In the world of bizarre news, British Prime Minister David Cameron has found a new war to fight. This time it isn’t public spending or low tuition fees. His latest enemy is online pornography.
The United Kingdom has had laws that restrict pornography for quite some time, especially from being produced and marketed within the country. But it has always been as easy to access as it is for the majority of the western world thanks to high speed internet connections.
Which is precisely the problem, Cameron says. In a bid (he and his cabinet hope) to limit the exposure of children to online porn, broadband connections are going to block adult content by default. Each user would have to offer proof that they are eighteen or over in order to get past the filter. Which means you would actively have to “opt in” to adult content filtered by the move.
Some advocates are saying this is a crackdown on violent porn specifically. A statement that is somewhat supported by the fact that search terms related to child abuse are supposedly going to be banned in addition.
“Put simply, there needs to be a list of terms—a black list—which offer up no direct search returns,” Cameron said in his speech on the issue. “I have a very clear message for Google, Bing, Yahoo and the rest: You have a duty to act on this—and it is a moral duty.”
But it won’t just be violent pornography that falls under the header of the law. All pornography will.
“I’m not making this speech because I want to (moralize) or scare-monger, but because I feel profoundly as a politician, and as a father, that the time for action has come. This is, quite simply, about how we protect our children and their innocence,” he said.
This is stupid. Not because protecting children from adult content like pornography, especially violent pornography, isn’t a worthy feat. I am a mother, and I understand that need. It is stupid because it simply can’t be done.
Think about it: what constitutes porn? What will be deemed obscene enough to qualify, and who will make that decision? Can the decision be appealed? And what about the technological aspect…how in the world would you ensure the filters works on a mass scale? What about pornographic images that are posted on non-pornographic sites? What about image sites, like Imgur? Does this mean there will be an agency monitoring people’s internet use in the same was as the surveillance being used for national security?
A lot of questions, but not many answers.
Source: The Guardian
