You mean you don’t expect other people to take responsibility for what your kids get up to? How novel!

should you be looking through your, say, 15 year olds computer? would they ever let you? i used to lock my door when i went out. me and all my mates agree that your ‘average’ pornography has become too depraved. i dont think i viewed porn on the net until i was 18. now days youve got 10 year olds finding out about sex through the internet. massively unhealthy. im not into censorship but to deny that theres an issue is a mistake i feel.

In fairness Keith, I don’t think Daisy implied there is no issue.

im not necessarily relating exactly to Daisys post, it was more a jump off to respond to people saying that its an individual choice or even that its all fine. in an ideal world we could police our childs internet usage but a large portion of them have password locks on their screens etc.

Keith, it’s very easy to install a filter and password protect it so kids can’t either stumble upon or go looking for porn. Keeping the computer in a place where the content can be seen is another way to keep track of what the kids are up to. If parents are going to let their kids on the internet, it’s up to those parents to ensure boundaries are kept.

If I were a parent, I would let him or her have a computer with uncensored access to the internet in his/her bedroom. The Internet is a great tool for learning. I am fed up hearing woes of doom from censorship lobbyists or so-called child protection advocates.

^^ you just want more visitors to your site!!

Keith, you are their parent. First off kids should not have locks on their door, secondly, if you feel they are misusing their privilege of internet freedom, then get rid of your router and have a lined home computer in the kitchen for them to use.
People are not suggesting that you should be able to access your child’s computer and practically sift through their personal belongings. Parents and teachers for that matter, have become too hands off for my liking. Parents need to stand up and do their jobs.
Like most people, as a child, I have to earn my right to have my own laptop/phone or the ability to access the house wifi. What I am suggesting is that parents do their jobs and stop looking to the government to do it for them.

Why should I, and most internet users here be penalised for bad parenting.

Ann: You’re responding to me? Not true.

i just dont understand why people speak in ideals. you should, they should, its your obligation. yes… but, do all parents have control over their kids? absolutely not. think of the people you grew up with. there was 2 or 3 who had parents like that, who keep an eye on everything they do. i dunno about you but i and most other friends had a lot of freedom, mainly cause our parents werent arsed knowing what we were doing 24/7 and i dont blame them. theres a huge issue with kids looking at bonkers pornography, filter or no filter (you think theyre not viewing it elsewhere?)

Even at that, this is not the solution to bad parenting.

Presumably because not all users who want access restrictions have the technical know-how to implement access restrictions.

When they don’t have the technical know-how they should read up on it. It’s really not as difficult as mastering your new mobile phone. And that’s something everyone knows how to do.

Karswell, there are plenty off-the-shelf software packages that are easy to add to your computer, very little know how needed. I shouldn’t be penalised for someone’s lack of technological know how. If you want content filtered then learn how to do it, otherwise get rid of your computer.

@ Gavin – please get off your high horse, or at least stop peering superiorly down your nose. I make a living out of designing and implementing SAP-based solutions. I am well-versed in securing and restricting networks. My work also makes we aware that there are very many people out there who do not have the level of knowledge you assume to be obligatory, and it’s sneering attitudes like yours that causes such people to be too embarrassed to ask for help. Not everyone in this country is under 35 and weaned on computers. Show a bit of respect please.

Karswell, if you don’t know how to use a computer you’ll probably not be too worried about inadvertently accessing the internet.

I will repeat what I said… there is plenty of software out there for parents to use if they want to protect their children. If they are not willing to go out and get it then it is their own fault. It is extremely easy to set up on your computer and there are plenty of people at the likes of PC World and Currys to help you and answer any questions you might have. If they are un willing to do that then that’s fine by them but “do not” get the goverment/ISPs to do your job for you.

You’re viewing the situation from an elitist viewpoint. There are many parents who have a computer and Internet access at home primarily for their children. By ten years old their kids are more computer-literate than they are. This puts parents in a frightening position. As parents they are responsible for what’s accessed from the computer, but their kids are effectively the administrators. Saying that people who do not fully understand the workings of a computer shouldn’t have the right to own one is compatible to saying that someone who doesn’t understand the internal processes of an engine shouldn’t be allowed to drive a car. computers are now for everyone, including those who do not like or have no interest in them.

Funny, I prefer the analogy, if you don’t know how to drive then why have a car. With the joking aside, I fail to see any reinforcement in your arguments to grant the usage of cross the board filtering of material online. Like I have said time and time again, by all means have a service that allows parents to opt in to the filtering of material but DO NOT feel like you have the right to filter everyone’s content. And of course you will come back with the argument that many have raised here.. “well if you don’t want this you can opt out”… Your average internet user should not be victimised for what is, essentially, an inability to be parent your child.

Hi Katie. The survey in question covered 11-16 year olds but this poll, and Pat McKenna’s article, naturally concern all children. I’ve added a clarification – hope that helps.

Totally agree.
The image doesn’t reflect the reality.

If they reflected reality then they would be nowhere near manipulative enough to goad you into picking the ‘correct’ option.

I blame the pageface personally.

Because its seen as the greater good. I would be more in the no camp myself as its something that can be achieved pretty simply but there are parents out there who are too lazy to monitor their kids and sadly its society at large that has to deal with those kids. Although I always find it funny that sex is bad but extreme violence is rarely brought up.

But yeah, dont under-estimate how many terrible and lazy parents are out there.

it’s already built into windows and mac os, it’s free and you can download additional modules. People just need to switch it on.

oh… okay – I don’t use either windows or mac.
In that case an info campaign might be a good idea :)

Jim- I think you’ve hit the nail in the head. The Internet is a problem for governments because they can not control it. Putting such filters in place would, inevitably, encourage them to expand their influence over time. This is a bad idea.

Laura, Microsoft has free family protection software and other sites also offer similar. You don’t have to put a filter on the whole Irish internet to stop your children from viewing porn.

Jim, if you run your machine in safe mode then Family Filtering is turned off. Any filtering software that can be so easily circumvented isn’t much use.

A tech savy person can add blocking directly at the router so that nothing needs doing at the pc or laptop unless you give them the router password that is.

Jim i never said i didnt know how to block sites, what i meant is any parents, if theyre that worried should either learn or know how to block them…mine are a little young to figure out, or to have interest yet in porn etc

Explicit sexual content without aesthetic value – according to the U.S. legal system anyhow.

The US legal system can go and do one. Thanks Karswell

aesthetic value is subjective. Try defining that.

Without the “aesthetics” clause both galleries and libraries would have far less on display. It’s also the reason why the US refers to their pornography industry as adult entertainment ( must have characterisation, narrative or be overtly “arty” ) and that photography magazines tend to be excuses for soft porn. It’s a problematic definition, and not mine, but it would be difficult to come up a more practical one. If you think you can, please post it up and let us all know.

Chris, the Journal employs slightly overenthusiastic language filtering software.

Yes, thank you Damocles, but it does illustrate the point perfectly. Took me three attempts to post the above. Even using a few wildcards did not work (i.e.In the English town name just using the letter ‘c’ at the start of the four letter segment and the letter ‘t’ at the end with two wildcards inbetween, it was still rejected).

They got me on an 8 letter word that starts with an s, ends with an s and if you remove those two leaves a word that is a derogatory word for a bleck (as our Seth Efrican friends might say): http://damoclesbda.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/blocked-on-the-journal/

it’s an opt in opt out process not blanket censorship, it’s a user selected filter similar to the pin code on your upc or sky box for movies.

For once I agree with you

@jason. That’s how is SHOULD be. But I have no faith in our government to implement it correctly!

Just setup a difference account for ur kids on the Computer and add restrictions…is that simple..you dont need any laws to do that..

Its parents responsibility keep your hands off my internet.

Should be opt out rather than opt in, ISP sends letter to subscribers telling them if they want it filtered, tell them, otherwise the entire thing is open to everyone.

There’s a lot of nanny software out there. Sometimes it even works.

Quite, if thine eye offends thee pluck it out. Just don’t pluck out mine.

The opt in option is to soften us up for total government control later.

David. My kids are adults now so it’s not really my problem anyway. Being an adult yourself (?) You may be able to see that providing assistance to parents to keep kids on an even keel benifits all society. You might also be able to see that I’m suggesting an alternative solution which would in fact allow the rest of the world to get on with their lives.

I suspect it is parents pushing for this, so you’ll have no problems with them exercising their responsibility on behalf of their own and others.

One reason this will pass is because having witnessed the secularist sexualisation of the innocent, the removal of any sense of morality and the dire consequences of that – many have come to their senses, not all mind you!

I’m a parent and I want my kid to learn how to make his own decisions. Not have them imposed by religious nutcases or control freaks.

So, liam, you’d call not looking at porn “suffering”, would you??

You will find perfectly legitimate sites blocked also SaintRuth due to the very nature of filtering. It is far from a perfect science. If you had ever set up content filtering on your computer at home you would quickly realise what a pain in the aristotle it is (forever having to use the override password to access perfectly innocent sites caught up in the filtering process).

This is akin to using a sledgehammer to crack an egg.

I think the question here is the age of the child who is exposed. of course they will be, but do they have to be talking about it and watching it at such a young age?

Ah you see Elizabeth, that’s where “parents” come in.

Of course I see where parents come in. It’s clear from my comment what I’m talking about. Two sets of thinking – one which allows a child “decide” what to watch or not after telling them the so-called dangers. The other that cuts off the access to it.

I doubt my parents decided that I should ever see porn but where kids are curious they’ll find a way. But parents are crap these days, they need to take a firmer grasp of the world and how their children live in it. I’m moving off topic and I apologise.

Sorry to nitpick but 8% is about 1 in 12.

“8% (about 1 in 8) saw images of someone having sex”

that translates into

“92% of 11-16 year olds who use the Internet said that never saw one single picture of someone having sex”

Yeah, right.

Well said Katie. They often skewer polls or statements on this site, mostly to promote a conservative pro-government agenda.

Duh. Not a nitpick, since it makes my point stronger. Oh for an edit function!

Couldn’t agree more. It doesn’t say if the analysis is inclusive or exclusive of 16 year olds (normally I’d be comfortable assuming exclusive, but it often seems to work the other way when it comes to ages) (okay, I clicked through to the report and it is inclusive of 16 year olds). And of course the statistics will be biased towards the older group, 1 in 6 (because I’m too lazy to do the maths for 1 in 5) would still be accurate if 100% of 16 year olds had seen the content but 0% of the other groups, accurate but misleading (the figures aren’t that skewed, I’m just illustrating how misleading this whole thing can be). If anything the figures are surprisingly low (I suspect kids are probably embarrassed to report accurately), for the people who grew up without internet how many people can honestly say they hadn’t been exposed to some sort of sexual imagery by the time they were 16. Hell I went to see Titanic with my sister, mother and grandmother when I was 16, and that alone would probably have been enough to qualify.

Not saying it’s everyones problem David and Im against making it so. But the technology exists to help parents to restrict personal internet devices – it just needs to be standardised and simplified. By the way, the rule you suggest has been my way of dealing with the problem and as far as i know it has been successful over the years. The problem is that even though i’m very technically aware, I dont “know ” very far at all. Child locked devices would take a lot of temptation out of the way of kids and assist the parents who are not lazy in being more self sufficient in achieving internet safety.

Technologically aware…

David, another one who would “suffer” if he didn’t look at porn…

@ david kearney. Not disagreeing about everyone not suffering or lazy parenting, but as i say above, your solution assumes one family pc and no ipads ipods mobile phones in the house. Your solution is about 4 yrars out of date really.

Content filtering can be set up on any device Nydon, does not matter how many you have in the house.

Damocles, I have had the same problem with my son who is 9.

The way I do it is as follows:

1) When he’s unsupervised, his access to the Internet is restricted.
2) When I am in the room, the filters are removed

Perfect? No, but if he never saw ugly things on the Internet, he’d never learn about human nature.

I treat the Internet like the city. Sure, just like it’s statistically very likely that there are at least a couple of pervs – and a few dozen reckless drivers – roaming the streets of Dublin City at any given time, there are a lot of things on the Internet that I’d rather my child did not see. But I am there with him. I would not let him walk the streets on his own. I don’t leave him alone when navigating the free Internet. If he has to be on his own, he has to stay in the back yard.

Giovanni,

What you’ve got there is a manual work around. An interventional manual workaround in fact. One that requires your presence. I’m looking for a software solution that may require some minor intervention, a temporary lift of a partial ban for instance, or a selective ban. And as so many people have been saying “oh yeah, you just have to know what to do and it’s really easy.” I’d like to know how.

Because it’s really easy. Isn’t it?

Or is it? And if it isn’t that easy to me, who has worked in IT for the better part of two decades, how easy is it for someone who hasn’t? Wouldn’t it be great if there was a bit of software that worked with your router and your devices that limited access when you weren’t around and lifted them partially or wholly when you were (for all or for specific devices) using perhaps a thumb print device (hard to forge) and could be customised to specific user profiles so if your son logs onto your PC he gets the same access levels as he has on his own laptop? And if there isn’t such software couldn’t someone make it so that parents who care can use it, or parents who trust the government could use their dictated filters and wouldn’t whoever came out with it make a packet?

The one you are describing is an opt-out system.

What they are proposing is an opt-in system: everything they think might be objectionable or inappropriate for minors is automatically blocked and unreachable, unless you write to them and said “Dear ISP, I would like to watch porn; sincerely, Respectable Family Dad”.

Giovanni Giusti, I believe it is the other way around.

In order to avail of the filter, you will need to “opt in”. By default, your access will not be filtered.

I don’t see why the government need to get involved in this. There are plenty of easy-to-use applications out there which do this perfectly well.

I do not accept the argument that many are not tech savvy enough to use filters. At one point, most of us were not savvy enough to fit a carseat, or bath an infant. As a parent, you learn.

Running NetNanny is a lot easier than changing your first nappy.

Afraid not Simian, from the article “If you want to allow pornographic and other material into your home, then simply opt in”. They are suggesting you have to opt in to not have the filter active. I can understand the confusion, it is )perhaps deliberately) badly worded.

Continent – read what John said. You have to “opt in” to access adult material -> That is, by default, you can’t

For the people who watch porn there is nothing wrong with that, so you should not be embarrassed to opt in. For those who don’t and don’t want it in there home, it’s a great idea. so I still think its a good idea

Well I got that completely arse-ways. Sorry for the misinformation.

Government monitoring data traffic, in order to introduce censorship is very worrying.

But let’s say the hypothetical Respectable Family Dad decided to opt-in, could that be used as character evidence against him in a court case for example?

I would also like to “opt in” to the government not listening to my phone calls, or reading my shopping list. Does that also make me a suspicious character?

couldn’t agree more!

It’s a matter of principles. Like most people, I believe in internet freedom which includes an environment free from censorship of any kind.

Exactly Gavin, it’s not about the porn, it’s about restricting and control of the internet.

You are forgetting the camp that talks openly and frankly to their children about the dangers in the world – online and offline – from an informed position. The people who help and guide their children in learning to make good decisions, armed with the information they need to enable them to do so.

This is also the camp that has taken the time and effort to learn what is available and to manage their child’s access to the internet in a way that is appropriate to the particular child.

Katie sexualised children are easier to abuse. By immunizing them to sexual language and images, you take the danger trigger away. It amazes me how people constantly assume they can impose adult, rational thought into young heads. very very stupid.

@Elizabeth, I don’t know whose children you’re talking about but mine aren’t stupid and certainly they won’t become stupid just by being told what’s out there.

Maybe you’re thinking of the children who are told that their puppy has gone to heaven, that babies are brought by the stork, and that you shall not touch yourself lest you go blind?

I think you may be confusing education children (and young people, this report goes up to age 16), about sex and sexualtiy and ‘sexualising’ them. Completely different things.

Time will sexualise them anyway – remember, this report is about 11-16 year olds. Only the very younger children in that demographic are not thinking about sex and experiencing the development of their sexuality. Better they know about and understand what is happening to them. In this area as in others I believe that knowledge is power.

Any well round parent would figure out how to use the many, many free tools that are already available to them. Lazyness is not an excuse.

app*

mine did the same, for ages, totally unusable. But I recently got a new phone and it works perfectly.

I’m running ICS on a galaxy nexus so can’t get much newer than that. So many red thumbs for an honest question. Fickle F**ks on here

Apps crash out on iOS due to low battery power or low memory. It’s deliberate, in order to safeguard essential data and processes. I don’t know about other systems, but they may be similiar. Hard to say if this is more useful than annoying.

I thought it was a memory issue on my Legend, but there’s definitely something up if it’s happening on a galaxy nexus!
sometimes the red thumbs on this site don’t make any sense at all.

I have a lot of hanging and force closing on my galaxy nexus too. not as bad now that I’ve got jellybean but still happens. the last update seems to have fixed it on my xyboard honeycomb tablet. they really need to fix it on 4.* though!

Mark, Red thumbs are probably people who hate you for being off topic but don’t have the spuds to come out and say that, or the developers of the app (which works fine on my desire).

The problem is how decides what is blocked. This is a very slippery slope to the Chinese firewall way if dealing with the Internet.

I will say again. It doesn’t work. Perfectly innocent sites get caught up in the filtering process.

I presume you are alluding to child pornography and no, I don’t think anyone on here would disagree with you on that, but the mechanism for that is very different. The sites by their very nature are illegal and so aer taken down by the hosting companies. Different issue, different mechanism.

Are you suggesting we make all porn illegal? If so, where do you stop? All top shelf magazines gone, all newspapers (I use the term loosely) with a page 3 gone? All erotic (and again I use the term loosely) literature gone? No more ‘Fifty shades of sh**e’, no more Lady Chatterly’s Lover? Just where do you propose drawing that line and who do you think is qualified or has the right to draw it?

Well Ruth I disagree with internet censorship, let me tell you why. Firstly whenever its proponents propose censorship, usually under the guise of protecting children, they usually still have the honesty to admit it won’t actually help. Including the column that inspired this poll, where Pat said it would work with a qualified yes (the qualification being that it won’t work whenever anyone wants to get around it). So essentially you are sacrificing liberty for, what even the proponents admit, is essentially nothing.

On top of this I would contend that censorship is extraordinarily counter productive. I think this is best illustrated by the Streisand effect, but also by the effects of internet censorship in other countries. Some Islamic countries have even gone as far as banning encryption in an effort to censor people. For any chance of this type of thing to work, you will have to gut the internet completely, and even then it is doubtful you will actually succeed. All it has ever accomplished is driving it underground and making it harder to monitor. The only time internet censorship was successful was in Libya, when they cut of the internet altogether and forced people to work by word of mouth instead.

On top of this again it creates a huge system that is very very open to abuse. Take for example the Australian system, whose filter list was leaked a couple of years ago. Among all the things that were legitimately blocked, there were also political speech blocked, if I remember correctly advocating one way or another on the abortion debate, as well as some random dentists website.

So yes Ruth, I disagree with internet censorship. Simply because it doesn’t work and is open to massive abuse. The only people who support it are the technical illiterate who shout “wont someone think of the children” and just want to feel like they are doing something helpful.

@ chris. Im aware of that Chris but it nees to be as simple as designating a device as a non-adult device by the click of one button and entering a reporting email address or mobile number if the setting is changed or a hack is detected. The setup program should be standardised (maybe even by legislation?) So that all parents getting internet enabled devices for their kids will know what needs to be done to set it up as a restricted device.

No, Chris, not suggesting it should be illegal, just less available. Just put on the top shelf as it were, treated like fags or drink etc.

John, surely you’re not suggesting child pron should be legal???
Banning that is censorship, so all I’m saying is that censorship exists on the web.

No Ruth, I’m not suggesting that child porn should be legal. What I’m suggesting is that the effectiveness of a system should be an important consideration, and when even the proponents admit up front that it won’t be effective, that should give you more pause than it seems to. To illustrate this using something that is a little less emotive that child abuse, have you ever wondered why planes don’t carry parachutes? It sounds good on paper but there are a number of reasons why it would be really really dumb, firstly most accidents happen before the plane reaches a safe parachute altitude, next a lot of people wouldn’t survive a parachute landing and you need training to use one safely, next there usually would be no safe way to exit the plane and so on. But on top of that they would be worse than useless because not only wouldn’t they help, but they would also take up extra space and require planes to use extra fuel due to the extra weight.

That’s what I’m trying to say about this proposal, it is less that useless.

there is so much s**t on the internet who really cares if some of it accidentally gets filtered out. If you really need to say something important I’m sure it’ll get out there!

Stephanie, if you don’t like the Internet you can opt out of it altogether…

I disagree with all censorship. I like living in a democracy, or at least a semblance of one.

How is an internet provider female?

I’d argue if you want to look at the causes of the “sexcentric” view of life as you put it, you should take a look at TV and the traditional publishing industry before you start restricting peoples access to the internet.

there’s no argument from me here, the sexualisation and objectification of anyone in any medium causes problems for some people – I don’t really get why some people can’t see damage, however it is perpetrated. i may be wrong but it seems selfish to think you should be able to have what you want just cos you can, regardless.
There is a sad lack of any sense of social responsibility, I don’t see how the world can be a success without some.
And – see Katie Dunne – she is right – sexualised children ARE easier to abuse.

Sorry that was badly worded. An internet provider is female when she is the head of a corporation providing that internet service. the head honcho. These services are obviously run by people!

there are so many things wrong with what you say, Stephanie…

“the impact of pornography in all it’s guises clearly has a negative effect on society” – this has been disproven by so much research. There has never been a study that showed that watching pornography resulted in antisocial behaviour of any sort (unless you count watching pornography as antisocial in itself)

“if you have ever had to engage with young girls that have had no option but to become part of the pornography industry” – this assumes that young women are forced to become part of the porn industry. Nobody is talking about child pornography here. Are you one of those people who think they are “protecting” women by preventing them from being part of the porn industry?

“We have such a sexcentric view of how our lives should be now – it’s not healthy” – what is unhealthy is the repression of sex in society. But that’s a value judgment on both sides.

“social responsibility, I don’t see how the world can be a success without some” – I don’t see how censorship is social responsibility.

and finally:

“sexualised children ARE easier to abuse” – that has no evidence at all, unless, again, you count sexualisation as abuse in itself, at which point it becomes a tautology.

In under a minute I can find scholarly articles that entirely refute all the things you tell me I’m wrong about:

The “sexual callousness” model described by Zillman and Weaver – 1989, Mullin and Linz – 1995
Many articles on high risk behaviours

I can’t believe anyone is naive enough to think that anyone involved in the sex industry does it cos they want to/ like it/aren’t abused/ emotionally – mentally unstable/impoverished/hooked on drugs/brutalised/sexualised – yeah sure, some do it cos they want to, good for them but don’t make assumptions .

i don’t know how you live, but I don’t see sex as repressed at all in our society – maybe you’re doing it wrong!

i don’t see how asking for porn to be switched on if you want it is censorship. it sounds like you’re getting what you want when you ask for it.

sexualised children are children that have been exposed to sexual content that is inappropriate to their age. That doesn”t mean that they are having sex. It does mean, however, that put into a position where this becomes a possibility they are more likely to go along with it, ie high risk, inappropriate action

Giovanni, I do like the internet btw and feel no need to opt out. Incidentally, I wonder if you’re 9 yr old son were a 9 yr old girl, you may feel slightly different about some of the influences that have to be contended with.

With naïve minds as these, which lack understanding of the importance of the free flow of information and freedom of speech to the integrity of democracy and Western society, we bid farewell to the free internet and embrace the memetic controls of the Chinese-style “social management”.

Such minds fail to foresee the inevitable process of piecemeal social engineering that would inevitably follow the introduction of content filtering or censorship. It’s inadequacy would only provide further impetus for stricter censorship in the name of child protection, anti-terrorism etc., until the government can control (and will not be able to resist controlling) the memes, the very essence of culture, and so us.

With the battle over internet censorship intensifying, I see society being divided into two new political spectrums over the next decade, complementing the old ones. Those young, tech-savvy and digital-native who value the free internet and see it’s immeasurable value versus those older and digital-immigrant, who lack a complete understanding of the internet and harbour a certain fear of it, so favouring censorship and content filtering.

The former will be the defining political movement of this century, as was the anti-royal, pro-democracy liberalists in the 19th century and the focus on economic policy and the development of the welfare state in the 20th. The latter… Well, let’s hope it doesn’t stop this nascent movement from getting off the ground, for the sake of our freedom.

[USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST] [IP ADDRESS HAS BEEN LOGGED]

Back into seedy filth? When did the “industry” leave its seedy filth?

Or, how about we ban everything *I* don’t feel comfortable about other people enjoying?

Porn is there because some people like it. If you don’t like it, don’t look at it.

And just who decides what is acceptable and what isn’t? What gives them to the right to speak for all/preach to all? Who appointed them moral guardian for the multitudes?

That’s a fair point Chris. Clearly man is in no position to impose moral guidelines – for goodness sake they’re even discussing homosexuals marrying- so we must look to an external judge, one who is fair and just. Islam offers that guide.

Not wishing to get into a religious debate here (I regard all as equal), but all religious texts were written by man. You can claim that they were guided by some spirit if you wish, but they were man-made.

Another question would be this:

If you saw a man in the middle of a busy street shouting for all he was worth that mankind was damned and that he had been personally speaking with god, what do you think would happen to him today? Do you think many would take him seriously or do you think he would be sectioned?

Sectioned? He’d have got off lightly.

They crucified Jesus for it… ;-)

@SaintRuth LOL. Yes. If you believe the story of the bible, he was crucified for a lot more than just shouting in the street though. Oooo we’re on dodgy ground here…one man’s revolutionary is another man’s terrorist and all that.

@Mujaahid I find it ironic that you’re saying “Islam offers that guide” with regard to “moral guidelines” on sex and porn when the founder of your religion married a 6 year old and consummated the “marriage” when the girl was 9. People who see sex (between adults) as disgusting are clearly not the normal ones and it’s only through the hangover of religious indoctrination that society sees porn as seedy filth, when, at most, if you don’t like it you should be apathetic towards it, as it’s not forced on anyone. Sexual repression has been very harmful to society (just look at the Catholic Church).

I would also be looking at the many abuses of your own religion first that far outstrip any immorality you may perceive in the porn industry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g4cMjpiBpA&list=TLpj_rlfBnpOY

P.s. Religion is a lie…

If we’re banning stuff we should start with religious tripe.

Excellently sexist point there Kitty, well made!

Morality was dictated in Ireland for years, by the Church, and that worked out really well.

“Morality CLEARLY needs to be dictated and enforced”

Whose morality? Morality is a very grey area; There is no absolute morality and people have different opinions on different moral matters. Is it immoral to steal from the rich to give to the poor or to kill one healthy person to use their organs to save five people’s lives? A psychopath will have a very different moral code than an average person. Religious people seemingly only live by their religious moral code for fear of punishment in hell etc. and would apparently run amok without it. On the other hand, there’s the view that morality evolved to allow society to function e.g. killing and stealing have a negative impact on a society and therefore are seen as wrong, otherwise the society wouldn’t survive. This makes sense as humans are social animals that depend on each other (i.e. society) for survival but evolution also allows for individual variations to occur. Also, different societies can have different views on moral issues even in modern societies (look at Norway vs. Texas on the death penalty) but as long as the morality of a society still allows it to function then it should not fall apart for this reason. Personally I believe in a very simple morality that works for most everyday situations; if it doesn’t harm anyone (unless they consent) or impinge on anyone else’s rights then it is usually not immoral and it’s not my place to judge (nor any fictional god).

Dam – it did actually, in comparison with modern Ireland. You rightly condemn the abuse but have essentially thrown out the baby with the bath water. Just look at what you are discussing – blocking porn from kids, homosexual marriages and even incestuous relationships.

Really? Organized child abuse was an example of Church control working well?

Nobody has the right to decide what I can look at or read. Individual responsibility and education is the only answer, not government control … or worse, control by some kind of shadowy organized cult group.

But Mujaahid, we’re not discussing blocking porn etc.. from kids, we’re discussing locking down the internet.
Your reference to homosexual marriages is case and point!

Stephanie, Because an arbitrary and largely unaccountable body will dictating morality to other people.

define morality – the intention isn’t to dictate as you would still be able to access this stuff by opting in and if you don’t want it to be unaccountable and arbitrary – get involved with the system that deals with filtering. Or does someone else have to do that?

“define morality” Well precisely.

That’s the nub of it. You want it defined by a government body. I don’t.

Spot on Damocles!
Would it be too difficult to have a big red label on the supplied router with a text/phone number on it??
“Ring/Text your account number to … if you want to opt-in”. Hell, they could probably easily put an opt-n button on the back of the router.

It’s not rocket science.

Damocles, I don’t care who filters porn out of my children’s lives. When it comes to my adult life – I am perfectly capable of defining my own morality. You can’t really tell me I want it defined by a government body, you don’t know me and it’s not the case anyway.

“I am perfectly capable of defining my own morality.”, Right, so why let a government agency dictate that certain things are immoral to other adults under the guise of “helping the kids”?

“I don’t care who filters porn out of my children’s lives”, So you’d be happy to take care of filtering what goes into your own home yourself and leave others to do the same?