels in, and those based outside the UK will simply tell him to sod off .

      Google might co-operate by restricting searches from the UK, but it’s simple enough to anonymise your online presence so that Google has no idea where you are. And as a large proportion of users do this as a matter of course, especially in countries where they might be in danger, it wouldn’t be feasible to block them just in case they were in the UK.

      Finally – before this becomes a blog post – memory cards, like MicroSD, which are the size of a fingernail, are so easy to hide that it would become necessary to literally dismantle a house to find one – and then it might be missed. What then, Cameron?

  4. Pingback: Opting into porn? Why not? | Welfare, Disabilit...

Comments are closed.