all depends on how you connect , if your using a normal browser and nothing else then yes you will get a censored internet experience .
if however you use something like Tor browser and a few extra`s then they haven't a clue what your doing . complete and utter privacy .
Is shutting down/blocking child porn sites censorship?
Is shutting down/blocking sites that encourage terrorism censorship?
Is shutting down/blocking sites that show videos depicting women being raped, and subsequently enjoying it, censorship?
Is shutting down/blocking child porn sites censorship?
Is shutting down/blocking sites that encourage terrorism censorship?
Is shutting down/blocking sites that show videos depicting women being raped, and subsequently enjoying it, censorship?
All sex is violent if the man thrusts. They don't censor intercourse in the home which is very odd. They should ideally ban sexual intercourse and have semen donations instead but they don't.
Is shutting down/blocking child porn sites censorship?
Is shutting down/blocking sites that encourage terrorism censorship?
Is shutting down/blocking sites that show videos depicting women being raped, and subsequently enjoying it, censorship?
i agree . in a ideal world they would be able to stop it from being on the internet , however it is impossible for them to stop it .
no matter what Cameron is spinning , he is talking crap . the internet is its own beast . the only way to stop it is by shutting it down and not giving anyone access to it .
i agree . in a ideal world they would be able to stop it from being on the internet , however it is impossible for them to stop it .
no matter what Cameron is spinning , he is talking crap . the internet is its own beast . the only way to stop it is by shutting it down and not giving anyone access to it .
Which would make research very difficult. I read a lot of papers online.
All sex is violent if the man thrusts. They don't censor intercourse in the home which is very odd. They should ideally ban sexual intercourse and have semen donations instead but they don't.
Would love to address this, but could you answer the questions first.
i agree . in a ideal world they would be able to stop it from being on the internet , however it is impossible for them to stop it .
no matter what Cameron is spinning , he is talking crap . the internet is its own beast . the only way to stop it is by shutting it down and not giving anyone access to it .
But should we even attempt to shut down/block (i.e. censor) sites showing the content I mentioned?
Would love to address this, but could you answer the questions first.
Well I don't like paedophiles. They damage children for life.
I have a worry about terrorism. Plenty of sites could go under which do help people. Global activism such as the anti- arms/weapons movement could be described as terrorism although the actions are peaceful.
I don't like rape so would have no desire to watch such a thing. I infrequently meet a man who is violent sexually and that to me is not respecting me. I worry about who else he abuses.
Well I don't like paedophiles. They damage children for life.
I have a worry about terrorism. Plenty of sites could go under which do help people. Global activism such as the anti- arms/weapons movement could be described as terrorism although the actions are peaceful.
I don't like rape so would have no desire to watch such a thing. I infrequently meet a man who is violent sexually and that to me is not respecting me. I worry about who else he abuses.
Would have liked to have seen a link.
You raise a good point about defining content that should be censored.
Is shutting down/blocking child porn sites censorship?
Is shutting down/blocking sites that encourage terrorism censorship?
Is shutting down/blocking sites that show videos depicting women being raped, and subsequently enjoying it, censorship?
It seems to be pandering to the Daily Mail and Mumsnet crowd whenever they stumble across a part of the internet that (despite being perfectly legal) they find too 'icky' or damaging to their sensibilities.
Yes, that stumbling being by accident of course, or should we say "by accident", complete with doing the quotes-gesture as would be more appropriate as the phrase seems to be most often used by either
a) the 'anti' brigade when pretending they didn't know something was a euphemism
or
b) the 'anti' brigade when pretending they didn't add the word 'porn' to their search
or
c) someone who didn't close the browser window fast enough
During his visit to China in November, for example, President Obama held a town hall meeting with an online component to highlight the importance of the internet. In response to a question that was sent in over the internet, he defended the right of people to freely access information, and said that the more freely information flows, the stronger societies become. He spoke about how access to information helps citizens hold their own governments accountable, generates new ideas, encourages creativity and entrepreneurship. The United States belief in that ground truth is what brings me here today...
... And technologies with the potential to open up access to government and promote transparency can also be hijacked by governments to crush dissent and deny human rights... Blogs, emails, social networks, and text messages have opened up new forums for exchanging ideas, and created new targets for censorship...
The freedom to connect is like the freedom of assembly, only in cyberspace. It allows individuals to get online, come together, and hopefully cooperate. Once you’re on the internet, you don’t need to be a tycoon or a rock star to have a huge impact on society.
Perhaps Mrs Clinton should have a word with David Cameron?
Is shutting down/blocking child porn sites censorship?
Is shutting down/blocking sites that encourage terrorism censorship?
Is shutting down/blocking sites that show videos depicting women being raped, and subsequently enjoying it, censorship?
censorship is anything they say it is, with the added bonus of them not having to say what it is
Are you aware that under the government proposals, you can easily get "all content".
By requiring your name to go on a "perverts list", which will no doubt get "accidentally" leaked with the Daily Mail exposing particular people in the Police, teaching profession, NHS, BBC and (left wing) political figures who are a "danger to our children" for having the audacity of lifting the filter on their home Internet connection. They'll also be the first people to be investigated whenever a sexual offence occurs within an area.
And this is just a means to the end, as with the "lads mags", the true intent of campaign groups and campaigners is to get such content banned outright. I'd expect in the future, legitimate adult material will be criminalised, as it is in Iceland, our European neighbours.
By requiring your name to go on a "perverts list", which will no doubt get "accidentally" leaked with the Daily Mail exposing particular people in the Police, teaching profession, NHS, BBC and (left wing) political figures who are a "danger to our children" for having the audacity of lifting the filter on their home Internet connection.
And this is just a means to the end, as with the "lads mags", the true intent of campaign groups and campaigners is to get such content banned outright. I'd expect in the future, legitimate adult material will be criminalised, as it is in Iceland, our European neighbours.
Why is asking for "all content" a perverts list?
I think the vast majority will opt in to having all content.
Do you think the Daily Mail, NHS, BBC have access who has subscribed to SKY adult channels?
I appreciate we all should be aware of the "thin end of the wedge" when it comes to legislation, but in itself that is not a reason to describe something as wrong.
Lets remind ourselves that this is a thread about internet censorship.
Is shutting down/blocking child porn sites censorship?
Is shutting down/blocking sites that encourage terrorism censorship?
Is shutting down/blocking sites that show videos depicting women being raped, and subsequently enjoying it, censorship?
I think the vast majority will opt in to having all content.
Do you think the Daily Mail, NHS, BBC have access who has subscribed to SKY adult channels?
That's how those who opt out of such filters will be painted as by certain right wing interests, a list of perverts wanting to look at (child) pornography. The Government and right wing interests onus is to make it as undesirable as possible to opt out, ie. by painting any parent who opts out as an unfit parent or by making opting out a dilemma for couples where one person doesn't want the other to look at adult material online.
We've seen leaks of lists of people (ie. list of BNP members), don't take security of these lists for granted, particularly if there is an interest to leak such a list "for the public interest".
Comments
if however you use something like Tor browser and a few extra`s then they haven't a clue what your doing . complete and utter privacy .
Is shutting down/blocking sites that encourage terrorism censorship?
Is shutting down/blocking sites that show videos depicting women being raped, and subsequently enjoying it, censorship?
All sex is violent if the man thrusts. They don't censor intercourse in the home which is very odd. They should ideally ban sexual intercourse and have semen donations instead but they don't.
i agree . in a ideal world they would be able to stop it from being on the internet , however it is impossible for them to stop it .
no matter what Cameron is spinning , he is talking crap . the internet is its own beast . the only way to stop it is by shutting it down and not giving anyone access to it .
Which would make research very difficult. I read a lot of papers online.
Would love to address this, but could you answer the questions first.
But should we even attempt to shut down/block (i.e. censor) sites showing the content I mentioned?
Could you link to one? I know a lot of sites are subscription only, but I can access the main scientific ones.
Well I don't like paedophiles. They damage children for life.
I have a worry about terrorism. Plenty of sites could go under which do help people. Global activism such as the anti- arms/weapons movement could be described as terrorism although the actions are peaceful.
I don't like rape so would have no desire to watch such a thing. I infrequently meet a man who is violent sexually and that to me is not respecting me. I worry about who else he abuses.
Would have liked to have seen a link.
You raise a good point about defining content that should be censored.
Is shutting down/blocking child porn sites censorship?
Is shutting down/blocking sites that encourage terrorism censorship?
Is shutting down/blocking sites that show videos depicting women being raped, and subsequently enjoying it, censorship?
http://journals.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?Volume=53&page=565&journalID=18
a) the 'anti' brigade when pretending they didn't know something was a euphemism
or
b) the 'anti' brigade when pretending they didn't add the word 'porn' to their search
or
c) someone who didn't close the browser window fast enough
Will make an interesting read, but I see no reason why anyone would think it should be censored?
Are you aware that under the government proposals, you can easily get "all content".
I thought you wanted to see a scholarly article not necessarily one that would be censored.
censorship is anything they say it is, with the added bonus of them not having to say what it is
not only does david mormon talk he is it.
And this is just a means to the end, as with the "lads mags", the true intent of campaign groups and campaigners is to get such content banned outright. I'd expect in the future, legitimate adult material will be criminalised, as it is in Iceland, our European neighbours.
Why is asking for "all content" a perverts list?
I think the vast majority will opt in to having all content.
Do you think the Daily Mail, NHS, BBC have access who has subscribed to SKY adult channels?
I appreciate we all should be aware of the "thin end of the wedge" when it comes to legislation, but in itself that is not a reason to describe something as wrong.
Is shutting down/blocking child porn sites censorship?
Is shutting down/blocking sites that encourage terrorism censorship?
Is shutting down/blocking sites that show videos depicting women being raped, and subsequently enjoying it, censorship?
We've seen leaks of lists of people (ie. list of BNP members), don't take security of these lists for granted, particularly if there is an interest to leak such a list "for the public interest".