X

The Best Story Yet About The UK’s Online Porn Filters

This is a very short little story indeed but it is just too, too, delicious to not give it airtime. The UK has decided that all ISPs must deploy opt-in pornography filters: so that children are not by chance or mishap exposed to “legal hardcore porn” in the words of the Prime Minister, David Cameron. This is, as you are obviously aware, as a result of a campaign by the usual suspects to insist that teenage boys looking at naked people is going to bring about the very fall of our civilisation.

What the campaign and the campaigners forget of course is that the internet tends to route around censorship. So it only took 24 hours for a Chrome extension to be released that entirely bypasses all such filters. And they also were unaware that creating an effective filter is actually quite difficult. You can’t just block every site that includes the words “sex”, or “porn” or “rape” because there are many sites that use such words but which are not pornography. Which leads to this:

But the changes have led to internet users being denied access to a wide range of organisations including child protection charities, women’s charities and gay rights groups. Among institutions that have found themselves subject to the blocks are the British Library and the National Library of Scotland.

The opt-in filters also deny access to the Parliament and Government websites and the sites of politicians, including Claire Perry, the MP who has campaigned prominently for the introduction of filters.

Given what they do with our money I suppose you can indeed decide that Parliament and the Government are forms of pornography. But it’s that blocking of Claire Perry’s site that is just so joyous. For of course the blocking has come as a result of her using that very same site to campaign in favour of the filtering. Leading to her site having a heavy usage of the words “porn”, “sex” and the like and thus being taken to be itself pornographic.

And I think that’s a much better joke than anything I’m likely to see in the cracker later today.

Source

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Spread the love
Mikey South:

View Comments (2)

  • Funny how throwing poop at others always seems to blow right back at you, huh??

    Now, Claire Perry and her minions could have actually listened to some of us folks telling her that a much less injurous approach to protecting children from "objectionable" speech has always existed: as in, teaching parents to better monitor their kids' Internet habits, and taking advantage of the filtering equipment that already exists in PC's and tablets today.

    But nooooo; they want to use the "kids" as a means of regulating ADULT speech they don't like or understand out of existence. Problem is, the wrecking ball they chose to wield is now turning on them. And no tweaking of those "filters" will save them, either, because such will simply reinforce that their campaign of censorship is not nearly as much about sex, as it is about power and privilege.

    I'd say that this experiment doesn't last past spring, if not before then.

  • The irony of this is typical and nothing new. Unlike the U.S., which was still a somewhat sensible country back then, Canada decided that Andrea Dworkin was right and clamped strict censorship on the importation of pornography into Canada, particularly of the kinky or extreme kind.

    Among the first books held at the Canadian border was Dworkin's own book Pornography. Ultimately, the Canadian authorities let it pass but clearly a lot of people still don't get it that if you try to eliminate a whole, huge aspect of human affairs by law you'll end up eliminating just about everything but.

    Pornography, of which there's plenty to be had in Canada, will always find a way around technical obstacles. Other forms of expression less experienced at dealing with these things won't do so well.

    Delighted to see the censorship bubble-gum balloon blow up in Perry's face. It's not easy to campaign against pornography without discussing it in graphic terms and citing examples, which results in, for example, anti-porn laws in some states the language of which would be considered obscene if published under the very laws themselves.

Related Post
Leave a Comment