| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Voyage
Germany71 Posts
On July 23 2013 22:04 hzflank wrote: I don't know what rape looks like. I am sure that rape can look like many things, that is the problem. In some european countries sex without a condom is rape, so we better get ready for a prison isle à la johnny english. | ||
|
Voyage
Germany71 Posts
On July 23 2013 22:11 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote: Except this isn't rape, the is simulated rape, hence IT'S NOT FUCKING REAL. Just like Saw is simulated torture, 100% of action films have simulated murder, Harry Potter has simulated witchcraft, WWE is simulated bare knuckle/no rules fighting and Chess is simulated regicide. None of those things are illegal because they're not real, they're fake and it's fucking retarded beyond all fucking measures to censor something which is fake. you know if lolicon shit is outlawed in UK? | ||
|
Iyerbeth
England2410 Posts
It is. | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On July 23 2013 23:41 Skilledblob wrote: 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. We have a pedophile-site filter but as far as I know it's working as it should. Motherless was blocked for a good year or two but it's been off it for a long time now (probably after Motherless themselves cleaned up their act as it's very hard finding any child pornography there anymore as far as I know). Whenever you go to a site that's been blocked you're greeted with a page that explains that the site is blocked by request from the Swedish police due to being a disseminator of child pornography and that if you feel this block is in error you can contact the police at whatever number or e-mail or whatever it was. It's all very up front. I'm not sure if there's a public list of all the sites the police request to be blocked or not though. Furthermore only ISPs that accept this filtering themselves are included (and there are some that don't, although I think all of the very biggest do). | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
| ||
|
rezoacken
Canada2719 Posts
And yeah don't give government censorship powers. | ||
|
Hattori_Hanzo
Singapore1229 Posts
On July 23 2013 22:15 Nymzee wrote: I don't understand why Cameron is doing this given how much of a wanker he is. Seriously though, I truly do not understand the point of this at all. The right to control what you can see on the internet. That is all. | ||
|
Asymmetric
Scotland1309 Posts
On July 23 2013 23:40 Skytt wrote: If you're from the UK and against it theres a petition starting up here: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/51746 Thanks for that. Just signed. | ||
|
teddyoojo
Germany22369 Posts
| ||
Falling
Canada11262 Posts
On July 23 2013 23:53 HellRoxYa wrote: We have a pedophile-site filter but as far as I know it's working as it should. Motherless was blocked for a good year or two but it's been off it for a long time now (probably after Motherless themselves cleaned up their act as it's very hard finding any child pornography there anymore as far as I know). Whenever you go to a site that's been blocked you're greeted with a page that explains that the site is blocked by request from the Swedish police due to being a disseminator of child pornography and that if you feel this block is in error you can contact the police at whatever number or e-mail or whatever it was. It's all very up front. I'm not sure if there's a public list of all the sites the police request to be blocked or not though. Furthermore only ISPs that accept this filtering themselves are included (and there are some that don't, although I think all of the very biggest do). ^ If UK does go forward, this seems like a reasonable way to about it. And make it a clearly visible opt in policy. Best of all worlds in my opinion because choosing to accept the block get's around all those 'but who decides' problems. If it is such an issue, just don't opt in. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5275 Posts
| ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On July 24 2013 00:06 Falling wrote: ^ If UK does go forward, this seems like a reasonable way to about it. And make it a clearly visible opt in policy. Best of all worlds in my opinion because choosing to accept the block get's around all those 'but who decides' problems. If it is such an issue, just don't opt in. To be fair, it's the ISP opting in and not the end user. But since you (generally) have the option to choose your ISP regardless of where you live you can just go for one of the freedom-humping ones. They're usually just as good but without the bullshit other ISPs impose on you. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
Edit to make myself look like less of a pedophile: ISPs are also required to block other illegal things (snuff movies, drug sales, etc). | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 24 2013 00:14 HellRoxYa wrote: To be fair, it's the ISP opting in and not the end user. But since you (generally) have the option to choose your ISP regardless of where you live you can just go for one of the freedom-humping ones. They're usually just as good but without the bullshit other ISPs impose on you. ISP's could just make it a check box when you sign up "Do you want the family filter on?" and that solves the problem. I do agree that opt in is always better. | ||
|
archonOOid
1983 Posts
| ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14079 Posts
| ||
|
FFW_Rude
France10201 Posts
On July 24 2013 00:14 xM(Z wrote: how would this work for downloaded files (torrents/p2p)? It won't. It a nice thing for UK. But we all have been teenagers and we all find a way to watch some. Borrowing from friends, asking the big brother, or outright downloading it. So it's just nothing. A political fuss that won't change the majority of things. Maybe you will get less spyware :p Anyway i think this has nice intentions, but it's just useless. On July 24 2013 00:28 archonOOid wrote: First they came for the porn, then they'll come for "piracy" and later they'll come for your freedom. I love those statements... so completly theoritical. For me i think that's a paranoid statement. Also piracy is not something that can be put into quotes. It is what it is  | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
| ||
|
FFW_Rude
France10201 Posts
On July 24 2013 00:42 darkness wrote: Restricting a few porn websites to me is like "I'm going to try to restrict a small part to see if we can restrict the Internet even more in the future". They're just trying to see how people would react now. Why oh why would you think that ? Governments are not out trying to get you. If they wanted to restricts some things you would never know and they would have done it WAYYYY sooner. Also for the lulz Check out OP's name. It's just perfect | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
On July 24 2013 00:44 FFW_Rude wrote: Why oh why would you think that ? Governments are not out trying to get you. If they wanted to restricts some things you would never know and they would have done it WAYYYY sooner. Also for the lulz Check out OP's name. It's just perfectConsidering how PRISM, Tempora (UK), SOPA, ACTA, etc were so recent, anything can be possible from retarded governments. Also Turkish PM wants Twitter blocked. Governments have realised that the Internet is/will be the main force in the future to stop them from doing things we don't want them to do. It may sound as a conspiracy, but this sums it up: On July 24 2013 00:28 archonOOid wrote: First they came for the porn, then they'll come for "piracy" and later they'll come for your freedom. | ||
| ||
|
|
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
PiGosaur Monday
Replay Cast
SOOP
SKillous vs Spirit
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
[BSL 2025] Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
