marnanel: (Default)
[personal profile] marnanel
Premier Radio has been putting a petition around. It's asking for a law to be made requiring ISPs to block pornographic websites if the person logged in is under 18. Here I am explaining why I don't support this petition and won't be signing it. This is not intended to disparage anyone who has signed it; it is only to explain why I shall not be doing so.

Firstly, it is incoherent. The concept of "logged on" applies to a computer, not to a network. Various operating systems implement this in various ways, and some have no such concept. The ISP has no way of knowing this information.

Secondly, the term "pornography" is notoriously difficult to define. Facebook have recently used it to prevent mothers posting pictures of themselves breastfeeding their own children. School boards in the United States who wished to promote abstinence-only education have used it to stop their students reading about safe sex. How is the term to be defined, and who will be making the decision, and how will they be accountable? Not too long ago, a Pennsylvania official who had the ability to block websites based on their content abused his power to prevent anyone in the state reading a political website which was critical of him.

Finally, the petition is couched in such terms that to dissent from it is almost to be seen to approve of child abuse. This is not a reasonable way to put forward an idea, and I wish to have nothing to do with it.

Edit: I've been pointed to http://www.crimperman.org/2012/02/29/why-internet-blocking-will-not-protect-our-children/ which is another opinion concurring with this one.

Date: 2012-03-12 02:00 pm (UTC)
gizmometer: an open book with reading glasses (books)
From: [personal profile] gizmometer
well-written.

<3

Date: 2012-03-12 03:16 pm (UTC)
pseudomonas: Dragon from BL manuscript of C14 French Ḥumash (Default)
From: [personal profile] pseudomonas
Also: why eighteen, when e.g. the age of consent is sixteen?

Date: 2012-03-12 10:56 pm (UTC)
hairyears: (Default)
From: [personal profile] hairyears
I'm afraid the real answer is: "Because we can't make it 118".

This is about an authoritarian agenda in which 'child protection' is incidental: whoever's backing this, they don't want anyone, of any age, viewing material they deem obscene, or profane, or blasphemous, or whatever.

It happens to be the case that legal frameworks exist for protecting children; and there is a good case for their existence - good in rational terms, but also 'good' in terms of this being an effective way to engage people at an emotional level, whether or not the aims and the results of such campaigns are good or bad.

And that's 'why 18'. I'd like to know "Why Premier Radio?" - But that's a "Who?" question, closely followed by "Whose agenda?" and "Who's the 'useful idiot' in this?"

HFJUEBOpBRo

Date: 2013-11-12 05:02 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
does anyone have one I could broorw for a few weeks? I wish I did! I've been waiting to get the detachable penis upgrade, so I could leave it at home when it's just going to be a distraction.Unfortunately, you can't get that upgrade yet, not even on the illegal market.

Profile

marnanel: (Default)
Monument

August 2014

S M T W T F S
      12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Aug. 2nd, 2014 02:24 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios