Britain places restrictions on on-line porn

[timpage]

Providers (internet providers, that is) in Britain will be required to show that a subscriber opted in to receive porn on-line.

Interesting.

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/07/23...ned-in-britain

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by timpage

Providers (internet providers, that is) in Britain will be required to show that a subscriber opted in to receive porn on-line.

Interesting.

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/07/23...ned-in-britain

Oy, mate! Bugger off!

I was just in the middle of a good wank when you interrupted to spread that shite around.

[timpage]

You know what is interesting here is if the same requirement existed in the US....wonder what the response would be if they asked husbands versus wives?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by timpage

You know what is interesting here is if the same requirement existed in the US....wonder what the response would be if they asked husbands versus wives?

They will never figure out how to categorize what is porn and what it not porn.

One commenter correctly noted - do the topless Page 3 girls in The Sun newspaper qualify as porn? Do you have to opt in to The Sun's website?

[timpage]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

They will never figure out how to categorize what is porn and what it not porn.

One commenter correctly noted - do the topless Page 3 girls in The Sun newspaper qualify as porn? Do you have to opt in to The Sun's website?

You are correct, there will be an endless discussion as to what constitutes porn. But, what about the media that clearly is, which is what Cameron is trying to address?

I guess the question I am trying get at is....would you agree or disagree with a similar provision if imposed by the government on US internet providers? I would be inclined to allow families purchasing the service to express a preference.

What say you?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by timpage

You are correct, there will be an endless discussion as to what constitutes porn. But, what about the media that clearly is, which is what Cameron is trying to address?

I guess the question I am trying get at is....would you agree or disagree with a similar provision if imposed by the government on US internet providers? I would be inclined to allow families purchasing the service to express a preference.

What say you?

I think websites that post "pictorial" porn should be required to have a ".xxx" domain. And that includes any educational website that posts explicit pictures of sex acts

Since you can type ".xxx" just as easily as ".com" or ".net", I don't see that being a burden on free speech.

Search engines can give the option to search all domains or all domains except the ".xxx" domains.

Parents can then disable the search engine from accessing and displaying anything from the ".xxx" websites.

The .XXX domain restrictions would not apply to text or pictures of sex organs that are not engage in sex acts.

So, you don't have to worry about "Lady Chatterly's Lover" or a book on anatomy being censored or difficult to find.