George Bernard Shaw also said “The worst sin towards our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them: that’s the essence of inhumanity.”

@ Ciarán Mc Mahon

Where does this start and where does it end? Should we also curtail anything that could remotely be interpreted as being ‘bad’? Cigarettes, sweet cakes, fatty foods, alcohol, fast cars, foul language…..

The fact that a gaggle of wittering TDS, feel that they should be in a position to deprive me of my own soverign decison making by censoring anything that ‘they’ think might lead me down the dark path to damnation is worrying to say the least. I’ll make my own decisions and make my own mistakes and blame myself if or when things go wrong. I don’t need Mary Mitchell O’Connor perched on my shoulder sporting a halo wagging her chubby little finger at me every time I decide to do something that she might frown upon. Her indifference to me would be most welcome.

“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good
of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live
under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may
at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good
will torment us without end for they do so with the approval
of their own conscience.”
C.S. Lewis

If you’re against all forms for censorship, then you’re ok with kiddie porn? Is that what you want to have no restricted access to?

Censorship and prohibition are only effectively used as blunt instruments against the law abiding and wielded by the political opportunist.
-
“Books won’t stay banned. They won’t burn. Ideas won’t go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas.” ~Alfred Whitney Griswold

Let’s not pretend, these pro-ana websites are run by evil people, and young vunerable children and teenagers should be protected from them as much as possible.
If this means censorship, then I’m happy with it, slippery slope or not.

How do you suggest this privacy is enforced then?
Block access to the site? The user uses a proxy, or the site gets a new redirecting domain name.
Take the site down? They set up on another server.
Set a filter on search terms? Block access to genuine support services by proxy..

The Internet just doesn’t work that way – as we have seen so many times over the past couple of decades..

We need to attack the problem itself, the websites don’t encourage people to become anorexic / bulimic, they are used and contributed to by sufferers. We need to stomp out what causes eating disorders, not attack the symptoms of their existence..

Shanti, you should understand that there’s two worlds.
An illussorary world where governments care about their citizens and are able to remedy social & economic problems and have access to inexhausable funds. Where they censor content and it ceases to exist. Where they prohibit substances and they also cease to exist.
Then there’s the real world. Where grown ups live.
“You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.” Morpheus
Ms O’Connor could not care less if it was never possible to censor any sites. Her ends are already achieved. Her spin has been delivered to a gullible public.

Agreed Sean.. It’s so frustrating looking at all the inefficiency and waste of attacking symptoms instead of causes in our society.. It’s like common sense ceased to exist.. This is a far bigger problem than a few websites. Distract, distract, distract – make it look like you give a toss but all you want is selfish recognition.. Ego driven bullcrap, showboating..

Like I said below, compassion – from the top down, is continually eroding..

@Ciarán Mc Mahon

Clearly not. Comments like that let yourself down badly.

@ Ciarán Mc Mahon

What kind of rememdial comment is that to a pretty well thought out arguement from Patrick Callinan. Serioulsy, no need to throw all of your toys out of the pram, merely because you’re soundly beaten in an arguement. Debate – don’t Hate!!!

They are taking away the one tool we have to receive real news and organise nationwide demonstrations. Slowly but surely, this is another small step, we are losing our freedom.

Well said!

Complete agreement Aaron; whenever there are conversations about blocking websites often the point is raised that none of the internet should be censored; and I agree with that completely in the main – but like everything else in life, there are exceptions to rules, and I think child pornography is the exception in this instance.

@ Sheila there are no exceptions to any rule, that phrase has never made sense. You believe in a policed web, plain and simple, a defendable position but dont’t try to straddle two opposing points at once.

Also to your general point, banning the medium is a relatively pointless maneuverer, there are very limited child porn websites, these child abusers meet up on random forums and swap their rape videos . Driving them more underground will be very unlikely to help anyone at all I’d say. Just make us nice unabused people fell better about ourselves.

Conor, I’ve always found that there are exceptions; there is never a “one size fits all” answer/solution to anything – how uncomplicated (and boring) it’d be if that was the case.

Your point about the child web sites is well made – the other day, the Journal ran a story about YouPorn – a site I’d never heard of before!! I don’t use the web (or any other medium) to watch any type – I’ve no interest ;-) Surely something is doable though????????

Conor, I think that’s a slightly misinformed comment.

Blocking of CP is not put forward as a total solution. It is there to stop casual viewers and people getting into CP. In the UK BT blocks 58 million requests per year to view CP.

New Zealand, with a population similar to our own, blocked 13 million in 18 months (from Feb 2010)

Norway (4.9m people) blocks 10-12,000 requests per day.

It’s one step required to help close down the market for CP. And it is a commercially driven market, either for money or barter.

very good point Shanti and one which I was going to make myself – today, I spoke to a 25 yr old lad who was just out of prison – and in our conversation I said to him something like” you don’t want to live that way – you’re better than that” and it was SO obvious from his incredibly surprised reaction that he’d never been told anything like that before – and it is true – he IS better than that – he’d just never had the support he needed – and I’m not just talking state support – obviously he’d not got it from anyone in his life – what a shame – what a waste of a life…….

Exactly Sheila, the websites will disappear once the problem does. But until we start getting at the roots of this problem it will not go anywhere.

I think the TDs are confusing correlation with causation.. Chances are you are only going to visit these sites if you already have an eating disorder. If you don’t have one, visiting these sites will be far more likely to repulse you as you can see how nastily thin these people aim to be.

Block access to the site and it will just open up somewhere else. Put a filter on to block access and there’s a possibility you may inadvertently block support services websites.

They’re fighting the wrong battle.. We need to show our kids that there’s more to life than things and looks.
And we need to reexamine our compassion.. It seems from the top down in this country compassion is eroding quickly, this can only lead to messing people up even more :(

Exactly. There is no quick fix for a problem such as this. Block the website it will just pop up on another server. That’s how the Internet works..

Time for them to roll up their sleeves and actually try and tackle the problem rather than the symptoms..

You can’t regulate the internet.

LoooooL

Yes anorexia is a huge problem here a lot bigger than most realise. But is censorship the way to go I do not think it is……education is. ….

Mary Mitchell whatever is only interested in promoting herself.

Yes, the conditions need to be adressed.. This will not do that. These sites are frequented by and contributed to by those already indulging in this variation on self harm.
Had she done some research, she may have realised it would be better to deal with the causes rather than focus solely on a symptom.
And I agree. Unhealthy eaters need addressing too, the root causes may not be all that dissimilar. But while attacking the cause would help all sorts of problems, focusing on these websites is just directing attention into the wrong area. And narrowing the benefit (mind you, it being the Internet – se shows her ignorance of how flexible the medium is by trying to regulate it).

Failed concept from start to finish.. I’m yet to hear this woman make a coherent, well thought out argument.. Last time it was banning video games that have a PEGI of 16 or 18 on them for kids (er, that’s what the PEGI rating is FOR, it’s bad parenting that’s to blame there if you buy your 12 yr old GTA).. It’s populist, poorly researched drivel and nothing more.