Post: #1

This stuff seriously reads like something out of 1984...

Quote:Every householder connected to the internet will have their access to online porn blocked unless they ask to receive it.
In a victory for the Daily Mail, David Cameron will announce the move today among a series of measures cracking down on against the tide of web sleaze.
The Prime Minister will warn that internet pornography – much of it easily accessible to youngsters – is ‘corroding childhood’.


‘The Daily Mail has campaigned hard to make internet search engine filters “default on”. Today they can declare that campaign a success,’ Mr Cameron said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ead_module

The only reason I could ever see for anything against porn would be related to it potentially causing erectile dysfunction, and even then it would be just a recommendation, like we have for alcohol. But no, this white knight is worried about it 'corroding childhood'.

Quote:From the end of this year, all new customers setting up a broadband account or switching provider will have the filters automatically switched on unless they opt to disable them to allow sites with ‘adult content’.

‘No more hassle of downloading filters for every device, just one click protection. One click to protect your whole home and keep your children safe.

Because online porn enters your home like raiders out of Mad Max and permanently corrupts your children to objectify women.

Quote:Mr Cameron will announce further measures to tackle extreme pornography, which depicts violence against women, including simulated rape.
‘These images normalise sexual violence against women – and they are quite simply poisonous to the young people who see them.

‘Well I can tell you today we are changing that. We are closing the loophole – making it a criminal offence to possess internet pornography that depicts rape.

Holly Dustin, of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, said:
'We are delighted that David Cameron has responded to the call by experts and women’s groups to ban pornographic images of rape that promote and eroticise violence against women.
'The Coalition Government has pledged to prevent abuse of women and girls, so tackling a culture that glorifies abuse is critical for achieving this.

The grand irony of all this is that, by making sexual satisfaction so easily available, safe and cheap, porn actually reduces the incidence of rape in the society.

The article cites "wide public support". If this sort of insanity is truly the will of the people rather than just of a few deluded idiots in power, I fear that we might be too far gone already.



Of course, even without public support, the standard child abuse boogeyman is invoked to justify censorship:

Quote:The little girls whose killers viewed child porn on the web
Google and other internet firms have a ‘moral duty’ to do more to rid the internet of child abuse images, David Cameron will say.
Search engines should block any results for a ‘blacklist’ of terms compiled by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceop). Porn users trying to access images of children should also be confronted with a warning telling them they risk losing their jobs or access to their family, the Prime Minister says.

Web firms have come under scrutiny in recent months following the convictions of Mark Bridger for murdering five-year-old April Jones and Stuart Hazell for murdering 12-year-old Tia Sharp. Both men had visited child abuse sites before the attacks.

The Government has been involved in lengthy negotiations with technology firms over the best way to crack down on child abuse.
Service providers have agreed to introduce ‘splash pages’ which tell people if they are attempting to view illegal images.
The Prime Minister will insist firms should go further, with a warning of consequences ‘such as losing their job, their family, even access to their children’.
Mr Cameron will dismiss arguments from some in the industry that it is impossible to design more effective filters to stamp out vile images.

‘There are some searches which are so abhorrent and where there can be no doubt whatsoever about the sick and malevolent intent of the searcher that there should be no search results returned at all,’ he will say, adding that he wants a response by October.
‘I have a very clear message for Google, Bing, Yahoo! and the rest. You have a duty to act on this – and it is a moral duty.
‘We are already looking at the legislative options we have. This is quite simply about obliterating this disgusting material from the net – and we will do whatever it takes.’
In a statement, Google said: ‘We have a zero tolerance attitude to child sexual abuse imagery. Whenever we discover it, we respond quickly to remove and report it.’

Do you find this measure disturbing? I bet that you viewed child-porn-rape-vile-video in the last 24 hours.

Post: #2

Post: #3

Banning porn means more competition from other men.. e.g. raising sexual value of all girls. There is a thread on this somewhere on RVF. Or several.

UK is the country furthest down the rabbit hole of post-1st-world-dystopia (it is not that horrible yet, but give it 50 years), this is just one of the canaries in that coalmine..

Post: #4

Ridiculous move. Now VPN will be a must in the UK as well.

Top rated comment on the Daily Mail is good: "If you agree with this and are waiting for the state to impose filters you are clearly a failure of a parent."

Post: #5

Hahaha i want to see then try to pull that crap in America.

Post: #6

Even though this is being done for the wrong reasons politically, and even thought its still only a soft means of getting rid of porns access, its a move I support. Digital Porn adds zero value to a males life, greater men are able to be raised in a environment without this stuff floating around.

A male is docile and unmotivated after he jerks one on his own to digital porn. Anybody whom does not see the parallels and thinks that porns proliferation was not a soft weapon used primarily against men is not seeing the big picture on things. We bash video games as a distraction and a tool to trap men in a hamster wheel of inactivity yet rush to defend porn, its the male hamster in overdrive and many won't want to admit it.

Shit needs to go - it breeds the worst qualities in men, digital porn does not improve your life in any way.

Post: #7

Yeah it's waaaaaaay to easy for kids to access porn online.Porn robs them of their innocence and gives them unrealistic expectations.I do not agree with the nanny state though.I think we are at a point where technology is doing more harm than good.

Post: #8

So all it'd take for any site to be blocked, is to be classified as 'pornographic'

I'm sure the "what do you guys consider a 10" thread would be enough to get this site blocked, and any site that potentially contains information damaging to the regime could go at the click of a bureaucrats mouse.

Post: #9

I'm pretty relaxed about porn being opt-in. If you want it, just ask - it's been that way with Vodafone mobile in the UK for years.

What bugs me is making the possession of simulated rape porn a criminal offence. "These images normalise sexual violence against women – and they are quite simply poisonous to the young people who see them." So next it'll be video games, because those normalise non-sexual violence towards women (and men, though men don't count, right?). Eventually anything that doesn't make the average Daily Mail reader feel a warm, smug glow of complacency that they live in the best of all possible Conservative worlds full of butterflies and rainbows, will be outlawed.

Post: #10

(07-22-2013 07:35 AM)LooTa Wrote:  I'm sure the "what do you guys consider a 10" thread would be enough to get this site blocked, and any site that potentially contains information damaging to the regime could go at the click of a bureaucrats mouse.

Yeah, this is where the idea loses me.

While this move is overall good for men and I have to think a lot of them will benefit from having instant gratification taken away, I cannot deny that this is the nanny state gone off the rails. This sets a dangerous precedent and like what was stated in the quote above, no one will know what will or won't be considered 'porn', and will it extend to other things on the internet that need to be 'cleaned up'?

Alter ego: Thanks to porn, I knew how to fuck my first time without the girl even knowing I was a virgin. Possible side-effect of more timid first-lays?

Post: #11

@British members on this board

What is the most likely outcome
1.British men turn away from the Lib/Lab/Con cartel and turn towards the UKIP
2.They use VPN to bypass filters/Rise of the underground market
3.Read books, turn against the establishment and destroy it.
4.Skyrocketting White Knight faggotry.

Post: #12

I am curious if teen pregnancies and violence crimes will rise or fall from the day the law is in action.

Post: #13

I don't agree with most measures to restrict porn including this one, but I actually don't feel too strongly about this specific measure. It sounds like it's just being made opt-in instead of opt-out, not banned outright. My heart goes out to all the 14 year-old boys who will lose access to their bounty of jerking material on their parents' internet connection though.

Post: #14

Kids are resourcefull. If they can use the Inet, porn magazines will have a new spike in sellings.

Post: #15

That is what happens when you give up your guns. heh

Post: #16

HAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!! I did a paper once on porn and its effects. Guess what everyone???

PORN REDUCES RAPE

There's a correlation between rural areas with no internet and cities with internet. The rural areas have more sexual violence than cities. Why? Because porn is an outlet.

Rape will become an epidemic in the UK. Enjoy feminazis! WAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

EDIT- Wait, fuck... Innocent people will suffer because of the fucking feminazis. GODDAMNIT!

Post: #17

without porn teen sex and rape is going to skyrocket. Great work Britain!

Technology has really become more harm than good, I agree. This is ridiculous. It's not that the opt-in idea is a bad one, it's a good one. But the way it's being pushed is wrong. That being said, I seriously, seriously doubt it'll actually affect anyone. Just more bullshit faggotry by white-knighting dumbfucks.

Men don't objectify women, women objectify women for us. As they should.

Post: #18

The funny thing is this could actually make porn profitable again since free online porn will be harder to get.

Thus, porn mags and porn DVDs will become more popular and thus drive up profits for pornographers.

HA HA HA. UK politicians are fools.

Post: #19

Completely agree, although the government has no right to forbid porn, hell, no right to forbid pretty much all of the things they forbid, this might be good on that sense, I myself quit porn some time ago and the benefits more than outweighed the sense of fantasy I got from watching porn. It's not worth it guys! Or at least, try to reduce it as much as you can.

(07-22-2013 06:55 AM)kosko Wrote:  Even though this is being done for the wrong reasons politically, and even thought its still only a soft means of getting rid of porns access, its a move I support. Digital Porn adds zero value to a males life, greater men are able to be raised in a environment without this stuff floating around.

A male is docile and unmotivated after he jerks one on his own to digital porn. Anybody whom does not see the parallels and thinks that porns proliferation was not a soft weapon used primarily against men is not seeing the big picture on things. We bash video games as a distraction and a tool to trap men in a hamster wheel of inactivity yet rush to defend porn, its the male hamster in overdrive and many won't want to admit it.

Shit needs to go - it breeds the worst qualities in men, digital porn does not improve your life in any way.

Post: #20

(07-22-2013 08:29 AM)Quintus Flaminius Wrote:  @British members on this board

What is the most likely outcome
1.British men turn away from the Lib/Lab/Con cartel and turn towards the UKIP
2.They use VPN to bypass filters/Rise of the underground market
3.Read books, turn against the establishment and destroy it.
4.Skyrocketting White Knight faggotry.

5. Everyone sits tight while this either gets watered down (or even punted into the long grass) when the government talks to someone who actually knows something about computers.

Hopefully there's some sort of EU Law somewhere that can stop this bullshit.

Post: #21

I wish porn was blocked when I got my first computer at age 13.

Post: #22

It's "just opt-in" until the next step arrives: labeling those who opted in as potential pedophiles with such strong urges that they have go come out and say that they need internet for porn, and placing them on sexual offenders list.

Post: #23

The has slippery slope written on every one of its faces.

I can think of at least 10 different scenarios where this ends up hurting more than it helps--some of them have already been pointed out above.

Post: #24

(07-22-2013 06:55 AM)kosko Wrote:  Even though this is being done for the wrong reasons politically, and even thought its still only a soft means of getting rid of porns access, its a move I support. Digital Porn adds zero value to a males life, greater men are able to be raised in a environment without this stuff floating around.

A male is docile and unmotivated after he jerks one on his own to digital porn. Anybody whom does not see the parallels and thinks that porns proliferation was not a soft weapon used primarily against men is not seeing the big picture on things. We bash video games as a distraction and a tool to trap men in a hamster wheel of inactivity yet rush to defend porn, its the male hamster in overdrive and many won't want to admit it.

Shit needs to go - it breeds the worst qualities in men, digital porn does not improve your life in any way.

Kosko, I understand what you are saying. Hell, even Roosh tweeted links to videos recently that talked about the negative impact of porn on the mind. Given all of that, this is not something you want to support. Now that we know that the US and UK monitor all internet traffic, this allows the government to filter content on what they see is good for the people.

Look at some of the buzzwords and quotes by David Cameron:

“The nature of that pornography is so extreme, it is distorting their view of sex and relationships.”

You don't think in 10 years this can easily become:

“The nature of "manosphere" is so extreme, it is distorting their view of sex and relationships.”

“I feel profoundly as a politician, and as a father, that the time for action has come,” Mr. Cameron said in his speech. He said that the “cultural” damage to childhood wrought by Internet porn was a problem that needed tackling.

Today it's cultural damage because of porn, tomorrow it will be sites and forums like this.

As others already pointed out, soon there will be campaigns to shame people who opt-in and what's to say that those opt-in lists don't get "leaked".

By the way this should also serve as a reminder to some who think Liberal politicians are worse than Conservatives. Conservatives, Liberals, or whatever party these people represent, they are all cut from the same cloth.

Post: #25

What about emotional porn? Should romances novels be behind closed doors in bookstores?