> We've had rules and regs and laws for decades on pornography, these were/are no more an attempt at "censorship" than this attempt is.
Except that these rules explicitly targeted only that: the actual distribution of pornography.
This one, on the other hand, is aimed at something a lot broader (protecting children) and can block access not only to unauthorized distribution of pornography, but also block access to information about topics like abortion, sex education, LGBT and many others. It's a God-given tool to a conservative government.
A lot of the things we take for granted now are actually far newer than we could imagine. Much of the outrage over the anti-abortion law in Spain was grounded in information that the younger generation can readily access over the Internet, but was far harder to obtain thirty or fourty years ago. Not just pro- and con- opinions from wannabe bloggers, but solid medical and physiological data, life experiences of women who had to go through it and philosophical debates.
The younger generation is a lot less meek than their parents and grandparents were, and a lot more politically unwieldy, precisely because of the ease with which they can obtain the knowledge they need in order to make a decision. Not an objective one, mind you; the Internet isn't an oracle of impartial information. But a decision people are comfortable with. It's hard not to bring up the 1984 mantra on this one.
Edit: it's also worth pointing out something else, which I learned back when they didn't filter porn where I live -- they filtered every single thing the government didn't like (and the list was long) -- and they didn't do it on the Internet (because there was no internet back then).
The Internet is big. It's so mind-bogglingly big that I am astounded at it, every single day, and every time I think I probably know enough of it to be considered a well-traveled Internaut, something comes up and slaps me back to my senses.
Most underage porn viewers will simply stroll to the well-known websites. Xvideos, Redtube, whatever. There are websites where everyone knows they're under heavy scrutiny from the law. Pedophilia, animal abuse and all that have very short lifespans there. There's a lot of porn, but it's well regulated, and generally scam-free.
By definition, a website filter will always be behind on the websites it filters. Because (doh!) a website first has to be live and to have visitors before it is filtered. Block the high-profile websites, and what happens?
Everyone -- including the underage viewers who don't have the psychological maturity required to deal with a lot of the things people film these days -- flocks to the "underground". Those, on the other hand, aren't regulated. There's every sort of crap to be found, from malware to child pornography, especially when augmented by the anonymity of tools like Tor (not that the tools are bad; they're not, but that's not true of their every use). The idea that they won't get to those websites is just laughable. Never underestimate the intrepid spirit of a horny teenager.
> but also block access to information about topics like abortion, sex education, LGBT and many others
oh yeah right, the government actually want to block these topics!! Of course they don't. Britain has one of the worst teenage pregnancy rates in Europe and successive govs have spent a huge amount of time and money trying to correct. As I said, if these resources are blocked it's bad implementation, not deliberate, and I am sure will be rectified in due course.
> oh yeah right, the government actually want to block these topics!! Of course they don't. Britain has one of the worst teenage pregnancy rates in Europe and successive govs have spent a huge amount of time and money trying to correct.
Yes, but depending on the side of the political fence they're on, they have done so in vastly different manners. Hardline conservatives would see the solution to that in measures like banning abortion, minimizing social assistance and various other things which, in their view, strengthen the traditional family and scare or marginalize those members of the society that don't adhere to it.
This is, of course, the more extreme case; most conservative MPs aren't that hardline, but restricting access to those topics has a remarkable quenching effect on the social unrest of an increasingly cosmopolite Britain. Remember that it's not just websites about how to have anal sex with men that fall under the "LGBT" tag -- it's also websites, Twitter and Facebook pages of LGBT communities or activists. The last five years or so have shown that the Internet is a most effective rallying medium; the response times against abusive legislation has dramatically decreased as of lately.
It's also worth noting that the definitions are broad enough that they can be excuses for pretty much anything. A reporter has gained possession of documents that attest the corruption of someone big? Cool -- find an article about abortion or pornography and poof! their website is conveniently blocked. Before calling me paranoid, do remember that checks and balances are a part of every democracy. The Habeas Corpus Act is a fair example of that. It requires that the courts examine the legality of a prisoner's detention, in case abusive detention occurs, either as a mistake or as a political or economical mechanism (which it actually was, several times, before the law was adopted, and the precedents indirectly contributed to its adoption). What exactly is there to guard against abusive filtering?
oh yeah right, the government actually want to block these topics!! Of course they don't.
Paleoconservative and other strict ideologies like the one that espouses the benefits of country-wide Internet censorship like this typically don't hold favorable positions to the aforementioned topics.
Having a problem doesn't mean one necessarily wants a proper solution for it. Rather, as history has shown us many times, governments frequently take the easy way out either by denying it and skewing information, covering it up or implementing a faulty solution so as to appear that they're trying, when in fact it often worsens the situation (case in point: abstinence-only sex education).
Except that these rules explicitly targeted only that: the actual distribution of pornography.
This one, on the other hand, is aimed at something a lot broader (protecting children) and can block access not only to unauthorized distribution of pornography, but also block access to information about topics like abortion, sex education, LGBT and many others. It's a God-given tool to a conservative government.
A lot of the things we take for granted now are actually far newer than we could imagine. Much of the outrage over the anti-abortion law in Spain was grounded in information that the younger generation can readily access over the Internet, but was far harder to obtain thirty or fourty years ago. Not just pro- and con- opinions from wannabe bloggers, but solid medical and physiological data, life experiences of women who had to go through it and philosophical debates.
The younger generation is a lot less meek than their parents and grandparents were, and a lot more politically unwieldy, precisely because of the ease with which they can obtain the knowledge they need in order to make a decision. Not an objective one, mind you; the Internet isn't an oracle of impartial information. But a decision people are comfortable with. It's hard not to bring up the 1984 mantra on this one.
Edit: it's also worth pointing out something else, which I learned back when they didn't filter porn where I live -- they filtered every single thing the government didn't like (and the list was long) -- and they didn't do it on the Internet (because there was no internet back then).
The Internet is big. It's so mind-bogglingly big that I am astounded at it, every single day, and every time I think I probably know enough of it to be considered a well-traveled Internaut, something comes up and slaps me back to my senses.
Most underage porn viewers will simply stroll to the well-known websites. Xvideos, Redtube, whatever. There are websites where everyone knows they're under heavy scrutiny from the law. Pedophilia, animal abuse and all that have very short lifespans there. There's a lot of porn, but it's well regulated, and generally scam-free.
By definition, a website filter will always be behind on the websites it filters. Because (doh!) a website first has to be live and to have visitors before it is filtered. Block the high-profile websites, and what happens?
Everyone -- including the underage viewers who don't have the psychological maturity required to deal with a lot of the things people film these days -- flocks to the "underground". Those, on the other hand, aren't regulated. There's every sort of crap to be found, from malware to child pornography, especially when augmented by the anonymity of tools like Tor (not that the tools are bad; they're not, but that's not true of their every use). The idea that they won't get to those websites is just laughable. Never underestimate the intrepid spirit of a horny teenager.