Well... there are many other, differently oriented organizations and specially, individuals, that are less visible in their support, but still there too. Including antifascists.
David Cameron urges internet firms to block child abuse images
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Well... there are many other, differently oriented organizations and specially, individuals, that are less visible in their support, but still there too. Including antifascists.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
I think that sort of thing is one of the concerns, it might prevent people getting access to such places..
Your arguments are too sophisticated for whoever it was who came up with the legislation. You will suffer!
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
i remember when i worked in the bodleian library, one of the books i had to barcode was some sort of handbook from the 1990s which was produced for medical and social services professionals with what were quite graphic pictures of children who had been sexually abused and how to recognise the severity of the injuries. It really stuck in my mind for days 
but I know that that sort of book is necessary but these days a lot of the training is done online or by accessing the internet. would this sort of thing be affected by the legislation at all?
but I know that that sort of book is necessary but these days a lot of the training is done online or by accessing the internet. would this sort of thing be affected by the legislation at all?
free spirit
more tea vicar?
probably if you're in a tree outside the window...
Puddy_Tat
naturally fluffy
On the other hand, there is the existing (and think it's been the case for some time, at least if those involved are heterosexual) situation where it's perfectly legal for people aged 16-17 to have sex, but not to possess explicit images of 16-17 year olds.
Not that I am advocating having sex with, or having explicit images of 16-17 year olds...
Puddy_Tat
naturally fluffy
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
kids watch a lot of this shit on their mobiles anyway . Would it not be a better idea to ban children under 16 or 17 from owning mobile phones. Itd make it harder for them to look at nasty stuff , preserve adults freedoms and, most importantly, annoy the shit out of the little gets.
Face it, theyve abused the privilege and cant be trusted with the freedom .
Face it, theyve abused the privilege and cant be trusted with the freedom .
Would it be better to educate children, rather than imposing bans on themÇ Mobile phones are useful for a lot of things, not just watching porn. Would anyone here really, really support a system of education that censor, instead of explaining?
In regards to the widely spread theory that people who watch rape porn will go onto rape, I think that's another version of the old idea that sex is bad, contagious, a pathology, a disease. As someone else said on a previous post, war films are very popular and people don't support war en masse. Violence is rife on TV shows, but we don't leave the sofa wanting to kill.
This fear that watching child porn will people (ok, should I say, men) want to have sex with children is absurd. However, I do believe that people with a predisposition or a history of violence, will, first, try to find what they enjoy or crave, and, if they have mental issues, they don't have the boundaries to respect other humans. Plus, children are much easier to abuse if you are a coward.
In regards to the widely spread theory that people who watch rape porn will go onto rape, I think that's another version of the old idea that sex is bad, contagious, a pathology, a disease. As someone else said on a previous post, war films are very popular and people don't support war en masse. Violence is rife on TV shows, but we don't leave the sofa wanting to kill.
This fear that watching child porn will people (ok, should I say, men) want to have sex with children is absurd. However, I do believe that people with a predisposition or a history of violence, will, first, try to find what they enjoy or crave, and, if they have mental issues, they don't have the boundaries to respect other humans. Plus, children are much easier to abuse if you are a coward.
afaik children get curious and want to know about porn because it satisfies their emerging biological appetite, because it's part of what seems social, and because it's a part of what adults do (whether adults approve of it or not). How many adults do things they believe are unhealthy/bad for them? Even to the point of going to work (or school) while knowing in their bones that it's not what they'd choose if they were free to choose. Attempting to tell children only to do what's in their best interests isn't education - it's about taking the responsibility for asserting sometimes unpopular boundaries in a way that's going to seem unreasonable to a child/young person. Itziko it sounds like you reckon Education is a way of training children in developing a sense of morality. That's how the thinking was in the 1850's - Matthew Arnold's Culture and Anarchy assembled that as a cultural theory. Since then, especially since WW2, it's become obvious that this had more to do with training children in conformity for the purposes of the State and for the benefits of businesses. These days, isn't it generally accepted that child learning happens outside the structure of the curriculum, and families?
I find it weird how how children's access to porn gets so easily dovetailed with child porn (which I'd guess is mainly consumed by a subgroup of porn-using adults?) It almost seems as though there's a line of thought which goes: once children have become sexualised by coming into contact with pornography, it's a shorter leap to think about them engaging in sexual activities that others can look at. Revolting. The Victorians used to pussy foot around like this, idealising childhood while neglecting children's needs and thus creating opportunities for all sorts of real life child abuse etc
Would it be too much to encourage/nuruture children so that they respect themselves, take a parental stand and expect it to be questioned (children discovering how adults work is part of what they need to learn if they're going to become adults after all), and to help them when they go wrong as a result of coming into contact with those parts of the social world that all/some/any adults are involved in? Prohibition only works if you really assume those it affects have no resources to think for themselves. One of the most hopeless idiocies of Conservativism has been to claim that society functions in the same way as a big family, with the government as benign if sometimes difficult-to stomach-parents. And, perhaps, teachers as custodians of that parenting during the day in term time. Which is plainly not how the world, or anyway advanced capitalist nations, work.
Thanks for your very interesting post, sorry about the sniping. But ^^that^^ is what I meant when I mentioned "education". Not only at school, but by their parents too, who should I hope, set boundaries and standards and a sense of morality and responsibility.
One of the many things that irks me of legislation such as the one proposed by Cameron, is that it puts all responsibility on those smut peddling pornographers, who obviously like nothing better than to pimp their filth to children (with their many credit cards and fat bank accounts, wow, they make the industry rich). Sorry digressing, but shouldn't the first internet filters be the parents? The first people who have a responsibility to check, administer and curb children's use of the internet it's their parents or guardians.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
Sorry Pickmans but no don't wrigglingly attempt to slur me with your false assumption which was as usual only warped into something else by yourself you made the insinuation where there was none to be had.
And as far as I'm aware you're neither a mod or indeed urbans' style/tone editor so should refrain from your constant attempts to censor others opinions.
I'm free as are all to express myself as I see fit without need for your input.
Boris Sprinkler
Dont be scared
I have a twitter account I use mainly for professional work. Amongst my followers are some of the biggest names in the global information security community. I direct messaged Cameron this morning asking if he needed any help in understanding how the internet worked.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Quite so. But in future you wish to express yourself with less ambiguity than you have above. Btw I made no assumptions only asking what you meant by a term peculiar to you.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
GarfieldLeChat rereading the exchange the only one of us making assumptions is you with your vile slur that there's something of the savile about me. Perhaps you do protest too much, leading me to conclude you may have some daughters in your cellar.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
they were delicious nom nom nom
Exactly frogwoman. There has to be a predisposition. This Daily Mail myth that the moment you see something in a sexual context (of whatever kind), you're hooked, lost and all your morals and beliefs go out of the window (or should I say, out of your cock), is a ridiculous claim. Like this "sexualization" of children. Because if you let a child bare her midriff or wear lipstick, everybody will want to fuck them. Of course.
I guess we'll have to define what we mean by "predisposition" and "psychological barriers".
By predisposition, I mean the upbringing, background, maybe mental head issues, that make person have a very poor grasp of basic respect for all human life, for example, or to understand principles of consent.
By predisposition, I mean the upbringing, background, maybe mental head issues, that make person have a very poor grasp of basic respect for all human life, for example, or to understand principles of consent.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
well theoretically it could be possible for somebody to fancy kids but not want to act on their urges and watching porn of it could convince them that it's ok to go out and do it in real life.
also isn't part of the point with child rape material that a child has been/is being abused to make those images?
Similar threads
