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

EchoLocation

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.

So how do you propose we ban the 'really dodgy, hardcore stuff' without banning other perfectly legal pornography? It can't be done.

VestanPance wrote: »

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.

Exactly. It was actually made legal because of the web.

surfsister

worried_jim wrote: »

Really?-

yes men too

Lyger

surfsister wrote: »

I think you're missing the point but as you just see it as "a bit of !!!!!!" nothing serious then just a few women being strangled whilst being tied and beaten up etc etc

Soft !!!!!! with two apparently adults might be fine but lots of the stuff is very degrading to women and desensitises men to violence against women.

Still I guess this comment just about covers it:
"I'd suggest few men want to have the discussion with their wives as to why they've opted in..." If !!!!!! is fine why should men not want their wives to know they are watching it??? Or is it just fine for men to watch it secretly??

No, I haven't missed the point. I haven't stated that I think !!!!!! is particularly pleasant - I just held it up against all the other nasty stuff that's easily available on the internet, and weighed up which was riskier to an impressionable mind. And for the most part, the people particpating in internet !!!!!! are willing participants. And no, I'm not saying that all the !!!!!! on the internet shows willing people in it!

The simple fact is this - it's impossible to police the internet. If it was in any way possible, then all the nasty stuff out there would not still be available. What I am saying, is that instead of signing a petition demanding the impossible, it would be more worthwhile to provide a sensible education to the young minds who are likely to access *any* kind of nasty material irresponsibly on the net, and supervise them until you are sure they are responsible enough to use it sensibly.

And quite simply, if there are kids running around learning all they know about women and violence from !!!!!! - then what kind of example or teaching have their parents been providing? !!!!!! is not to blame for domestic violence.

And for the record, I am female, I don't watch !!!!!! - but I seriously disagree with any kind of notion that yet more parental or personal responsibility should be taken away because people or parents are unwilling to step up to the plate and teach their kids morals, responsibility, ethics, how people should be treated, and the difference between right and wrong.

Emmzi

jamespir wrote:

yes i dont see how theres a problem if its ok for women to have semi naked hollyoaks stars or firemen or whatever [/QUOTE]


It depends where. Kylie/ fireman calenders at home, ok. Page 3 while I am eating my lunch, not ok. Seeing men looking at page 3 or commenting to each other on model's breast size at coffee break, not ok.

Sexy calenders anywhere in the workplace, not ok. Doesn't matter if I personally object or not, what about people with different morals, ethics, religions? Why should anyone be made to feel uncomfortable at work?

surfsister

at least this is generating discussion even if it seems to be impossible to stop hardcore !!!!!! or bomb making or whatever.

interesting stats here from http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics.html

Children Internet Pornography Statistics
Access to pornography is available from early on. The average age of a child’s first exposure to pornography is 11. A total of 90 percent of children ages 8-16 have viewed pornography online. Pornographers use many character names that appeal to children such as “Pokemon.”
Children Internet Pornography Statistics
Average age of first Internet exposure to pornography11 years oldLargest consumer of Internet pornography35 - 49 age group15-17 year olds having multiple hard-core exposures80%8-16 year olds having viewed !!!!!! online90% (most while doing homework)7-17 year olds who would freely give out home address29%7-17 year olds who would freely give out email address14%Children's character names linked to thousands of !!!!!! links26 (Including Pokemon and Action Man)

bobajob_1966

surfsister wrote: »

at least this is generating discussion even if it seems to be impossible to stop hardcore !!!!!! or bomb making or whatever.

interesting stats here from http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics.html

Children Internet Pornography Statistics
Access to pornography is available from early on. The average age of a child’s first exposure to pornography is 11. A total of 90 percent of children ages 8-16 have viewed pornography online. Pornographers use many character names that appeal to children such as “Pokemon.”
Children Internet Pornography Statistics
Average age of first Internet exposure to pornography11 years oldLargest consumer of Internet pornography35 - 49 age group15-17 year olds having multiple hard-core exposures80%8-16 year olds having viewed !!!!!! online90% (most while doing homework)7-17 year olds who would freely give out home address29%7-17 year olds who would freely give out email address14%Children's character names linked to thousands of !!!!!! links26 (Including Pokemon and Action Man)

You have quoted 'facts', but you do not appear to have a valid source for the information. Please do elaborate (and no, the website you have quoted is not a valid source), as at present your facts are little more than made up ramble.

sinizterguy

Not !!!!ing signed. No !!!!ing way.

You want your kids not to look at !!!!!!, then censor the internet in your house and control your children.

You don't go around telling the entire nation what they can and cannot do with their internet.

bobajob_1966

Lyger wrote: »

No, I haven't missed the point. I haven't stated that I think !!!!!! is particularly pleasant - I just held it up against all the other nasty stuff that's easily available on the internet, and weighed up which was riskier to an impressionable mind. And for the most part, the people particpating in internet !!!!!! are willing participants. And no, I'm not saying that all the !!!!!! on the internet shows willing people in it!

The simple fact is this - it's impossible to police the internet. If it was in any way possible, then all the nasty stuff out there would not still be available. What I am saying, is that instead of signing a petition demanding the impossible, it would be more worthwhile to provide a sensible education to the young minds who are likely to access *any* kind of nasty material irresponsibly on the net, and supervise them until you are sure they are responsible enough to use it sensibly.

And quite simply, if there are kids running around learning all they know about women and violence from !!!!!! - then what kind of example or teaching have their parents been providing? !!!!!! is not to blame for domestic violence.

And for the record, I am female, I don't watch !!!!!! - but I seriously disagree with any kind of notion that yet more parental or personal responsibility should be taken away because people or parents are unwilling to step up to the plate and teach their kids morals, responsibility, ethics, how people should be treated, and the difference between right and wrong.

This is an excellent, balanced view. Irrespective of our individual views on !!!!!!, banning it does not solve the problem that some people believe it causes.

claire16c

I simply dont see how this could actually work. Im not very good with all the technical stuff to do with the internet, but other posters have pretty much explained that side of it anyway. I just dont understand how you can ban !!!!!! on the net when its so huge.

Filters - like someone else mentioned - are useless. We had them at work and they banned nearly every website we wanted to use because of words that might appear, that werent even rude. When I was a teenager my Dad installed one on the family computer, and then about a week later got rid of it because it was blocking every website known to man.

So what exactly would they use? People can download !!!!!! from the same places you can download music. Which we all know they have never managed to stop, although admittedly it did used to be easier to get. I used to love Napster!

bobajob_1966

claire16c wrote: »

I simply dont see how this could actually work. Im not very good with all the technical stuff to do with the internet, but other posters have pretty much explained that side of it anyway. I just dont understand how you can ban !!!!!! on the net when its so huge.

Filters - like someone else mentioned - are useless. We had them at work and they banned nearly every website we wanted to use because of words that might appear, that werent even rude. When I was a teenager my Dad installed one on the family computer, and then about a week later got rid of it because it was blocking every website known to man.

So what exactly would they use? People can download !!!!!! from the same places you can download music. Which we all know they have never managed to stop, although admittedly it did used to be easier to get. I used to love Napster!

I guess they would apply the block/ filter to the IP address, however anyone that is accessing the internet for illegal purposes is likely to use an IP proxy (so not using their own address), and I would guess that most teenagers would know how to do this also.

I also wonder who those that want the ban expect the scheme to administered, and who is to pay for the work involved?