A - Nonsense. It's not hard. You can take your computer to any "computer repair" shop and get it installed. You can install something yourself or you can call your ISP and ask them to install it. You can get help from your kids' school or you can get help from whoever it is that helps you set up your email or home wifi network. It may not be absolutely trivial, but it is a solvable problem for an adult willing to invest an hour or two and/or a little bit of money. I just hate this "people are dumb, this is hard for them" argument. People are capable if they are interested.
B - You can use legislation to make it easier while preserving freedom. I don't like this option, but it's much better than mandatory. Make it mandatory for ISPs to offer free filtering.
This is a case of not trusting people to manage their own families' affairs.
The argument is an extension of the reason we don't let stores sell porno mags to 13 year old's -- it is ridiculous to assume the parents will always be with their child to make the decision for them.
I've no measured and thought-out opinion on porn filtering or censoring at ISPs one way or another. But a lot of recent research on the subject of youth and lewd material consumption suggests the current free and unfettered access to pornographic material is unhealthy.
Is there a "slippery slope" to cry out with where this line of thought goes? Sure. But in societies that decide their federal system should be arbiter of its health care system, it makes no sense to argue when that government takes measures to act on information regarding the health of its citizens.
The big difference here is that purchasing a porno magazine requires interacting with a clerk who will then verify your age and send you on your way. A better comparison would be banning the sale of all porno magazines unless the buyer registers for a porno card for his/her family (which would then provide unlimited access regardless of age).
I tend to agree that unfiltered access to all sorts of things can have an unhealthy impact on the minds of kids, but this is still the wrong way to handle it.
in societies that decide their federal system should be arbiter of its health care system, it makes no sense to argue when that government takes measures to act on information regarding the health of its citizens.
I really hate that argument. It's extremist and righteous.
I don't even see it as a nonsensical statement. Public healthcare does create a public interest in public health and a minor conflict with free society. But to extrapolate from that places with public health are slave societies where everything goes so stop complaining about freedom is the most annoying kind of extremist logic.
It's like listening to mullahs and rabbis talk about how since you are all a debaucherous bunch anyway with your shorts and music videos, surly you shouldn't be complaining about child molesters.
I can't reply to netcan unfortunately -- this isn't a conclusion that the British people are a "slave society", that's a distraction. I'm saying that, if a government has the power to make decisions that affect the heath of its population, it's probably going to make decisions under the guise of that power.
I'm not saying that I think it's a good decision - I feel quite in line with the majority voice here that it's a Bad Idea.
Sorry to pull the conversation in an uncivil direction.
If you do think this is a bad idea why would you voice that opinion. If I can restate it in a less divisive way it's that as the UK Government is responsible for health, they need to have a say on (all?) things which potentially affect the mental health of UK citizens. You are (I assume based on your rhetoric) against public health services on those grounds - the loss of freedom.
That frames the whole discussion in an extremist way: IE that those of us rejecting censorship are extremists and we see a choice between welfare societies (which are what the public want in most of Europe) with benefits like public schooling & healthcare or a free society without censorship.
That's what I mean by extremist. I also think it's a false choice. We can have healthcare and a free internet. The connection between those two things would be difficult to explain to someone without a fundamentalist mindset to begin with. I can't even imagine a pro-censorship person making it though I can see them making a utilitarian mental health argument (Porn causes mental health issues and that is bad).
I guess this news simply feels like a natural conclusion to me -- why wouldn't the British government see it within its powers to act in what its medical research suggests in the best interest of its people?
I think the contention would be must lower on this site, if the news didn't involve making laws about the Internet. If it was about a food or something, it'd be a relative non-issue.
There are many things which we know which mich more certainty are harmful to the public. A diet high in sugars and fat but low in protien, vitamins minerals and fibre is not healthy.
Too much alcohol is not healthy.
The uk recently rejected minimum pricing for alcohol. That minimum price was strongly aupported by doctors who see the fallout both acute and chronic of long term drinking. A lot of 999 / 112 emergency calls have alcohol involvement.
We have predatory cynical manufacturers exploiting weak people with gutrot disgusting product for profit.
I suspect that a closer analogy is the classification system on films - which as far as I know is in effect in the vast majority of the world. Governments long ago decided that certain things are far too extreme for (young children / older children / anyone) to see, and have been censoring or restricting access to video media ever since.
Now that the internet is becoming mainstream, and a powerful provider of videos / pictures, they will seek to install similar systems to censor or restrict access.
Since thw british government isn't forcibly preventing anyone from getting porn your point fails.
But, trying to answer your question: if coca cola marketed their product as having health benefits they'd be stopped by one branch of government. If they advertised it as being totally safe in inlimited quantities they'd be stopped by another regulator. The food industry haa been warned to make labelling clear and to reduce sugar, salt, and fat content or face strict regulation. So, yes, i'm happy for government to regulate the food supply.
>Should the British government forcibly prevent you from drinking Coca-Cola because it's bad for you?
Your example is bad. These two things are clearly not the same. Porn (even in a small dose) for young children is almost universally accepted to cause long term psychological damage. Cola in a small dose is universally accepted to cause zero long tern harm. I think that if you gave your kid enough Cola to where it was universally accepted to cause major long term harm to them - CPS would come take that kid from you and you would likely be arrested for child endangerment (thus it is against the law).
Secondly the govt is not forcibly preventing you from uncensored internet. It is the ISPs, and not forcibly, all you have to do is acknowledge that you want it (this could hardly be considered forcible)
If a 4 year old kid drinks a bottle of soda, how will that affect them for the rest of their life? If a 4 year old kid watches a (simulated) hardcore porn rape scene, is that more likely to affect them negatively for the rest of his or her life?
How does that kid get at the soda? usually their parents or caretaker gives it to them right? Is that how they usually run across porn randomly on the web too? Maybe parents should watch kids every second they are online, but that is hardly possible with the ubiquity of internet devices today. At least if a kid sneaks a Cola at 2am whilst his parents are asleep - it is clearly missing the next day. Not so obvious if they were sneaking out and surfing the web incognito.
> I think that if you gave your kid enough Cola to where it was universally accepted to cause major long term harm to them - CPS would come take that kid from you and you would likely be arrested for child endangerment (thus it is against the law).
Oh? Well, what if you spank your child? -That certainly causes psychological harm. Does CPS take people's children away for clearly causing long term harm to them in that way?
> Secondly the govt is not forcibly preventing you from uncensored internet. It is the ISPs, and not forcibly, all you have to do is acknowledge that you want it (this could hardly be considered forcible)
This has been covered elsewhere. But you do realize that it's the government that runs those block lists, and that they can put whatever they want in there, don't you? For example, I don't think China approves of Chinese people reading naughty anti-government material. You see, people need to be protected from something so disconcerting and potentially harmful (to the government itself).
> How does that kid get at the soda? usually their parents or caretaker gives it to them right? Is that how they usually run across porn randomly on the web too? Maybe parents should watch kids every second they are online, but that is hardly possible with the ubiquity of internet devices today. At least if a kid sneaks a Cola at 2am whilst his parents are asleep - it is clearly missing the next day. Not so obvious if they were sneaking out and surfing the web incognito.
They're going to be exposed to porn and even actively seek it out eventually anyway. I'm not saying little kids should be watching porn, but I'm not sure it would harm them either. Recently, my sister's 3-year-old daughter happened to witness a sex scene in some soap opera that was running in the background while we had dinner. She just completely disregarded it.
>Oh? Well, what if you spank your child? -That certainly causes psychological harm. Does CPS take people's children away for clearly causing long term harm to them in that way?
There is no conclusive proof that spanking children causes psy harm. Nor is there a consensus of people who think is is. Every large study about psy effects by spanking is split one way or the other. A study of these study organizers found that the study results were always slanted in the favor of their original opinion. Your statement is (thus far) non deterministic and thus factually and even consensually incorrect.
>This has been covered elsewhere. But you do realize that it's the government that runs those block lists, and that they can put whatever they want in there, don't you? For example, I don't think China approves of Chinese people reading naughty anti-government material. You see, people need to be protected from something so disconcerting and potentially harmful (to the government itself).
China? I thought we were talking about England here... No, the govt there does not maintain the lists there. That is one of the issues that some here are taking. There is no centralized list.
>They're going to be exposed to porn and even actively seek it out eventually anyway. I'm not saying little kids should be watching porn, but I'm not sure it would harm them either. Recently, my sister's 3-year-old daughter happened to witness a sex scene in some soap opera that was running in the background while we had dinner. She just completely disregarded it.
A soap opera is a far stretch from rape pornography. And how do you really know how your niece was affected deep down? Perhaps she is even desensitized to seeing things like this since apparently her parents just let her see it.
Since you are not sure it would harm kids to watch porn I guess it is all right then huh? How is this even an argument? I'm not sure it would harm them Are you kidding me? I certainly hope you don't have kids anytime soon. BTW, the consensus of physiologists, studies and general public conclude that it IS rather harmful to kids.
I'm not aware of this research but lets just say it's true. The purpose of the laws isn't about any concern for children's health (otherwise they would be outlawing fast food, or caffeine or sharp objects other "dangerous" things kids could get exposed to.) It's because of social taboos against porn and viewing it as obscene or immoral.
In any case it should be up to the parents and should not at all be necessary for the government to force people into it. ISPs are not selling internet access to 13 year olds in the first place, and if they were, under the current law they can easily opt-out.
> But in societies that decide their federal system should be arbiter of its health care system, it makes no sense to argue when that government takes measures to act on information regarding the health of its citizens.
1) How did "society" decide that?
2) Why should the "federal system" be an arbiter of health care?
3) Why would it not make sense to discuss whatever the government is doing?
The filters are voluntary - ISPs do not need to provide them. They are free and optional for customers to use. Some people need to opt put, some people need to opt in. The actual situation is freer than your proposed situation.
What about for your kid's smart phone? What about in library computers, or the your kid's friends computer? Internet devices are ubiquitous. Most kids today probably surf the web as much if not more outside the house than in it.
Most kids are more tech savvy than their parents and can easily get around software installed on the PC with a Ubuntu live boot disk or by other means.
Many of these filtering softwares have less than current definitions, or need constant updating. Others have terrible fuzzy logic engines.
PC web filtering software has been around for at least 20 years and are not the answer to the porn industry targeting children.
B - You can use legislation to make it easier while preserving freedom. I don't like this option, but it's much better than mandatory. Make it mandatory for ISPs to offer free filtering.
This is a case of not trusting people to manage their own families' affairs.