The protection of children is a laudable objective but are we to ban knives "to protect kids from injury"?
Are we to ban cars because some kids get run over?
Are we to ban libraries because they contain some raunchy literature?
If kids need physical prevention to stop them doing really stupid things I would consider this to be because their parents had failed to set a responsible example and raise their kids properly. It's all too easy to worry about how poor little Johnny might be accessing allsorts of filth, whilst you are lying on the sofa watching Eastenders, fag in one hand beer in the other. Sometimes its hard to take responsibility and spend time with kids and actually teach them responsible values and be willing to talk to them about a range of subjects.
It's a bit provocative but my guess is that more kids are "damaged" from parental indifference, neglect or abdication of responsibility, than from all the porn on the web and "menace perverts" combined.
You know, there have been so many wise words spoken on this topic, but I am concerned about some that have been critical of those that have attempted to take a measured approach. The one that castigates feminists, for instance, really irritated me - since I would consider myself one. I have worked with kids who've been sexually abused and a common feature is the use of porn (both adult and child) in the abuse. there's no getting away from it. Yes, it's about those individuals who do this, but there is a wider issue we cannot get away from. That's to do with the way in which porn is distributed and how children are encouraged to see it as legitimate. The internet has a lot to answer for. Children can NOT be willing sexual partners/actors, but abusers make them feel that this is so.
Human rights is an issue for consenting adults and quite rightly, our predeliction for some kinky stuff should be protected. But it worries me when people confuse this with abuse. I know it is a fine line at times (not with kids tho - that is clear for me), but I have seen pictures of women who are clearly in pain and can't possibly be enjoying the bondage/whipping/torture etc. They are most likely to be women who have been brought from abroad to service the porn industry in this country.
Future legislation needs to address the seedier side of the porn industry that involves abuse of both adults and children. We need to make our views known and not regard this consultation as a threat.
I don't think we would lose our sense of freedom if the internet became more controlled. Its no different from having a highway code.
It makes sense to control extreme ideas and images. Technically its easy to prevent a server hosting stuff. All links get disconnected and its useless.
Its legislation that would allow this. I think the legislation would be used responsibly.
..well said Walnut, Duncan & Ice..
What I would say to BFC, Seagull and Bigslut is...if you see don't approve of some form of internet censorship in respect of violent sexual images and ...round up your kids this morning and sit them down to a couple of hours a day of watching this stuff.. because as things stand now that's what they're able to do. With the internet, there is no watershed, pre programme warning of graphic/violent images to follow or age limit discrimination of any kind. Children wouldn't even have to be particularly resourceful to fall on it by 'accident', so effectively, very young, unsupervised kids can see this stuff. :shock:
As I keep saying..in principle, I disagree with censorship, because historically only the people (adults) with an interest in whatever it was that turned them on would access or be in a position to, the pornography that they need. The internet is a new phenomenon and changes all that, at the touch of a button.
Ther are laws that make it illegal to be violent to someone WITH their consent, in fact if any injury is done to a person even with their consent, that is illegal. So, if you have a video of that act (illegal act) then watching it must also be illegal.
As for the internet, when my kids were small they had access only to the "under 18" stuff...the fact that kids can access porn on the internet speaks volumes about both their parents non-computer knowledge and the industry itself.
Porn, in itself, doesn't predetermine that kids are going to be either assaulted, or be assaulters. The fact that many paedophiles USE porn in their illegal activities is to "show" the child that "normal" people do it....ie: porn is a tool in their trade.
But you've got to accept that the internet HAS to be censored. If not by laws making it illegal to view porn over it, then by actively using the hardware facilities of the servers (etc) to ban anyone serving the need. Of course, then you would need people to decide which was to be banned, or maybe not. Any form of nudity featuring sexual activity could be banned straight away,. and then the wearing of clothes by people that may incite others to sexual gratification could also be banned.
While we're on the subject, we could also ban other unatural activites, like any gay activities or leanings could be banned (gay sex doesn't lead to procreation of the species, so it must be unatural)
I'm sure that any public servant could think of other things to ban....like any reference to their high salaries, pensions and unending sick leave.......etc
............ 
, where have you been all day?! 
