If only there was a certain group of people that had responsibility, legal and moral, for minors. We could call them say, parents.

Lazy parents don’t want to take responsibility for their own children. Censorship should never be seen as a solution.

It’s time people got on board with the .xxx domain name. It’s been in the pipeline for years now but most sites still use .com and others. That way simple settings in web browsers could block the sites and give people parental control from their own homes, NOT from the government!!!

The Tories are nanny-statists just as much as Labour or the Lib Dems!

The BBC says that you need to opt in to the blocking, while the Guardian says you need to opt out of the blocking. There’s a very big difference – which one is it?

I wonder if the same issues will arise for gay websites that happens with gay magazines: because they’ve gay content they’re automatically restricted regardless of what the content is. This is a dangerous development.

Eircom are blocking some file share sites already. They should never be able to interfere with content access.

I like the following passage on censorship and self-appointed watchdogs deciding what’s appropriate…

“Discipline and self-restraint when practiced by an individual, a family, or a company is an effective way to deal with this issue. The same thing when forced on a people by their government or, worse, by a self-appointed watchdog of public morals, is suppression and will not be tolerated in a democratic society.

Mr. Chairman, the suppression of the people of a society begins in my mind with the censorship of the written or spoken word. It was so in Nazi Germany. It is so in many places today where those in power are afraid of the consequences of an informed and educated people.

In a mature, incredibly diverse society such as ours, the access to all perspectives of an issue becomes more and more important. Those things which in our experience are undesirable generally prove to be unfurthering and sooner or later become boring. That process cannot and should not be stifled.

On the other hand, that which is denied becomes that which is most interesting. That which is hidden — excuse me. That which is denied becomes that which is most desired, and that which is hidden becomes that which is most interesting. Consequently, a great deal of time and energy is spent trying to get at what is being kept from you. Our children, our people, our society and the world cannot afford this waste. ”

(that’s from John Denver on music censorship)

Who let’s a young child go online without supervision? You can search for sexual images on Google, should that be opt in as well? the UK is becoming nearly as controlling as the goverments they like to help over throw (well, when they bend over for the US)

Freedom should NEVER be a case of opt-in or opt-out!!!

It starts with porn. This has absolutely nothing to do with protection of children, it’s just a way to begin Chinese like internet censorship.Outrageous.

Welcome to the nanny state.
What’s next? Indecent political opinions?
Not to mention the possible "unintentional" opportunities. "Oops, we’ve blocked that mistakingly!"
Let’s face it: the internet is no place for minors. To get internet access you need to be at least able to agree to a contract – like being adult or 18 at least.
Censorship is always the beginning of the end.

Don’t want to let your kids see porn then lock your computer !.. then take their laptops, take their iphones, take their friends iphones, taken the friends computers, ban them from leaving the house.. in fact best to just lock them in the cellar, but search them for mobile broadband devices first.

Dangerous road this is

There should be an opt out choice if any! This is just another attempt to impose censorship and control the Internet.The government are using all the right buzz words Child protection etc. I have four kids and I monitor their Internet activity,it is part of being a parent. I do not need the Government’s help in this case and I take full responsibility for my children.

Children should be Supervised on the Internet up to at least 14 years old. They hit puberty after that and I was thought SexEd in school at 13.

If you have a fear of your kids looking at sexually explicit material, then you need to limit and control what Internet access they have.

Limiting and controlling what adults look at the Internet is wrong. It’s almost as dumb as not being able to buy alcohol anytime day or night, even though over 18.

Policing the internet not a good thing as this already a police continent, “Remember Remember the 5th of November”.

I think the xxx domain would be an excellent idea and should be pushed. If you’ve anymore than 2 kids or 1 in a single parent home how are parents meant to police their kids. I’ve 4 kids and only 2 adults.

the uk is quickly turning into a fascist state especially where the web is concerned.

I am an adult I I get very annoyed when I find sexually explicit stuff shoved in my face when I have no interest in it. This is degrading to both men and women and is suiting only immature adults who can’t seem to live in the real world. Children have a right to use the Internet without this and afterall, adults can decide if they want these sites but then, maybe their little secrets might be found out more easily!

It seems to me that it’s not blocking porn if theres an opt in. Its like Garda vetting of volunteers … Protecting children is worth a little extra paperwork by adults.

What happens to comments posted?