So, the details: There is actually very little proposed to be done that would actually reduce the spread of child porn - there would be an agreement with internet providers to stop results coming up when you search for specific words related to indecent images of children. This has been criticised already by internet companies who rightly, in my opinion, think this would do little to stop the spread, if people want to get their hands on this sort of thing, I should imagine they could.
The rest of this porn bill will mean that there are "family filters" set up on EVERY internet source that would block out porn and what the government deems to be "indecent images". To access porn the household would have to contact the internet supplier and explicitly ask for porn. Can you image something more degrading? It totally feels like crawling on your hands and knees begging to the companies for your porn.
I have three MAJOR issues with this part of the bill that would do NOTHING to stop the spread of child pornography; again, this bill is a restriction on our civil liberties, under the guise of stopping child porn. This is EXACTLY how fascist systems start. I'm a STAR WARS fan, and this is literally the technique that the Emperor used to get supreme power over the galaxy, passing bills under the disguise of something that everyone can agree on, like stopping child porn, but really the hidden part takes away our freedoms - this has got to be stopped.
The first major issue I have is that from the Edward Snowden leaks of the NSA and the prism programs, we no know that the government has accesses to LITERALLY EVERYTHING you have online - they can find out the content of the emails you send, the websites you go on, how long and often you go on them, this issue deserves a blogpost in its own right. The issue arises that why does there need to be any measures in place to restrict child porn in the first place? (Don't get me wrong, there should be, but hear this point out) They already have the ability to find out the ISPs of those searching for child porn online, so why don't they actually use the personal data they stole from us to actually some good use?
Another point; there is already the option on most browsers I know of to start family filters on websites, so why does the government need to step in a have an overarching one? Are you THAT lazy a parent that you need the government to stop your 8 year from accidentally stumbling onto indecent images that you can't set up the block yourself? That's all it comes down to.
Now, it can be argued, and I could possibly be convinced into think that an Opt-In system, where you ask the government to block indecent images on your computer, rather than an Opt-Out where you have to ask the government to view porn, would be better. It would partially avoid everyone being guilt tripped and shamed about viewing porn and also the chance for the government to collect even more information about your personal lives. I still think that you can put blocks up to avoid porn if that's what you want to do - the government can stay out of the whole thing! Asking to receive porn would only 'flag yourself' up to the government and make them more likely to spy on what you're doing.
Third major point is that if you're not the one who pays the bill for the internet you have no say in whether you can get porn. The issue is I still think it's always been weird that age of consent (that you can legally have sex) is 16, yet the age you need to be is 18! If anything this should be lowered. This system of Opt-out would mean that even as an adult living with someone else, ie living under a landlord who administrates your internet subscribtion, or living with your parents; they would have to put themselves out there so that you can get access to porn. How embarrassing, degrading and generally perverse is that. I want to do what I want to do, not have to grovel to my mom to ask her to opt out of these "family filters". So ridiculous.
You can protect society adequately by sensible social programs to reduce poverty, regulate organisations where appropriate and provide adequate policing. You do not need to restrict civil liberties to do this! It is the easy, lazy governments way of doing things. Tapping everyone's phones is I'm sure a more less intellectually strenuous way to reduce crime or preemptive crime, but at what cost to society? If thought was put into bringing people out of poverty, tackling race relations how much more would crime go down? Lazy, lazy governments.
Some coverage on the issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACrrGTiV1VI&noredirect=1
E-petitions are an initative to help the British public get what they want to be debated in the house of commons. If a petition gets 100,000 signatures (and follows certain criteria) it HAS to be debated in the commons. It is often one of the most effective ways of getting a point of view expressed and debated by those who can make the decisions, and shows that there is enough clout that people want something done on a topic. I've already signed the petition and I think it would help, if you agree with it, if you did too - upon writing this the petition has about 15,000 signatures and has only been out 2 days! Link to the government petition: https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/51746
Until next time guys :) cx
No comments:
Post a Comment