|
On July 23 2013 23:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 23:01 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 22:58 Plansix wrote:On July 23 2013 22:54 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 22:51 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:49 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On July 23 2013 22:48 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:46 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On July 23 2013 22:44 hzflank wrote:On July 23 2013 22:40 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
That isn't even slightly analogous.
People play because they enjoy the strategy and being pitted against someone in competition. People watch rape because it turns them on, which is the same reason people rape people.
Fair enough. However, I am not sure that people rape because it turns them on. There are probably a lot of different reasons why people rape, but I doubt there are many people for who the idea of rape is a turn on. It is my understanding that people usually rape because some crippling insecurity/trauma left them with a dire need to feel powerful and in charge. It makes sense to me that if someone did indeed have such a drive, they would actually go out and rape someone, or at least attempt to, instead of watching pornography of simulated rape. my point was that people who're interested in rape might be into it online as well. But if they're already interested into rape then there's a fair chance they'll slip up and get caught by the police. I don't see how them watching a video online changes anything. well, i disagree, that's all i'm saying. if some troubled kid is watching rape porn a couple of times a day over a long period he might get the wrong idea. It is the job of the parents to stop their children seeing that. Just like it's the parents job to stop them drinking alcohol, taking drugs, smoking, watching inappropriate movies, seeing violence, swearing or anything else the parents doesn't deem suitable for their kids. Governments still require pornographic magazines to be keep out of reach of children in stores, or in their own section. Same with movies. Making an "adults only" section of the internet isn't that bad if adults can get in. It is just providing parents with a tool to keep the children out of the adults only section. Age gates aren’t really doing it, after all. So when I go on porn hub once this passes I'm basically walking across a crime minefield where one misclick and I'm a sex offender. Do you think that is a sensible policy? No, they should work on that part of the bill and make sure that people won't be charged for a misclick. The concept is sound and there is some dark stuff on the internet. As long as they can tell the difference between a PPV website with some darker content and the darkest sections of 4Chan, I think the law will work as intented. Its a proposed bill, from my understanding. It will be worked on and adjusted. They don't want to charge people with being sex offenders due to a misclick.
Who uses PPV porn? There is bdsm/rape porn over all every major site. Where do you even draw the line where we go from rough sex to bdsm to rape porn? How can you even differentiate that.
Not to mention rape porn still shouldn't be illegal anyway because it is fictional.
|
On July 23 2013 23:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 23:01 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 22:58 Plansix wrote:On July 23 2013 22:54 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 22:51 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:49 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On July 23 2013 22:48 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:46 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On July 23 2013 22:44 hzflank wrote:On July 23 2013 22:40 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
That isn't even slightly analogous.
People play because they enjoy the strategy and being pitted against someone in competition. People watch rape because it turns them on, which is the same reason people rape people.
Fair enough. However, I am not sure that people rape because it turns them on. There are probably a lot of different reasons why people rape, but I doubt there are many people for who the idea of rape is a turn on. It is my understanding that people usually rape because some crippling insecurity/trauma left them with a dire need to feel powerful and in charge. It makes sense to me that if someone did indeed have such a drive, they would actually go out and rape someone, or at least attempt to, instead of watching pornography of simulated rape. my point was that people who're interested in rape might be into it online as well. But if they're already interested into rape then there's a fair chance they'll slip up and get caught by the police. I don't see how them watching a video online changes anything. well, i disagree, that's all i'm saying. if some troubled kid is watching rape porn a couple of times a day over a long period he might get the wrong idea. It is the job of the parents to stop their children seeing that. Just like it's the parents job to stop them drinking alcohol, taking drugs, smoking, watching inappropriate movies, seeing violence, swearing or anything else the parents doesn't deem suitable for their kids. Governments still require pornographic magazines to be keep out of reach of children in stores, or in their own section. Same with movies. Making an "adults only" section of the internet isn't that bad if adults can get in. It is just providing parents with a tool to keep the children out of the adults only section. Age gates aren’t really doing it, after all. So when I go on porn hub once this passes I'm basically walking across a crime minefield where one misclick and I'm a sex offender. Do you think that is a sensible policy? No, they should work on that part of the bill and make sure that people won't be charged for a misclick. The concept is sound and there is some dark stuff on the internet. As long as they can tell the difference between a PPV website with some darker content and the darkest sections of 4Chan, I think the law will work as intented. Its a proposed bill, from my understanding. It will be worked on and adjusted. They don't want to charge people with being sex offenders due to a misclick.
Making 4chan illegal, any part of it, would be atrocious.
|
On July 23 2013 23:08 Maxie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 23:05 Plansix wrote:On July 23 2013 23:01 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 22:58 Plansix wrote:On July 23 2013 22:54 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 22:51 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:49 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On July 23 2013 22:48 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:46 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On July 23 2013 22:44 hzflank wrote:
[quote]
Fair enough. However, I am not sure that people rape because it turns them on. There are probably a lot of different reasons why people rape, but I doubt there are many people for who the idea of rape is a turn on. It is my understanding that people usually rape because some crippling insecurity/trauma left them with a dire need to feel powerful and in charge. It makes sense to me that if someone did indeed have such a drive, they would actually go out and rape someone, or at least attempt to, instead of watching pornography of simulated rape. my point was that people who're interested in rape might be into it online as well. But if they're already interested into rape then there's a fair chance they'll slip up and get caught by the police. I don't see how them watching a video online changes anything. well, i disagree, that's all i'm saying. if some troubled kid is watching rape porn a couple of times a day over a long period he might get the wrong idea. It is the job of the parents to stop their children seeing that. Just like it's the parents job to stop them drinking alcohol, taking drugs, smoking, watching inappropriate movies, seeing violence, swearing or anything else the parents doesn't deem suitable for their kids. Governments still require pornographic magazines to be keep out of reach of children in stores, or in their own section. Same with movies. Making an "adults only" section of the internet isn't that bad if adults can get in. It is just providing parents with a tool to keep the children out of the adults only section. Age gates aren’t really doing it, after all. So when I go on porn hub once this passes I'm basically walking across a crime minefield where one misclick and I'm a sex offender. Do you think that is a sensible policy? No, they should work on that part of the bill and make sure that people won't be charged for a misclick. The concept is sound and there is some dark stuff on the internet. As long as they can tell the difference between a PPV website with some darker content and the darkest sections of 4Chan, I think the law will work as intented. Its a proposed bill, from my understanding. It will be worked on and adjusted. They don't want to charge people with being sex offenders due to a misclick. Making 4chan illegal, any part of it, would be atrocious.
I think that be hilarious tbh. If you think the War of Drugs/Terror are unwinnable then just wait until you try and take on the Internet.
|
On July 23 2013 23:08 Maxie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 23:05 Plansix wrote:On July 23 2013 23:01 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 22:58 Plansix wrote:On July 23 2013 22:54 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 22:51 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:49 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On July 23 2013 22:48 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:46 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On July 23 2013 22:44 hzflank wrote:
[quote]
Fair enough. However, I am not sure that people rape because it turns them on. There are probably a lot of different reasons why people rape, but I doubt there are many people for who the idea of rape is a turn on. It is my understanding that people usually rape because some crippling insecurity/trauma left them with a dire need to feel powerful and in charge. It makes sense to me that if someone did indeed have such a drive, they would actually go out and rape someone, or at least attempt to, instead of watching pornography of simulated rape. my point was that people who're interested in rape might be into it online as well. But if they're already interested into rape then there's a fair chance they'll slip up and get caught by the police. I don't see how them watching a video online changes anything. well, i disagree, that's all i'm saying. if some troubled kid is watching rape porn a couple of times a day over a long period he might get the wrong idea. It is the job of the parents to stop their children seeing that. Just like it's the parents job to stop them drinking alcohol, taking drugs, smoking, watching inappropriate movies, seeing violence, swearing or anything else the parents doesn't deem suitable for their kids. Governments still require pornographic magazines to be keep out of reach of children in stores, or in their own section. Same with movies. Making an "adults only" section of the internet isn't that bad if adults can get in. It is just providing parents with a tool to keep the children out of the adults only section. Age gates aren’t really doing it, after all. So when I go on porn hub once this passes I'm basically walking across a crime minefield where one misclick and I'm a sex offender. Do you think that is a sensible policy? No, they should work on that part of the bill and make sure that people won't be charged for a misclick. The concept is sound and there is some dark stuff on the internet. As long as they can tell the difference between a PPV website with some darker content and the darkest sections of 4Chan, I think the law will work as intented. Its a proposed bill, from my understanding. It will be worked on and adjusted. They don't want to charge people with being sex offenders due to a misclick. Making 4chan illegal, any part of it, would be atrocious.
It doesn't make it illegal, read up on the subject.
|
On July 23 2013 23:08 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 23:05 Plansix wrote:On July 23 2013 23:01 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 22:58 Plansix wrote:On July 23 2013 22:54 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 22:51 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:49 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On July 23 2013 22:48 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:46 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On July 23 2013 22:44 hzflank wrote:
[quote]
Fair enough. However, I am not sure that people rape because it turns them on. There are probably a lot of different reasons why people rape, but I doubt there are many people for who the idea of rape is a turn on. It is my understanding that people usually rape because some crippling insecurity/trauma left them with a dire need to feel powerful and in charge. It makes sense to me that if someone did indeed have such a drive, they would actually go out and rape someone, or at least attempt to, instead of watching pornography of simulated rape. my point was that people who're interested in rape might be into it online as well. But if they're already interested into rape then there's a fair chance they'll slip up and get caught by the police. I don't see how them watching a video online changes anything. well, i disagree, that's all i'm saying. if some troubled kid is watching rape porn a couple of times a day over a long period he might get the wrong idea. It is the job of the parents to stop their children seeing that. Just like it's the parents job to stop them drinking alcohol, taking drugs, smoking, watching inappropriate movies, seeing violence, swearing or anything else the parents doesn't deem suitable for their kids. Governments still require pornographic magazines to be keep out of reach of children in stores, or in their own section. Same with movies. Making an "adults only" section of the internet isn't that bad if adults can get in. It is just providing parents with a tool to keep the children out of the adults only section. Age gates aren’t really doing it, after all. So when I go on porn hub once this passes I'm basically walking across a crime minefield where one misclick and I'm a sex offender. Do you think that is a sensible policy? No, they should work on that part of the bill and make sure that people won't be charged for a misclick. The concept is sound and there is some dark stuff on the internet. As long as they can tell the difference between a PPV website with some darker content and the darkest sections of 4Chan, I think the law will work as intented. Its a proposed bill, from my understanding. It will be worked on and adjusted. They don't want to charge people with being sex offenders due to a misclick. Who uses PPV porn? There is bdsm/rape porn over all every major site. Where do you even draw the line where we go from rough sex to bdsm to rape porn? How can you even differentiate that. Not to mention rape porn still shouldn't be illegal anyway because it is fictional.
Well that is something they need to work out and I am sort of with you on that subject. But the concept of making an adults only section of the internet and provided people with a filter if they want to use it isn't horrible. The bdsm videos are fine, but they should be required to clearly label themselves as fictional, mostly for the safty of the people making the video.
|
lol this is funny, there's so many ways around it that's it's laughable.
|
For reference, in the UK psuedo images of children (under 18) in pornographic imagery are as illegal as child abuse imagery, including cartoons of all kinds. I think it's likely therefore that rape imagery of all kinds ('simulated rough sex' or bondage) will be a target of the government as that would be consistent with previous legislation.
|
Censorship never helps. I am gonna proxy for UK, if they let me watch TopGear on bbc.co.uk.
also Sweden´s way is much better, no porn with women having A-cups.
|
What about people that like to be dominated and coincidentally watch the same videos as those "dangerous" people with rape fantasies?
And what about hollywood movies where people are getting killed all the time, might give the wrong idea, too!
|
On July 23 2013 23:15 plgElwood wrote:
Censorship never helps. I am gonna proxy for UK, if they let me watch TopGear on bbc.co.uk.
also Sweden´s way is much better, no porn with women having A-cups.
You mean Australia.
|
Big clue... if someone claims to be protecting the children, they're probably doing something wholly different.
|
Banning porn with women with A-cups is insulting and discriminatory. Following the same logic it should be illegal to have sex with A-cup sized women because who could possibly be attracted to them without being a pedophile? Absolute joke.
On July 23 2013 22:54 FFGenerations wrote:
in Australia: schoolgirl outfits, A-cup sized breasts, simpsons/cartoon porn and written stories are all considered child pornography by law and treated as such (you are not allowed any porn with a-cups or schoolgirl props)
All of this is just terrible and I'll wager has done absolutely nothing in terms of reducing instances of child abuse or rape.
|
So, after observing the whole internet, they try to control the content? First pornography, then terrorism. When are political contents next?
The UK is really taking a dire road. Sad to see. Not really fitting anymore to the liberal European standards.
We need a free Internet for free people, democracy and freedom of expression!
|
On July 23 2013 23:23 Caladan wrote:
So, after observing the whole internet, they try to control the content? First pornography, then terrorism. When are political contents next?
The UK is really taking a dire road. Sad to see. Not really fitting anymore to the liberal European standards.
We need a free Internet for free people, democracy and freedom of expression!
I agree... I'm writing to the prime minister and my local politician. Cannot even believe this is being considered. I feel ashamed.
|
Good to see that there are other people from UK too. 
I mean, if it's really about the children - how about spending more time with them instead of placing them in front of the TV / PC the whole day? -___-
Also there is parental control software available in every windows nowadays.
I can't even think of a single reason to censor the internet for this, lol.
|
On July 23 2013 23:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 23:08 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 23:05 Plansix wrote:On July 23 2013 23:01 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 22:58 Plansix wrote:On July 23 2013 22:54 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 22:51 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:49 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On July 23 2013 22:48 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:46 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
[quote]
It is my understanding that people usually rape because some crippling insecurity/trauma left them with a dire need to feel powerful and in charge. It makes sense to me that if someone did indeed have such a drive, they would actually go out and rape someone, or at least attempt to, instead of watching pornography of simulated rape. my point was that people who're interested in rape might be into it online as well. But if they're already interested into rape then there's a fair chance they'll slip up and get caught by the police. I don't see how them watching a video online changes anything. well, i disagree, that's all i'm saying. if some troubled kid is watching rape porn a couple of times a day over a long period he might get the wrong idea. It is the job of the parents to stop their children seeing that. Just like it's the parents job to stop them drinking alcohol, taking drugs, smoking, watching inappropriate movies, seeing violence, swearing or anything else the parents doesn't deem suitable for their kids. Governments still require pornographic magazines to be keep out of reach of children in stores, or in their own section. Same with movies. Making an "adults only" section of the internet isn't that bad if adults can get in. It is just providing parents with a tool to keep the children out of the adults only section. Age gates aren’t really doing it, after all. So when I go on porn hub once this passes I'm basically walking across a crime minefield where one misclick and I'm a sex offender. Do you think that is a sensible policy? No, they should work on that part of the bill and make sure that people won't be charged for a misclick. The concept is sound and there is some dark stuff on the internet. As long as they can tell the difference between a PPV website with some darker content and the darkest sections of 4Chan, I think the law will work as intented. Its a proposed bill, from my understanding. It will be worked on and adjusted. They don't want to charge people with being sex offenders due to a misclick. Who uses PPV porn? There is bdsm/rape porn over all every major site. Where do you even draw the line where we go from rough sex to bdsm to rape porn? How can you even differentiate that. Not to mention rape porn still shouldn't be illegal anyway because it is fictional. Well that is something they need to work out and I am sort of with you on that subject. But the concept of making an adults only section of the internet and provided people with a filter if they want to use it isn't horrible. The bdsm videos are fine, but they should be required to clearly label themselves as fictional, mostly for the safty of the people making the video.
But you already can make an "adults only" section of the internet with parental controls. Why do we expect the government to be a more effective parent than...a parent. The way this bill works is atrocious. You have to call your ISP to tell them you want to opt out of the filter. It comes off as some sort of porn shaming. Actually that's all it is since filters are so easy to get around. It's not actually going to stop any porn, it's just going to force people who want to legally watch it to announce that they watch porn.
|
On July 23 2013 23:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 23:08 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
Who uses PPV porn? There is bdsm/rape porn over all every major site. Where do you even draw the line where we go from rough sex to bdsm to rape porn? How can you even differentiate that.
Not to mention rape porn still shouldn't be illegal anyway because it is fictional.
Well that is something they need to work out and I am sort of with you on that subject. But the concept of making an adults only section of the internet and provided people with a filter if they want to use it isn't horrible. The bdsm videos are fine, but they should be required to clearly label themselves as fictional, mostly for the safty of the people making the video.
The difference between a professionally produced roleplay movie and someone's video documentation of a sex crime is obvious if you've ever watched either, and adult companies already take it upon themselves to make policies against illegal content because they don't want the flak or responsibility of being a distributor for that kind of material.
There are plenty of technologies parents can use if they want to watch what their kids are doing online, and I haven't seen the prime minister connect the dots from some problem children supposedly have to a national internet filter. And I am not a fan of a government doing random things without a flushed out rationale.
|
On July 23 2013 20:19 electronic voyeur wrote:
Other measures include stricter video restrictions and laws, pressure for search engines to offer more tools for barring content, and an increase in the legal action and monitoring abilities available to the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre and police when searching for sources of illegal material and in tracking down pedophiles. Cameron also caalled for the immediate blacklisting of certain “horrific” terms, meaning that they would not show any results when searched on Google or Bing.
While the porn thing is more than bad enough in and of itself, this blacklisting thing is way, way worse. This is some Chinese censorship stuff in the making. Horrific terms are obviously up to the government to decide what they are. And personally I am of the opinion that finding "horrific" stuff on the internet is one of the many good things about it. How else would you get to know what actually goes on in the middle east or Egypt for example? I'm pretty sure the sniper videos are found using "horrific" terms. Of course it may not be about this yet, but again, the government defines what is horrific, not you.
On July 23 2013 23:30 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 23:12 Plansix wrote:On July 23 2013 23:08 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 23:05 Plansix wrote:On July 23 2013 23:01 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 22:58 Plansix wrote:On July 23 2013 22:54 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 22:51 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:49 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On July 23 2013 22:48 i zig zag around you wrote:
[quote]
my point was that people who're interested in rape might be into it online as well.
But if they're already interested into rape then there's a fair chance they'll slip up and get caught by the police. I don't see how them watching a video online changes anything. well, i disagree, that's all i'm saying. if some troubled kid is watching rape porn a couple of times a day over a long period he might get the wrong idea. It is the job of the parents to stop their children seeing that. Just like it's the parents job to stop them drinking alcohol, taking drugs, smoking, watching inappropriate movies, seeing violence, swearing or anything else the parents doesn't deem suitable for their kids. Governments still require pornographic magazines to be keep out of reach of children in stores, or in their own section. Same with movies. Making an "adults only" section of the internet isn't that bad if adults can get in. It is just providing parents with a tool to keep the children out of the adults only section. Age gates aren’t really doing it, after all. So when I go on porn hub once this passes I'm basically walking across a crime minefield where one misclick and I'm a sex offender. Do you think that is a sensible policy? No, they should work on that part of the bill and make sure that people won't be charged for a misclick. The concept is sound and there is some dark stuff on the internet. As long as they can tell the difference between a PPV website with some darker content and the darkest sections of 4Chan, I think the law will work as intented. Its a proposed bill, from my understanding. It will be worked on and adjusted. They don't want to charge people with being sex offenders due to a misclick. Who uses PPV porn? There is bdsm/rape porn over all every major site. Where do you even draw the line where we go from rough sex to bdsm to rape porn? How can you even differentiate that. Not to mention rape porn still shouldn't be illegal anyway because it is fictional. Well that is something they need to work out and I am sort of with you on that subject. But the concept of making an adults only section of the internet and provided people with a filter if they want to use it isn't horrible. The bdsm videos are fine, but they should be required to clearly label themselves as fictional, mostly for the safty of the people making the video. But you already can make an "adults only" section of the internet with parental controls. Why do we expect the government to be a more effective parent than...a parent. The way this bill works is atrocious. You have to call your ISP to tell them you want to opt out of the filter. It comes off as some sort of porn shaming. Actually that's all it is since filters are so easy to get around. It's not actually going to stop any porn, it's just going to force people who want to legally watch it to announce that they watch porn.
Pretty sure lots of people will watch less porn because of that. Not everyone is immune to shame and some people cripple under it. It's pretty awful.
|
|
|
the german government tried something similar a few years ago with censorship and blacklisting of sites. luckily a petition was able to stop this shit from happening, because the list of censored sites would have been secret to the public and thus open for abuse.
I think the case was made about scandinavian countries that allready have this blacklisting and most of the sites on those lists were not porn or pedophile sites but other stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
