Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Comment: The good, the bad and the ugly truths about porn filters

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Robert in S. Kensington 23 Dec 2013, 3:13pm

    The government should admit this is a total failure and a waste of time and money. Abolish this stupid nonsense and put freedom of speech and expression back into democracy. It’s for the parents to safeguard their children, computer literate or not, not the nanny state tactics so loathed by the Tory party yet going against their own philosophy.

  2. We predicted this long in advance. Your party should have done the same – and when concerns were raised they were utterly dismissed and still are being dismissed. It seems the government doesn’t care if their policy hurts LGBT people, so long as they please the Daily Mail readers – in fact, hurting us at the same time may be a nice bonus to them.

    All of this was predicted. All of this was predictable. We warned them. They did it anyway – what does that tell you?

  3. well technically the solution for vulnerable children would be easy: habe the blocking redirect to a directory of legit helplines and information sites. Hat would also prevent children and vulnerable adults getting (dangerous) wrong information from questionable sources. morally I’d still prefer an opt-in solution.

  4. Croydon Guy 23 Dec 2013, 9:35pm

    Some years ago, I checked the way our local LGBT forum website was displaying. I became a part-time student in a college in a neighbouring borough, so I typed in the URL and found that it had been blocked. Back in Croydon, I found that our own borough had blocked access to its schools and libraries.
    There were over a hundred pages of local information on LGBT policing issues (ours was an LGBT police forum) and many of them of pressing relevance to LGBT school children in the Borough. The Borough hadn’t even applied an automatic check: block this URL – therefore e-mail “webmaster@” this URL, as sanity check (for a system that was clearly failing) not to say an elementary courtesy.
    No consideration for the work that the police had put into this, nor for the public money invested in it.

    My first concern is that someone in the Borough should be held responsible for these practices. It’s no excuse to say the job was delegated to an outside body, that body is still acting irresponsibly.

  5. bobbleobble 23 Dec 2013, 9:41pm

    I take issue with you on several points. Firstly I don’t think this is a particularly noble endeavour. This is a puritanical move to stigmatise pornography and those who enjoy it under the guise of protecting children. This supposedly from a freedom loving government. If Cameron were serious about protecting children he’d be advocating an end to page 3 but he won’t do that because it’ll upset Murdoch.

    I also take issue with the idea that kids will inevitably come across porn. I use the internet on a daily basis and I have yet to find myself faced with pornography unless I actually go looking for it. It’s also not my responsibility to safeguard the children of parents who are too lazy to learn about the internet to safeguard their own children or supervise their child’s access.

    I would also point out that there already are plenty of methods out there to safeguard children on the internet, lots of them. Again it’s not my problem if parents can’t be bothered to learn how to CTD

    1. bobbleobble 23 Dec 2013, 9:46pm

      protect their own children. When I was younger my parents bought alcohol but made sure it was kept out of my reach, they hid matches away, made sure I couldn’t accidentally swallow bleach etc etc. When potentially dangerous things are brought into the house then it is the job of the parents to keep them safe, just as my parents did.

      Finally I note that you ignored one of the biggest evils of these filters which is the fact that there will be records of people who have opted out or failed to opt in. You can bet your life that these will be used by government agencies, by tabloid newspapers and so on to humiliate, denigrate and even potentially destroy people all for doing something totally legal.

      Not only are internet filters a waste of time and effort but they are a dangerous step on the road to totalitarianism. I suggest you think again about their ‘nobility’

  6. You seem to have neglected to say this stupid idea was one of your beloved leader, David Cameron’s.

  7. Neon Genesis 24 Dec 2013, 9:02pm

    The problem is with society’s hang ups on sex. It’s ok to watch violent movies and buy violent video games without permission from the government but you have to get the government’s permission to masturbate?

  8. The biggest point we seem to be missing is that we should be talking to our kids about porn. Kids are not as thick as we make them out to be its very easy to bypass censorship (one of the many things i learnt from my classmates at school). Better that they are (age appropriately of course) informed about the internet “nasties” (porn/ bullying/ strangers etc) . And don’t forget that nothing stops kids sharing awful videos directly to each other via devices such as phones or tablets ect its all a great big laugh when you are a kid to gross your friends out. These filters are nothing more than a false sense of security to ignorant parents.

  9. Now this might be a radical idea. But it’s worth a try. How about, parents stop treating electrical appliances as babysitters and actually supervise their children. It’s revolutionary I know. But if you choose to have children, and let’s be clear here, you always choose to have a child, then you have to face the fact that you are no longer independent. A little life depends on your every move and every decision. If you’re not there for it when it needs you, then you are negligent. If you allow it unfettered internet access, then you are also negligent. It’s not societies obligation to also look out for your child.

    I don’t appreciate any government, anywhere around the world, dictating to me, a 35 year old male, what I can and cannot look at. Which websites I can and cannot view. It’s up to me. As long as it’s legal, who should care?

    Another thing, the one of the three settings available for the filter blocks “objectionable” material. Who decides what is objectionable?

    1. The whole thing just reeks of Tory ideology of limiting the individuals rights to make a small minority of lazy yet oversensitive incompetents feel like they’ve been pandered to.
      A lesson needs to be learned from the obscenity trial over Howl. Or the banning of Lady Chatterly’s Lover. The Tory party need to take a step back a moment and slap each other into sensibility. The western world has moved on and matured from this type of rubbish.

  10. They can pull their own pants down and see their own privates. Get over your moral panic about porn!

    Most kids have access to porn weather you want to believe it or not it is the truth.

    You will however encourage them to make their own porn and they will seek out cam friends who might end up recording them and posting it somewhere.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all