e petition asking for internet constrols on !!!!!! etc

j.e.j.

Fwiw, I don't object to !!!!!!, either

But I don't agree that we should take a defeatist attitude about the really dodgy, hardcore stuff and say "well, people will just get round the censors and watch it anyway". I think it should be made as difficult as possible for people to watch it, but that's just my opinion.

Emmzi

jamespir wrote: »

do you know the first thing a child sees when its born ?
its mothers breasts

So you think most mothers wear lipgloss, have backcombed hair, ice cube their boobs to be pert, wear nowt bit a thing, and pout all the time?

Is Not The Same. Page 3 is for titillation and is nowt to do with nature! And my problem with it is that it is in a daily newspaper.

Do you think it is ok to have nudey calendars on the wall at work? I don't, and I think page 3 is the same league.

Having said that - petition is a load of rubbish, parental responsibility FTW.

worried_jim

Who is going to decide what is !!!!!! and what isn't. How about a Katy Perry record sleeve, 'cos I sure aint thinking about the top 40.-

j.e.j.

jamespir wrote: »

do you know the first thing a child sees when its born ?
its mothers breasts

:rotfl:
that's not titillation :rotfl:
the baby just wants its food, LOL

jamespir

Emmzi wrote: »

So you think most mothers wear lipgloss, have backcombed hair, ice cube their boobs to be pert, wear nowt bit a thing, and pout all the time NO cause i aint stupid
Is Not The Same. Page 3 is for titillation and is nowt to do with nature! And my problem with it is that it is in a daily newspaper.
Dont buy it then
Do you think it is ok to have nudey calendars on the wall at work? I don't, and I think page 3 is the same league.
yes i dont see how theres a problem if its ok for women to have semi naked hollyoaks stars or firemen or whatever
Having said that - petition is a load of rubbish, parental responsibility FTW.

parents need to take responsibility instead of relying on others

RubyRue

j.e.j. wrote: »

Fwiw, I don't object to !!!!!!, either

But I don't agree that we should take a defeatist attitude about the really dodgy, hardcore stuff and say "well, people will just get round the censors and watch it anyway". I think it should be made as difficult as possible for people to watch it, but that's just my opinion.

For me its not a defeatist attitude but more a realistic attitude and its more about the fact that as much as people have their opinions about !!!!!! the majority of it is legal.

I object to the principle of legal content being censored. Censorship is a slippery slope, you only have to look at what is going on in America where huge corporations put tremendous pressure on officials to censor content and sites they object to. Even sites that operate within the law. I guess for me its once that censorship has begun where does it end and who decides what should and should not be censored. However that is a whole different debate.

surfsister

worried_jim wrote: »

Who is going to decide what is !!!!!! and what isn't. How about a Katy Perry record sleeve, 'cos I sure aint thinking about the top 40.-

exactly, women are objectified everywhere - but it's harcore !!!!!! we're talking about which should be banned if at all possible or should we just give up and not even try to ban it?

VestanPance

Let's face it no publication with page 3 is actually a news paper. Gossip rag maybe, but not a news paper.

VestanPance

surfsister wrote: »

exactly, women are objectified everywhere - but it's harcore !!!!!! we're talking about which should be banned if at all possible or should we just give up and not even try to ban it?

They have tried to ban it, but the one aspect to the information era that governments didn't think about was they can't control the web.

It's illegal to download music files without paying from torrent sites, or movies. Think most of the population doesn't know how to do that?

All "banning" in this form would do would be to see a few sites switch servers, change search words and hey bingo every 15 year old boy has found his favourite site again!

Rather than trying to police things that can't be policed, maybe they should focus on trying to police the industry that creates it rather than the method of distribution. People, places and film crews may be difficult to lock down, but it would be a far more sensible approach to it than wasting millions/billions trying to enforce something that isn't possible.

worried_jim

surfsister wrote: »

exactly, women are objectified everywhere

Really?-