[news] BBC News - "MPs call for better porn filters to protect children"

[X-13]

I somewhat agree and disagree. realistic images could be both distasteful and offensive, hence being banned without anyone being harmed in their production

 

 

Oh yeah. Realistic images are a grey area.[/opinion]

 

I've seen some fantastic pencil drawings that look like photos.

 

 

I'm talking about obvious cartoons.

[localzuk]

I somewhat agree and disagree. realistic images could be both distasteful and offensive, hence being banned without anyone being harmed in their production

 

Neither distaste or offense are criminal issues - they are personal issues. For example, it is not illegal for me to be offensive. It is illegal for me to be offensive by using threatening, insulting or abusive behaviour or language - the key part being those latter 3 aspects of it.

 

Now, cartoons as being pedophilia? I personally don't see a problem with it, as X-13 says - it isn't hurting anyone. Claims that it could lead people on to do other things are neither here nor there (much like 'a newborn baby could become the next Hitler or the next Einstein), as that is more of an issue with the person viewing it and their propensity to do abusive things etc...

[LosOjos]

On my list of things to be outraged by, cartoons are pretty low on the list.

 

I agree, but why would anybody make a paedophilic cartoon, and why would anybody want to watch it? Real or not, I think there has to be something very sick about a person to seek out that kind of thing. It's one thing to stumble upon something (the amount of times people post cr*p like Simpsons porn in forums is astounding) but to seek it out implies a desire to view intentionally paedophilic images, and should be dealt with as such IMO.

 

If it's part of the story (I'm no stranger to Manga/Anime, I know they can have some seriously messed up stories) then hinting at it is enough, you don't have to actually show it; that's seriously crossing a line for me.

[LosOjos]

Now, cartoons as being pedophilia? I personally don't see a problem with it, as X-13 says - it isn't hurting anyone.

 

OK, this thread seems to be slanting toward "oh, it's not real paedophilia, that's fine", so I'm stepping away. My final word: whichever way you look at it, paedophilia is absolutely disgusting and wrong.

[X-13]

as that is more of an issue with the person viewing it and their propensity to do abusive things etc...

 

Which is the same as violent games.

 

Also, I think I read/heard/saw something about females being more fertile younger [Finite amount of eggs = more while younger] so it could be an evolutionary thing... Most likely with a lack of impulse control. [/theorising]

 

This is getting way off topic.

[localzuk]

I agree, but why would anybody make a paedophilic cartoon, and why would anybody want to watch it? Real or not, I think there has to be something very sick about a person to seek out that kind of thing. It's one thing to stumble upon something (the amount of times people post cr*p like Simpsons porn in forums is astounding) but to seek it out implies a desire to view intentionally paedophilic images, and should be dealt with as such IMO.

 

If it's part of the story (I'm no stranger to Manga/Anime, I know they can have some seriously messed up stories) then hinting at it is enough, you don't have to actually show it; that's seriously crossing a line for me.

 

You can say the same thing about many different forms of 'art' though. Why would anyone make a film where people get blown up? Or something like 'The Human Centipede'? I find the latter disgusting, but the prior is just a story telling with explosions etc...

 

Your line is in one place, other people's lines are in different places - why should your line define the law, over mine, or an artist who is telling a story?

[CyberNerd]

Now, cartoons as being pedophilia? I personally don't see a problem with it, as X-13 says - it isn't hurting anyone.

 

I suppose the issue is when technology or artistry gets so realistic it's impossible to see the difference between that and a real image. I still don;t want to see cartoons of kids getting bummed so from my PoV I have no issues with it being illegal. I'm much more concerned about govt content filtering the internet. It starts as 'think of the children' and ends up filtering all sorts of things under the guise of 'security'

 

Claims that it could lead people on to do other things are neither here nor there (much like 'a newborn baby could become the next Hitler or the next Einstein), as that is more of an issue with the person viewing it and their propensity to do abusive things etc...

agree

[X-13]

You can say the same thing about many different forms of 'art' though. Why would anyone make a film where people get blown up? Or something like 'The Human Centipede'? I find the latter disgusting, but the prior is just a story telling with explosions etc...

 

Your line is in one place, other people's lines are in different places - why should your line define the law, over mine, or an artist who is telling a story?

 

L'art pour l'art

 

 

OK, this thread seems to be slanting toward "oh, it's not real paedophilia, that's fine", so I'm stepping away. My final word: whichever way you look at it, paedophilia is absolutely disgusting and wrong.

 

If cartoon abuse is available freely as a viable alternative to real abuse, surely it isn't a bad thing.

 

[by viable alternative I mean something along the lines of "Take the cartoons and leave the kids and be fine or go for the real thing and be arrested and on the register for life."]

 

[/Devil's advocate]

Edited April 20, 2012 by X-13

[CAM]

It is a law created to prevent the circumvention of traditional child abuse charges. Loopholes in the law allowed images to be sketched or even converted into (probably rubbish quality) line art and because the image isn't real, it was not deemed illegal. This was altered to cover not only artwork but also the closure of another loophole where pure fantasy images can potentially fall foul of the law. I'm not sure of any cases where that has been used though since we are now venturing into thought crime territory. Given some of the stuff that comes out of 4Chan, it'd also involve half the Internet being locked up.

 

This doesn't mean anime or film collections have to be trashed though. Japan does have some odd tastes but if something was deemed illegal then it wouldn't get past the censors and have a BBFC tag. Even Human Centipede, as twisted as the film is, has an 18 rating. Human Centipede 2 on the other hand didn't make it through the BBFC (though that can always change, see House of 1000 Corpses).

 

I can see where the lawmakers and the spirit of the law are coming from, though it is a law that is very open to interpretation and can easily be abused if it isn't watched carefully.

 

EDIT - Maybe this is best placed in the Filtering forum?

Edited April 20, 2012 by CAM

[GrumbleDook]

A bit of a reality check on the psychology of abuse here for some members, taken from the CEOP TUK Ambassador training.

 

There is a thing called normalisation and this occurs in many areas of life, ranging from pain in physical exercise, violence, substance abuse, etc ... and we can throw in words such as desensitise and acceptance in with this too.

 

When it comes to child abuse there have been significant studies which show that images of children suffering abuse are part of this process (linked in with the experience of gratification) and this has also been shown to include pseudo-images of children suffering abuse too. This is why they are illegal. It was not done on a whim but because of significant research which included people doing a heck of a lot of talking with both victims and convicted sex offenders.

 

It is not a pleasant areas to research about (and I would strongly recommend no-one tries searching for information in case you come across some disturbing materials) and courses from CEOP are an eye opener about it.

 

Needless to say, pseudo images are part of the problem ...

[localzuk]

A bit of a reality check on the psychology of abuse here for some members, taken from the CEOP TUK Ambassador training.

 

There is a thing called normalisation and this occurs in many areas of life, ranging from pain in physical exercise, violence, substance abuse, etc ... and we can throw in words such as desensitise and acceptance in with this too.

 

When it comes to child abuse there have been significant studies which show that images of children suffering abuse are part of this process (linked in with the experience of gratification) and this has also been shown to include pseudo-images of children suffering abuse too. This is why they are illegal. It was not done on a whim but because of significant research which included people doing a heck of a lot of talking with both victims and convicted sex offenders.

 

It is not a pleasant areas to research about (and I would strongly recommend no-one tries searching for information in case you come across some disturbing materials) and courses from CEOP are an eye opener about it.

 

Needless to say, pseudo images are part of the problem ...

 

Surely that's an argument for criminalising all sorts of things though, like violent games/movies? As we become 'normalised' to the behaviour within them?

[PiqueABoo]

It is not a pleasant areas to research about (and I would strongly recommend no-one tries searching for information in case you come across some disturbing materials) and courses from CEOP are an eye opener about it.

 

If folk do ignore the nannying and go looking with a smidgeon of common sense (e.g. the inclusion of the word "psychology" in any search about any Bad Stuff[tm] will generally get you sensible results), you'll find like pretty much all research on anything it's not clear cut and in this case I don't believe there's much research to go on (doubtless quite difficult). For instance there's a wikipedia page which mentions: A Swiss [Dept. of Justice -Ed.] study reviewing the criminal record of 231 men who were charged with viewing child pornography found that those without a prior sexual conviction are unlikely to sexually assault a child

 

Whatever stuff CEOP feed you is probably right, but should the cause&effect ever be resolved with absolute certainty I wouldn't want to place a significant bet on the outcome. I think it's best to keep the justifications simple: Whether it causes it or not, it clearly does promote sex with minors and that's not good.

 

Surely that's an argument for criminalising all sorts of things though, like violent games/movies?

 

Quite, although I suspect the contrary reasoning there is that it's better to have folk turning into couch-potatos playing their murderously violent vid-games than hanging about outside and violently mugging folk.

[sonofsanta]

Follow-up article: BBC News - Could teenagers be stopped from looking at porn?

[LiamH]

BBC News - Online pornography: What can be done to protect children?

 

the guy on the sofa has no idea...

[JJonas]

BBC News - Online pornography: What can be done to protect children?

 

the guy on the sofa has no idea...

 

I saw that yesterday, the guy in the other studio is correct it will have to be weak and it will give parents a false sense of security.

[X-13]

I'm still waiting for the "Great firewall of China" comparison...

 

"Goverment blocks pornography, then what? They block anything that they feel is bad for their image?"

[CyberNerd]

I'm still waiting for the "Great firewall of China" comparison...

 

"Goverment blocks pornography, then what? They block anything that they feel is bad for their image?"

 

They'll block for 'security reasons' surely.

[localzuk]

I'm still waiting for the "Great firewall of China" comparison...

 

"Goverment blocks pornography, then what? They block anything that they feel is bad for their image?"

 

This is exactly the same argument that was brought up when the government introduced the whole 'blocking child porn'/'cleanfeed' system. People agree 100% that child pornography is a detestable thing, but the fear then, as it is now, is that its a stepping stone to filtering other stuff that the government of the day decides is bad for whatever reason.

 

ie. Slippery slope argument.

 

And for once, the people who made that argument back then are being proven correct in their fears by the use of that system as an example of a working filtering system so 'why can't it be extended to do this job too?'...

Edited April 26, 2012 by localzuk
EDIT: Slipper slope sounds like a fun game, but alas a typo.

[X-13]

They'll block for 'security reasons' surely.

 

Anti-terrorism.

 

The same reason councils use for spying on tennants rubbish...

 

 

I've said it many times, but I'll say it again.

 

 

Viva la revolution.

[sonofsanta]

I saw that yesterday, the guy in the other studio is correct it will have to be weak and it will give parents a false sense of security.

 

I think the false sense of security is the most cogent argument I've seen against it yet, in all honesty. Regardless of your other thoughts for or against filtering in general or this filter specifically, that is the most believable downside to any such system.

[X-13]

I think the false sense of security is the most cogent argument I've seen against it yet, in all honesty. Regardless of your other thoughts for or against filtering in general or this filter specifically, that is the most believable downside to any such system.

 

^ Pretty much this.

 

 

I wonder if there's a report on whether more obscure fetishes are serched for if filtering is in place...

 

[sometimes I have strange theories... and what?]

[LiamH]

This is exactly the same argument that was brought up when the government introduced the whole 'blocking child porn'/'cleanfeed' system. People agree 100% that child pornography is a detestable thing, but the fear then, as it is now, is that its a stepping stone to filtering other stuff that the government of the day decides is bad for whatever reason.

 

ie. Slippery slope argument.

 

And for once, the people who made that argument back then are being proven correct in their fears by the use of that system as an example of a working filtering system so 'why can't it be extended to do this job too?'...

 

Already happened, cleanfeed blocks copyright violations now

 

In June 2011 the Motion Picture Association began court proceedings in an attempt to force BT to use Cleanfeed to block access to NewzBin2, a site indexing downloads of copyrighted content.[4] BT was ordered to block access to the site in late July[1] and in a later clarification, BT was given two weeks to implement the block starting at the end of October.[5]

 

granted that's from Wikipedia though Cleanfeed (content blocking system) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[localzuk]

See, this is the sort of thing that makes me not to trust the government or out courts. The courts use of Cleanfeed there is a blatant violation of the law as it was written, as it was intended purely for use for child pornography and reference back to hansard should have cleared that up!

[Garacesh]

See, this is all pointless.. If this takes off, there'll just be an explosion of naugty magazines and DVD's. They'll just use other mediums. I say just educate your kids about porn (and other net-naughties). Young boys especially will seek out porn for some jollies. I'm not under the impression girls won't, either. Also, who decides? Do I get to watch straight, mission pr0ns but not kinky bondage? Where do you draw the line? Women in bikinis and underwear models? Allowed or not?

 

If you want to restrict content, do it to your own device. Don't rely on the ISP to do it for you.. Stupid lazy parents.. grumble grumble.

 

Also, great firewall of china, rawr censorship, etc.

[gmj]

Blimey....The Daily Fail still going on about it : Jamie is 13 and hasn't even kissed a girl. But he's now on the Sex Offender Register after online porn warped his mind... | Mail Online

 

I honestly thought they would have moved on to something else now....house prices/immigration/cancer or all 3.