He wants to block images online with filters but defends opposition to Page 3 ban ?

[mattx]

David Cameron defends opposition to Page 3 ban | Media | The Guardian

 

I think he is more concerned that his mate Rupert won't be able to sell as many copies if it didn't have kazongas in. What a hypocritical tosspot this man is.

[mthomas08]

Page 3 is art!!!!!!........................

 

feel the sarcasm?

[Gibbo]

The prime minister said there was a difference between newspapers, which parents could keep away from children, and the internet, where youngsters could "stumble across" legal but hardcore pornography.

 

Makes sense to me.

[LosOjos]

The prime minister said there was a difference between newspapers, which parents could keep away from children, and the internet, where youngsters could "stumble across" legal but hardcore pornography.

 

Makes sense to me.

 

Except that before the Internet, I'd be willing to put money on most lads first porn "experience" being a jazz mag found in a bush over the park. Porn's always been there, only the method of finding it has changed. You'd be hard pressed to "stumble upon" hardcore porn unless you were on questionable sites anyway IMO.

 

Time to stop molly coddling and start educating.

[mattx]

Except that before the Internet, I'd be willing to put money on most lads first porn "experience" being a jazz mag found in a bush over the park. Porn's always been there, only the method of finding it has changed. You'd be hard pressed to "stumble upon" hardcore porn unless you were on questionable sites anyway IMO.

 

Time to stop molly coddling and start educating.

 

Agree with your last statement however, that won't get him votes will it ?

[LosOjos]

Agree with your last statement however, that won't get him votes will it ?

 

Between the current government and Rory Cellan Jones, we're painting a fine picture of this country as technophobic idiots.

[mattx]

Between the current government and Rory Cellan Jones, we're painting a fine picture of this country as technophobic idiots.

 

Amen to that.......

[sonofsanta]

The prime minister said there was a difference between newspapers, which parents could keep away from children, and the internet, where youngsters could "stumble across" legal but hardcore pornography.

 

Right. Because parents are always careful to keep the newspaper out of each of young 'uns and not just lying around on the sofa while they go for a fag out the back.

 

I think the difference is that newspaper viewing doesn't have a History you can easily check, and as we can see from the recent "we've stopped paedophiles using Google for their filth", Out Of Sight, Out Of Mind is plenty good enough for Dave. Why fix the problem when you can just have the appearance of a fix? Much cheaper and easier!

[Gibson335]

Why is it that people can't see the difference between the two things? I'm sure some people wander through life just looking for something to get uptight about.

[LosOjos]

Why is it that people can't see the difference between the two things? I'm sure some people wander through life just looking for something to get uptight about.

 

Not sure which side of the fence you're on there?

[Gibbo]

Except that before the Internet, I'd be willing to put money on most lads first porn "experience" being a jazz mag found in a bush over the park.

 

A magazine isn't hardcore porn though is it?

[LosOjos]

A magazine isn't hardcore porn though is it?

 

Some of them are, yes.

[Sdrawkcab]

Is it bad that I rip/cut page 3 out of every copy of The Sun I find in my workplace, or in doctors/dentists waiting rooms etc? imo it's pornography, so it's not appropriate for public places at all.

[Gibbo]

Some of them are, yes.

 

Sold in this country, and freely available to kids?

 

I think you're comparing apples and oranges. Yes, we stumbled across the "porno bush" as kids but the content was nothing like that which can be obtained on the internet, or like Page 3.

 

Mobile phone companies block porn on their 3G connections (Well, Orange does), and there's no outrage there.

[LosOjos]

The real issue here is that, yet again, this government is creating the illusion of "solving" the problem. The problem isn't that there is porn on the Internet, the problem is that parents aren't educated enough in E-Safety to know how to properly monitor and filter the web for themselves. Education is key, not a blanket ban that can be easily bypassed by any kid willing to spend 5 minutes looking for a proxy. There's also the very, very real possibility that once the infrastructure to ban whatever this government deems as porn is in place, they'll start pushing it further and further until we end up with the BBC and .gov websites and not a fat lot else because "did you know that other Internet users could post topless photos that your kids might look at? Best block all the forums and social networking sites for the safety of our children!"

[gtg93]

The real issue here is that, yet again, this government is creating the illusion of "solving" the problem. The problem isn't that there is porn on the Internet, the problem is that parents aren't educated enough in E-Safety to know how to properly monitor and filter the web for themselves. Education is key, not a blanket ban that can be easily bypassed by any kid willing to spend 5 minutes looking for a proxy. There's also the very, very real possibility that once the infrastructure to ban whatever this government deems as porn is in place, they'll start pushing it further and further until we end up with the BBC and .gov websites and not a fat lot else because "did you know that other Internet users could post topless photos that your kids might look at? Best block all the forums and social networking sites for the safety of our children!"

 

Couldn't agree more with this... once you start trying to censor things it's a slippery slope. One persons idea of offensive or "hardcore" can be different to another's, so who has the right to tell that person the sites will/won't be blocked?

 

The better option would've been an e-safety campaign with the government offering subscriptions to netnanny (or something similar), that way it's up to parents to choose what their child can and can't view.

Edited November 27, 2013 by gtg93

[Sdrawkcab]

Couldn't agree more with this... once you start trying to censor things it's a slippery slope. One persons idea of offensive or "hardcore" can be different to another's, so who has the right to tell that person the sites will/won't be blocked?

 

The better option would've been an e-safety campaign with the government offering subscriptions to netnanny (or something similar), that way it's up to parents to choose what their child can and can't view.

 

I think we can all agree that a gigantic hyper-sexualised picture of a topless teenage girl isn't really appropriate for the third page of the most widely circulated national newspaper, though. There's a big difference between preventing children from having access to porn on the internet (which should be left in the hands of the parents, imo) and selling pornography on the bottom shelf of the newsagents next to actual "news" publications.

[gtg93]

I think we can all agree that a gigantic hyper-sexualised picture of a topless teenage girl isn't really appropriate for the third page of the most widely circulated national newspaper, though. There's a big difference between preventing children from having access to porn on the internet (which should be left in the hands of the parents, imo) and selling pornography on the bottom shelf of the newsagents next to actual "news" publications.

 

I'm not saying I agree with Page 3 - to be honest, I can't get my head around the reason it's relevant in a NEWSpaper. But, with the newspapers - it's down to the parents whether they allow their children to see these publications. (as it should be with the interweb)

 

Though let's be fair, the newspapers that do this tend to just be boobs and celebs, so shouldn't really be classified as such!

Edited November 27, 2013 by gtg93

[HarryMonkey]

We can argue all day about the rights and wrongs of pin up pictures (Page 3, Pirelli Calendar etc), but they have been around for a very long time now and whether you agree with them or not, it still comes down to parental responsibility to educate their children as to the rights and wrongs of images of this and a much stronger nature.

 

I've had this discussion with many people before and what I find interesting is that the very parents that bleat on about the evils of topless models in the papers are the same parents who will sit with their children all day on the beach frequented by topless bathers.

[Sdrawkcab]

We can argue all day about the rights and wrongs of pin up pictures (Page 3, Pirelli Calendar etc), but they have been around for a very long time now and whether you agree with them or not, it still comes down to parental responsibility to educate their children as to the rights and wrongs of images of this and a much stronger nature.

 

I've had this discussion with many people before and what I find interesting is that the very parents that bleat on about the evils of topless models in the papers are the same parents who will sit with their children all day on the beach frequented by topless bathers.

 

I'm not a parent, I am a 27 year old single man. Page 3, pinup calendars, wank (lads) mags, all that stuff needs to go. Just because it was acceptable before, doesn't mean it's okay now (look at all the prejudices we've gotten rid of in the past). It's just another aspect of rape culture which we need to do away with if we're ever going to actually start treating women the same as we treat men. These publications encourage young men and boys to think of women as things and not people, posessions to be owned. This is a view which we need to do away with, starting with page 3.

 

Case in point: During the 2012 olympics, despite us having female atheletes winning gold medals almost daily, the biggest and most prominent picture of a woman in The Sun each day was (and still is) a teenager with her tits out. People like Jessica Ennis barely even got a look in. What kind of message do you think that sends to young women and girls? Do you really want to raise a daughter in a world where this is the case?

[featured_spectre]

I'm not a parent, I am a 27 year old single man. Page 3, pinup calendars, wank (lads) mags, all that stuff needs to go. Just because it was acceptable before, doesn't mean it's okay now (look at all the prejudices we've gotten rid of in the past). It's just another aspect of rape culture which we need to do away with if we're ever going to actually start treating women the same as we treat men. These publications encourage young men and boys to think of women as things and not people, posessions to be owned. This is a view which we need to do away with, starting with page 3.

 

Case in point: During the 2012 olympics, despite us having female atheletes winning gold medals almost daily, the biggest and most prominent picture of a woman in The Sun each day was (and still is) a teenager with her tits out. People like Jessica Ennis barely even got a look in. What kind of message do you think that sends to young women and girls? Do you really want to raise a daughter in a world where this is the case?

 

I cant be sure if you are trolling or not.

 

Remive the images and remove an aspect of rape culture? Seriously?

 

What about 2000 years ago, rape was happening then, hardcore porn or wank mags (as you put it) didnt exist. Same for 1000 years ago, 500 years ago, 50 years ago.

 

As for men thinking of women as things. Sorry dont buy it. That usually only happens in a backwards cultural upbringing. I was raised and taught about page 3, i had access to porn as a teen. Do I see my wife or daughter as things i own? No.

 

As for the sun. Are you seriously telling me the almost daily 16 page pull out for the olympics, plus the 10-16pages of sports at the back, plus the front covers highlighting gold medal winners from team GB isnt giving enough coverage to the athletes? What planet are you on.

 

 

I dislike the sun for ita journalism, but they are highly passionate about sports for the country.

[d0pefish]

These publications encourage young men and boys to think of women as things and not people, posessions to be owned. This is a view which we need to do away with, starting with page 3

 

And by extension most female mags that profess things like "make him do what you want with sex" and other various titles. Those magazines perpetuate the idea that women should use men for sex to get further in life or that sex is a means to an end.

 

You also mention the Olympics, so I assume you've not forgotten about the sheer giddiness that overtook most media when Tom Daly stepped out in just his trunks?

[gtg93]

I'm not a parent, I am a 27 year old single man. Page 3, pinup calendars, wank (lads) mags, all that stuff needs to go. Just because it was acceptable before, doesn't mean it's okay now (look at all the prejudices we've gotten rid of in the past). It's just another aspect of rape culture which we need to do away with if we're ever going to actually start treating women the same as we treat men. These publications encourage young men and boys to think of women as things and not people, posessions to be owned. This is a view which we need to do away with, starting with page 3.

 

Case in point: During the 2012 olympics, despite us having female atheletes winning gold medals almost daily, the biggest and most prominent picture of a woman in The Sun each day was (and still is) a teenager with her tits out. People like Jessica Ennis barely even got a look in. What kind of message do you think that sends to young women and girls? Do you really want to raise a daughter in a world where this is the case?

 

I don't think an all out ban is quite the way to go - I agree it sets a bad example to an extent, but for some out there - this is something they enjoy doing as a job, so why take that away from them?

 

I also agree that it shouldn't be the main highlight when you open a newspaper/magazine etc - it needs toning down a little (a lot). I'm 20 years old and don't see women as "things" or "posessions to be owned", and I don't think it's images like this that cause people to think that way either, I think it's down to the people they're brought up around (not necessarily parents or close family) and their attitude towards women.

 

Again, I think it's down to educating people on the subjects, letting them know what's right and what's wrong. If someone wants to look at pictures of semi-nude models, then as long as the models are happy doing that for a living then why not let them? And I'm not just talking about female models either - although they're not as well published/seen, I'm pretty sure there will be published images of men of a similar orienation.

Edited November 27, 2013 by gtg93

[Sdrawkcab]

I cant be sure if you are trolling or not.

 

Nope, I'm not trolling. These are my actual opinions. I don't have time to reply properly to your post right now but i will do shortly. I just wanted to say that my post is not supposed to be an attack on the habits of men everywhere, but a commentary on society. Don't take it so personally.

[localzuk]

I'm more of the opinion that we all need to stop thinking of sex as something dirty that needs to be hidden away like a sin. Its something that healthy views need to be generated about from childhood. As it stands, we spend our lives being told that sex is basically bad. Ok, it isn't as bad as the older times when puritanical views of sex being only for babies were prevalent but we still have major hangups.

 

We also need to stop obsessing about body image entirely. We need to focus on health, not image. Photoshop editing of models photos should be banned in all media, male or female, child or adult.

 

The porn is a reflection of the demands of the consumer. If people didn't want whatever porn they produced, it wouldn't exist. If people's attitudes to sex changed, so would the availability of, or the desire to see, porn.

 

Focusing on filtering or getting rid of boobs in The Sun is nearly the most pointless example of grandstanding for votes that I can think of.