UK Politicians Want People To Have To Apply For A Porn License Before Viewing Online Porn

from the blacklists-don't-work dept

Just as France is looking to implement an internet blacklist, it appears that politicians in the UK are pressuring ISPs to create a blacklist themselves, blocking all porn sites, and not letting anyone access them unless they "specifically request access." In other words, if you want to view porn, you have to first get your porn viewing license. The reasoning, of course, like that behind all clueless internet legislation, is to "protect the children." What's ignored is that if filters really work (and they don't), parents already have the opportunity to use them themselves, without the government stepping in.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 11:47am

    I have to ask

    No one has ever told me this. What are the damages to young people if they see porn? All I hear is crap about physiological damages, but no one ever told me what they were. And don't give me that crap about porn addiction, I'd believe that from an introvert like me, but not from the rest of my high school who grew up in the age of internet porn.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      scarr (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 11:55am

      Re: I have to ask

      Exposure to sex can lead to hyper-sexualization of the child. The child can view intercourse as being a life goal, rather than healthy relationships. It's similar in some ways to what sexual abuse can do (although less likely to create a pedophile). It isn't guaranteed, but there's an increased chance of it. As with most things, it varies with the kind of exposure, and how often it happens.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2010 @ 11:56am

        Re: Re: I have to ask

        citation needed

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 12:04pm

          Re: Re: Re: I have to ask

          Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. I'd have to see the actual studies on that one.

          I also like how in the linked to Guardian article Claire Perry is worried about kids up to the age of 19 years old looking at porn. I sure as hell would hope that the parents would explain to their kids what sex is before they reached 19 (hell probably around 10-12 years old, ya know, puberty).

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            scarr (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 12:09pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: I have to ask

            I thought you were asking for some general understanding of what the concern is about. I'm simply the psychology I've learned over multiple years. (It's a blog comment, not an entry to a scientific journal.) I'm sure you can find various authoritative sources online.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 12:16pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have to ask

              Basically what I'm saying, and probably what AC is saying, is that what you said doesn't make any sense.

              I grew up in the age of online pornography, while I'm not an outstanding example, I'm just one of three thousand in my high school. One of however many millions that graduated at the same time. Why is this just now happening? What about all those people before us who had ample access to porn before the internet.

              Saying that porn will make someone fixate on sex (as apposed to... what high school did these people go to?) just doesn't make any sense.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                cc (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 12:23pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have to ask

                Actually, I'm pretty sure there must be studies showing "evidence" for such things...

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                crade (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 12:24pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have to ask

                I'm not sure why you would need anything special to trigger sex being a life goal or that this should be a bad thing? Doesn't reproduction fall naturally somewhere right up there after obtaining food and shelter? I figure that would be a starting premise when trying to bring a kid up right in society.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                scarr (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 12:42pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have to ask

                I don't think anybody is saying the effects are just now happening. The effects of premature sexualization are the same as they've always been. The source is more readily available now. (As someone who went through puberty as the web was first hitting its stride, I can tell you the difference was massive.)

                I don't think you would argue that being molested doesn't have an effect on someone. While the particulars of whoever did the molesting become a factor in how the victim's sexual tendencies go, the general effects on sexuality from early exposure are similar.

                The claim isn't that teenagers aren't otherwise consumed by hormones, just that the degree to which they act out/behave/whatever is exaggerated. Thus hyper-sexual. (It could swing hypo-sexual too, or oscillate between the extremes, but I was trying to keep it simple.)

                Also, and I just realized this might be where some confusion is coming from, I'm not talking about 16/17-year-olds finding some pictures of naked women. As the article notes, teenagers will find ways around those walls. The concern is more about younger kids accidentally stumbling onto something. (I'm not saying this is a valid concern for anyone with remotely decent parents either.)

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 12:53pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have to ask

                  I think that's where my massive amounts of pissed off comes from. These people are worried about kids from the age of 9-19 (as shown in the linked to article). Isn't around that time when kids are suppose to be getting exposed to this kind of thing, shouldn't parents be explaining the birds and the bees. Wouldn't properly preparing kids help them avoid the pitfalls they may come across. No law or censorship needed.

                  But hay, that would be expecting parents to do their jobs, we can't all be Darryls here.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    scarr (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 1:08pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have to ask

                    I followed the link now, and I see what you mean. Since 16 is the age of consent in the UK, it seems odd to say 19-year-olds getting porn is a problem. 9 is still a bit young, but I don't think you're claiming they should be given hardcore porn.

                    For the record, I don't agree with the idea of banning/filtering sites at all. Basic parenting will cover most of what needs to be covered. If you have young kids, turn on the basic parental filters on your computer, or sit with your kids while they're on the internet. If kids are actively searching, then they're actually curious, and parents should discuss it all with them and answer their questions. (Well, not *all*. This isn't 4chan.)

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 1:20pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have to ask

                      I'm under the belief that proper education would solve 90% of the worlds problems. It would definitely solve both problems here.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        Chargone (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 7:18pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have to ask

                        the perpetual question, of course, being what rates as 'proper'?

                        ... consider that most English speaking countries have trouble even teaching English literacy to a significant level, let alone anything else.

                        of course, step one is that the primary responsibility for 'proper' education must fall on the parents... schools, teachers, and such, are Employed to cover specific areas where specialist training is helpful, but pretty much the entirety of a child's existence is 'education' in some form or another. ... or sleeping.

                        all significant stuff.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Qyiet (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 12:16pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have to ask

              So.. you are too lazy to even google it yourself. Well done for trashing your own arguement

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2010 @ 4:56pm

          Re: Re: Re: I have to ask

          Well. that was EXACTLY what I was about to say, but you beat me. scarr, before you do the OTHER cardinal sin, PROTIP: "look it up" is not citation.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2010 @ 12:32pm

        Re: Re: I have to ask

        Uh...isn't a desire to reproduce a biological life goal? From what you're saying, puberty is more of a danger than "exposure" ever could be.

        And better yet, how does removing exposure improve healthy relationships? If you're lacking in a mindset for good relationships, then your approach does nothing to improve it.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Christopher (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 12:55pm

          Re: Re: Re: I have to ask

          True. I was sexually active LONG before puberty, though I didn't know that is what it was called.

          Hell, I remember doing things that I could equate to adult terms such as cunnilingus with other female children (I am male) when I was 4 when our parents weren't watching.

          It's time to realize that sex is NOT an adult nor a 'destructive' impulse. In fact, I am of the thinking that we should perhaps ENCOURAGE at least teenagers to be having sex (while being on birth control) so that they do not hitch themselves to an asshole because the asshole is a relatively good lay!

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2010 @ 4:34am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: I have to ask

            Sorry Chris, but she left you because he really is that much a better lay than you ;-p

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        vivaelamor (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 1:53pm

        Re: Re: I have to ask

        "Exposure to sex can lead to hyper-sexualization of the child. The child can view intercourse as being a life goal, rather than healthy relationships."

        Weird. I always thought the prevailing stereotype was that males with early access to porn (generally geeks), were considered more likely to stay a virgin. I offer myself as anecdotal evidence, being in my mid 20's and conscientiously a virgin, who had early access to porn.

        I always found the pressures of hyper-sexualisation to be much stronger from the effects of masculine stereotypes than from watching porn. Although porn does tend to encompass that issue in a big way, that merely reinforces the point that porn might not be the heart of the issue.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2010 @ 1:04pm

        Re: Re: I have to ask

        Intercourse is our life goal buddy...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      ReligiousNutJob, Dec 20th, 2010 @ 12:01pm

      Re: I have to ask

      If kids see porn, they'll want to have premarital sex! If they do that they will go to hell. I really don't want my kids going to hell, so the government better stop them from watching porn!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Christopher (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 12:52pm

        Re: Re: I have to ask

        I hope you are being sarcastic. The fact is that we are BORN with genitals, and there isn't a forcefield between the genitals of people who aren't married.... so if 'god' expected us to only be having sex after we are married, he fucked up big time!

        All of this is about forcing religious values on people who don't want to adhere to them. Frankly, I have no problem with my children viewing pornography, as long as they are the ones who go looking for it.

        Now, if they find it while searching for something else totally unrelated (which Google and other search providers have taken care of with their Safe Search technology for the most part) and they come running to me whining about this thing they found that 'offends' them.... THEN I would be pissed.

        Frankly, I know how to install a 'parental filter' on our computers..... but I am of the thinking that they are totally W O R T H L E S S because any child above 6 can get around them just by searching online for various methods to get around them.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      monkyyy, Dec 20th, 2010 @ 2:03pm

      Re: I have to ask

      i think when they say "protect the children." they mean early teens, then porn addiction could become a problem

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Cixelsid (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 4:13pm

        Re: Re: I have to ask

        You don't need porn to be obsessed with sex, just hormones. It's what happens when you hit puberty, not knowing wtf it is you're craving is probably worse. I grew up with porn (I'm dutch) and my family took a very liberal view of the whole thing. As I get older I notice that I'm not that interested anymore in it, it's probably because my testosterone levels are dropping with age. People that want to ban porn are afraid of sex, likely because they were taught to equate it with shame at a young age.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    crade (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 11:58am

    It shouldn't be the government's responsibility to ensure that your house is baby proofed or that you're kids don't run with scissors... In my humble opinion of course.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2010 @ 12:18pm

    Maybe this is just me, but might this proposal have privacy implications?

    A list of which people look at porn just seems very exploitable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      :Lobo Santo (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 12:21pm

      Re: Privacy Implications

      This is just the first step to the 'porn license fee' enforcement office. It will be a multi-million pound income generator for the UK government.

      ; P

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        vivaelamor (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 1:56pm

        Re: Re: Privacy Implications

        "This is just the first step to the 'porn license fee' enforcement office. It will be a multi-million pound income generator for the UK government."

        Not to worry; I'm sure it'd be as independent as the BBC and thus beyond scrutiny by mere mortals who pay for the thing.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    pronman, Dec 20th, 2010 @ 12:28pm

    No problem

    Got my porn licence at "hand" already!

    pronman

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    jjmsan (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 12:32pm

    License

    You know we don't give people a driver's license without a test, I the the government should be consistant and require one here also. The fee for test might be more expensive though.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      BigKeithO (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 12:42pm

      Re: License

      A porn test? If you can answer these 20 questions correctly you may look at porn? Seems pretty stupid to me.

      Drivers licenses are required because there is a very real possibility that you could injury or kill someone else with a car if you cannot operate it safely. Who is endangered by looking at porn?

      Unless I missed your /sarcmark somewhere?...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        The Invisible Hand (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 3:09pm

        Re: Re: License

        "A porn test? If you can answer these 20 questions correctly you may look at porn? Seems pretty stupid to me.
        "

        Three words: Leisure Suite Larry.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 12:43pm

      Re: License

      Topics to be covered in the porn license test:

      Safe surfing habits
      One handed typing
      Proper websites
      Visiting Youporn with noscript
      Proper internet history cleanup

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        jjmsan (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 4:09pm

        Re: Re: License

        you left out the parking test.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2010 @ 4:42am

        Re: Re: License

        A few more to add.

        Lock your door to ensure relative don't catch you in the act.

        Draw your curtains to ensure your neighbours don't catch you in the act

        If your kids catch you surfing, don't explain that mummies titties used to look like that but you ruined them with breast feeding.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2010 @ 12:34pm

    wish in one hand, crap in the other. it's only news when it blows up in their faces.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Darryl, Dec 20th, 2010 @ 12:44pm

    That is SO funny,, !!!!!

    What's ignored is that if filters really work (and they don't), parents already have the opportunity to use them themselves, without the government stepping in.

    thats SO funny.. did you read that when you wrote it Mike ???

    They should put that 'statement' on your grave stone Mike, it sums you up perfectly..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 12:48pm

      Re: That is SO funny,, !!!!!

      No, we can make it simpler, "Parents need to be parents"

      And I don't like you threatening Mike's life. Expect a visit from HLS.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        interval (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 1:31pm

        Re: Re: That is SO funny,, !!!!!

        Woah... yeah, wtf?? There's no need for that nonsense. Grow up.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        vivaelamor (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 2:11pm

        Re: Re: That is SO funny,, !!!!!

        "And I don't like you threatening Mike's life. Expect a visit from HLS."

        I don't think his referral to an epitaph could be considered a death threat. If it is then it seems a wholly inadequate one, lacking the necessary implication.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Darryl, Dec 20th, 2010 @ 3:51pm

        Again, someone who needs to get a clue.. :)

        sensitive flower arn't you !!!!.

        If I was goign to threaten Mikes Lifes, I would have been far more blunt than that..

        But if you want to think that I am engaging in terror, or if you feel Mikes life is at risk from my words, feel free to go to the police and lodge a complaint.

        I will be happy to defend myself in a court of law, but not in a court of your opinion.

        I would have thought if anything I was threatening his death, not his life..

        I did not say I wanted to put him under a grave stone, I said ONCE he is dead, that would be a good thing to put ON his toomstone.

        I know you will have trouble seeing the difference, its subtle, so probably a bit over your head.. but thats ok..

        I would not want you to think im thinking about killing you or anything..

        Mike is more value alive than dead anyway, he is a champion for the people fighting against file sharing.

        His claims are so off the wall, im sure it gives a good gut laugh.
        No one who matters listens to him, so his effect is minimal.

        Its just something to do, (if not at times too easy) to show him up for what his is, or at least tries to be..

        want him dead,, not on your life !!!! :)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Richard (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 1:44pm

      Re: That is SO funny,, !!!!!

      thats SO funny..

      er... no one else is laughing....

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Darryl, Dec 20th, 2010 @ 3:57pm

        Re: Re: That is SO funny,, !!!!!

        only because you dont 'get it'.. its a joke !!!!..

        some get jokes, some dont, I guess you dont.. :)

        But dont blame the joke, after all. It's Mike's joke,, not mine.

        I would have called his statement 'oxymoronic'. more than a joke..

        Perhaps you did not bother to read what he said, perhaps you never do.

        But when I see a statement like that, I find it highly amusing. Sounds like something maxwell smart would say..

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      vivaelamor (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 2:00pm

      Re: That is SO funny,, !!!!!

      Usually I give you the benefit of the doubt Darryl, even though I feel strongly that you are nothing more than a troll (stupid people aren't this damned consistent); however every time you post a comment that has absolutely zero point to it, troll or otherwise, I'm inclined to click 'report' and encourage others to do the same.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Darryl, Dec 20th, 2010 @ 4:22pm

        Re: Re: That is SO funny,, !!!!!

        a troll is someone who comments in posts but who does not comment on the content of the post, but about something else.

        You know,, just like what you did !!!!..

        So when you are reporting me for being a troll, be sure to report yourself as well.. at least my comment was directed at the article..

        But I guess, when you have nothing to argue against me, ie, you have no point to make.. all you can do is whine.

        Im sorry if it hard for you to form your own opinion, except about other people. but it would be nice if you could base that opinion on some facts.

        I quoted what Mike said, if you dont like what mike said, fine, but if you dont like me quoting Mike, and finding it amusing what he said.. bad luck.. get over it..

        welcome to the real world. (todays motto)..

        And before you continue your trolling, find out what it is first. So when you accuse someone of trolling they cannot throw it back in your face.. think you are stupid, for doing exactly what you claim you are against !!..

        Anyway, I was not trolling, you were trolling..

        So before you comment on trolling, by trolling, look up what a troll is, and see yourself in the mirror.

        So to confirm I am not trolling, I posted this statement made by Mike..

        What's ignored is that if filters really work (and they don't), parents already have the opportunity to use them themselves, without the government stepping in.


        I personally thought that was quite a funny, and oxymoronic statement.. And it **IS**..

        I quoted Mike, with fair use, and fair comment, for non-profit educitational purposes. and for satire.

        And just because it's fun, put yourself up on a pettystool, and expect some hecklers.

        plus, I really like the word oxymoronic, or if its even a real word, but it should be to describe that amusing statement.

        this one.. its so funny, I will post again again, not for fair use, but for FUN !!!..

        What's ignored is that if filters really work (and they don't), parents already have the opportunity to use them themselves, without the government stepping in.


        you might want to let your english teacher read that statement the next time you go to school.

        or you might just want to explain what that statement means !

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          The eejit (profile), Dec 21st, 2010 @ 1:56am

          Re: Re: Re: That is SO funny,, !!!!!

          *You have recieved an infraction*

          Shitty spelling, lazy grammar and ridiculous levels of capitalisation.

          And before you say the meaning of trolling, you forgot the key point: "To post anything in order to elicit a response from another user."

          Troll'd!

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          vivaelamor (profile), Dec 21st, 2010 @ 7:06am

          Re: Re: Re: That is SO funny,, !!!!!

          "What's ignored is that if filters really work (and they don't), parents already have the opportunity to use them themselves, without the government stepping in.

          you might want to let your english teacher read that statement the next time you go to school.

          or you might just want to explain what that statement means !"


          Maybe I should be touched that you consider me so youthful.

          I hate to have to be the one to point this out to you, but that sentence makes perfect sense as English. Knowing that you're not a native speaker, I can accept the mistake. I look forward to your 'explanation' as to how it is somehow contradictory anyway, as I know you're persistent.

          If it helps, the sentence can be rephrased thus:

          'Filters don't work. Parents can choose to use them anyway. Although that may seem pointless, it is no worse than if the government were to do it for them'.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Christopher (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 12:47pm

    Another step down the road to totalitarianism

    I swear.... are the U.K. legislators getting stupider and stupider as time goes on.

    It's time to tell the legislators "Hey, DUMBNUTS! Start focusing on REAL PROBLEMS like the economy!"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    interval (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 1:30pm

    Look out!

    When some PM member puts forth that people who want to voice a political opinion need to apply for a license...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    mattarse (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 1:30pm

    This may be crap, but if it helps to discourage Brits from making porn - I might be supportive :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Johnny, Dec 20th, 2010 @ 1:45pm

    Why the focus on porn

    Just watching the news seems to me to be more disturbing for young children. They see violence, which is *not* fake!

    Besides the psychodramatic crap in movies and soaps are probably more damaging to the mental health of children too. They may think that it's normal for people to behave like that.

    While we are at it, let's just ban everything, Internet, TV, movies, news, etc...

    ...oh wait... shouldn't parents just look after their own kids?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 1:48pm

    A license to partake in 'free speech', eh?

    So much for freedom - it was a good idea, but greedy, power hungry spoiled brat politicians have decided it's not in our best interests.

    Back to the dark ages, it seems.

    Maybe they should just start burning people at the stake again in the UK and build a new gallows. Heck, maybe they could outsource it to China even!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    monkyyy, Dec 20th, 2010 @ 2:09pm

    when can i get my pirating and different political views license, also when will the system become white listed and i have to get every licencse to get to the stuff the censor`s(they will be understaffed and over payed as its government) havnt rated yet

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2010 @ 2:43pm

    Oh hey - will those government granted license listings be available to the public? Searchable?

    Can they be revoked? Suspended?

    Will there be some sort of job-generating, CC monitored office front where one can go and apply for this license?

    I keep thinking of drivers license stations here in the US, all full up on Saturdays with teens waiting to take their driving tests, quizzing each other frantically, bored parents wishing it was over already...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2010 @ 3:00pm

    For Writing a Book

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Call me Al (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 3:02pm

    Its the standard UK Nanny State rearing its ugly head again. I'd hoped we were past this.

    Essentially the state believes that all parents are feckless layabouts who can't be relied upon to bring their children up properly. For this most part this may actually be true but their methods of dealing with the problem only serve to alienate those who would do the job properly in the first place.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2010 @ 3:09pm

    For Writing a Book

    CNN
    http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/20/florida.obscenity.arrest/index.html?hpt=T2

    (CNN) -- The man behind a controversial book considered a "how-to" guide for pedophiles was arrested in Colorado, officials in Florida said Monday.

    "You cannot engage or depict children in a harmful relationship," said Polk County, Florida, Sheriff Grady Judd as he described the Florida obscenity statute that officials used to charge Phillip Greaves with distribution of obscene material depicting minors engaged in harmful conduct.

    The self-published author was arrested in Pueblo, Colorado, on a Florida felony warrant after undercover detectives in Polk County purchased and received a copy of the book through the mail. He will have to be extradited to Florida to face charges.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2010 @ 3:18pm

    What some people consider porn

    The Telograph
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/harry-potter/8215684/Harry-Potter-star-beaten-after-me eting-non-Muslim-man.html

    Harry Potter star 'beaten after meeting non-Muslim man'
    A young Muslim actress who appeared in the Harry Potter films was beaten by her brother and told by her father that he would kill her after she began a relationship with a Hindu man, a court heard yesterday.

    Afshan Azad, 22, who played Padma Patil, a classmate of the boy wizard, was called a “slag” and a “prostitute” in a violent confrontation at her family home which left her so scared she fled through a window, Manchester Crown Court heard.

    She later told police that her father wanted to “force her” into an arranged marriage.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      vivaelamor (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 3:38pm

      Re: What some people consider porn

      What does that story have to do with the title of your post?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Cixelsid (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 4:14pm

        Re: Re: What some people consider porn

        You just fed the troll man.

        TROLOLOLOL.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Darryl, Dec 20th, 2010 @ 4:28pm

          Re: Re: Re: What some people consider porn

          same for you, and you comment has to do with the article or the heading HOW ??

          I said mikes statement was funny, i commented on the article, my heading was in relation to the content of MY post, my post was in relation to the content of mikes article..

          what did you do again ? oh yea.. TROLL..

          But dont believe me, look up what a troll is, educate yourself.. it might be a new experience for you....

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2010 @ 5:05pm

          Re: Re: Re: What some people consider porn

          TROLOLOLOL before you make stupid comments it may be prudent in the future to read the sited articles. If you had done that you would have discovered the posted portion is the first 3 paragraph of a much longer article which is most disturbing for it totalitarian thought.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          vivaelamor (profile), Dec 21st, 2010 @ 7:12am

          Re: Re: Re: What some people consider porn

          "You just fed the troll man."

          That doesn't help me understand the title. Is there some form of trolling that involves making up titles that appear to have nothing to do with the content of the post? That's desperate even for trolling.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Darryl, Dec 20th, 2010 @ 4:25pm

        Re: Re: What some people consider porn

        What does your statement say about the title of your post.

        I was not commenting on the title of the post, I was commenting on the CONTENT of the post.

        But I was commenting "on the post", as opposed to what you have do so far, is comment that has NOTHING to do with the article mike posted.

        So who is the troll again..

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Cixelsid (profile), Dec 20th, 2010 @ 4:28pm

          Re: Re: Re: What some people consider porn

          Shouldn't you be in a AA meeting or something?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Darryl, Dec 20th, 2010 @ 8:37pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: What some people consider porn

            Shouldn't you be in a AA meeting or something?

            what ??

            Let me guess, you are trying to imply something, but I just cant work it out what it was you are trying to say..

            I have not been a member of the Automotive Association for quite some time.

            I guess, if you ment AA for alcholics, then that is fine, I might have to take up drinking first.. I think that is a membership requirement..

            I could go on and attack you for your purile comments, and talk about how immature and silly you sound, or how all it seems you are capable of doing is trolling..

            But I would not stoop so low.. not like some :)

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          vivaelamor (profile), Dec 21st, 2010 @ 7:16am

          Re: Re: Re: What some people consider porn

          "So who is the troll again.."

          By your personal definition of 'anything that doesn't have some tenuous and potentially pointless link to the article', I guess I am.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2010 @ 4:34pm

        Re: Re: What some people consider porn

        1. Article is about per title "UK Politicians Want People To Have To Apply For A Porn License Before Viewing On-line Porn"

        2 Posting is what some people in UK consider porn to be.

        3. Conclusion is in UK you now need UK porn license to go out on date as that is what UK considers porn to be.

        4. Meanwhile back in the US writing a book is enough to get you a free government paid trip from Colorado to Florida.

        Future of the Internet: Put all this together in an environment of fanatic hate. Oh and for good measures throw in Sweden, US, and UK concept of censorship. Charge the him with rape.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          vivaelamor (profile), Dec 21st, 2010 @ 7:24am

          Re: Re: Re: What some people consider porn

          "Posting is what some people in UK consider porn to be."

          I think I see the point you're trying to make, but I cannot personally see any link to porn in that article unless you are referring to either Harry Potter (haven't seen it, so maybe that's porn?) or an abusive family (who considers that porn?).

          I'll take a guess and imagine that you're implying the girl was beaten for being in Harry Potter. However, the article states: "The reason for the assault, apparently her association with a Hindu young man", which would seem to have nothing to do with porn.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2010 @ 4:31pm

    its called the 'age of consent

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Darryl, Dec 20th, 2010 @ 4:37pm

    Age is enough no need for a license.

    When you turn 18 or 21 in the US you are an adult, that is your license.

    Its just about proof of age, like being able to drink, but any more than that, is not necessary. as long as you can prove you are old enough to view content. and make your own desisions, then that should be enough.

    How many brittish pollies have been caught over time, checking porn, they will not want to have to apply for a license, and be on public record for wanting to view porn..

    There are always some conservatives in politics, you just have to hope they do not get too carried away..

    I dont agree with blocking LEGAL web sites, but I have no issue with closing down illegal operations, be it web site, or crack house.

    once again, you do not get to pick what laws you want to follow and what laws you will break, because you do not like them..

    I bet you like all the laws that protect you, when they protect you, but when it is inconvient you choose to break other laws, that protect other people..

    After all 'other' people is not YOU is it, so who cares right..

    Of course not you, as there is only one person in your world, that would be yourself..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    abc gum, Dec 20th, 2010 @ 8:29pm

    I suspect this has more to do with censorship in general than it does with regulating porn.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2010 @ 8:39pm

      Re:

      yes, it would be censorship if they refused access to someone eligable but without a license.

      but yes, it is a form of back door censorship, like what that idiot is trying to do in Australia..

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        abc gum, Dec 21st, 2010 @ 4:57am

        Re: Re:

        "yes, it would be censorship if they refused access to someone eligable but without a license."

        True, but the point was - once the mechanism is in place it becomes easy to censor things that are not porn.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Thomas (profile), Dec 21st, 2010 @ 4:20pm

    It wuld be fun..

    just to apply for a porn license anyway, even if you don't plan to use it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Dec 21st, 2010 @ 5:59pm

    Has no one figured out the stupidity of the statement about 19-year-olds finding porn online yet.

    18 is the LEGAL age of majority in the United Kingdom where the child/minor/youngperson who once attains the age of 18 gets all the legal obligations and abilities that EVERY other adult in the UK gets.

    19yr olds (and 18yr olds) are NOT children, nor are they minors in the UK therefore the survey is either bogus, was done in a country, other than the UK, where adulthood does not happen till after 19 (there is not many) or both.

    Oh and Darryl... I think on your tombstone we should place "My head was likened to a fire the stones unswept, and the ideas whirling round and round about in it, all obfuscated and darkened over with fuliginous matter"

    oops.. I fed the troll ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    sam sin, Dec 22nd, 2010 @ 1:55am

    Ed Vaizey is an idiot who understands nothing about the internet at all, even tho' he is supposed to be in charge under his title of Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries. he is another one that is in the pocket of the entertainment industry (BPI) and listens to no one but them. this is the first step on the internet censorship road in the UK. start with porn, as it is an easy subject to portray as being completely bad and harmful, then progress from there. as with other governments tho', this one wants all the money it can get in taxes from porn!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This