Internet Censorship is here in the UK now!

www.guardian.co.uk...

The biggest ISP in the UK has decides to block all site that contain child porn. A worthy cuase in anyones book. BUT is this the start of cencored Internet in the UK? It could well be.I
If you wanted to restrict what sites people can visit then a good place to start would be child porn site as most people are against it. there for will accept it without question. Next will be all pornographic sites then sites belong to radicals.

[edit on 7-6-2004 by John bull 1]

I don't see this as censorship.
Just plain common sense.

"Most people" are against child pornography? In my opinion the "people" who are for it are animals. You can hardly categorise them or put them in the same boat as radicals.

Child pornography is a crime. It isn't cencorship , it is law enforcment.


Nutzo

Yes I know it's a crime but so is making bombs and lot of other stuff but they are not blocking access to site about them. They soon will though.
Blocking these site doesn't stop the child being abused. I'd rather they spent the time getting the scum that do this. Blocking the sites will not stop it from happening.

One thing though, if you try to access this stuff you'll get a error message but you IP won't be recorded, why not I say.

I dont think that is censorship. Theres a massive movement against child porn etc. The interesting thing is from what I have read there are MANY people in the British government involved in child rape and sex acts. But maybe thats just a conspiracy ....right???

Time to worry is when the government shuts down sites that are derogatory against the current administration, and or harmless sites but sites that are "deemed" dangerous and possibly anti social. Its when they shut down information that there is no real reason to shut down.

Take a look at Zimbabwe. See what the government there allows and doesnt allow. I think its everything but child porn. Thats the least of their concerns.

yeah thats not cencorship, thats keeping something evil and decadent out.

Maybe all of you who don't consider censoring something censorship need read a dictionary. It is censorship plain and simple, but since most of our society doesn't allow that material we accept the censorship of that material. If you don't like your ISP leave. I think most major ISP's censor most of that kind of stuff, but if you really want it I'm sure you can find it.

It may be common sense for us, but it's still censorship.

It may be a crime, but it's still censorship.

Just because there's a massive government movement, doesn't it mean the defination of the word censorship has changed.

Keeping something evil and decadent out, doesn't change the meaning of censorship either.

What is so hard about saying it's censorship and you accept it, because ...




[edit on 6-6-2004 by outsider]

It's just ISPs trying to cover their backs. They are probably worried about possible legislation which might make them partially accountable for their customers activities. (I believe this has been discussed, although nothing firm has been tabled).

Could also be a bit of a PR stunt by BT to show it is 'family friendly'.

It won't stop the child porn perverts, although I bet they do really record the Ips of those who attempt to access the sites. Good on them if they do catch a few.

If you consider this censorship, then bring it on, at last some ISP has the guts to take a stand.

Since, it seems nobody has a clue - here you go.

The Merriam Webster Dictionary online defines censorship as

censorship
1 a the institution, system, or practice of censoring and censor (verb) as

censor
to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable


Academic American Encyclopedia from Prodigy on-line
CENSORSHIP

Censorship is a word of many meanings. In its broadest sense it refers to suppression of information, ideas, or artistic expression by anyone, whether government officials, church authorities, private pressure groups, or speakers, writers, and artists themselves. It may take place at any point in time, whether before an utterance occurs, prior to its widespread circulation, or by punishment of commincators after dissemination of their messages, so as to deter others from like expression. In its narrower, more legalistic sense, censorship means only the prevention by official government action of the circulation of messages already produced. Thus writers who "censor" themselves before putting words on paper, for fear of failing to sell their work, are not engaging in censorship in this narrower sense, or are those who boycott sponsors of disliked television shows. Yet all of these restraints have the effect of limiting the diversity that would otherwise be available in the marketplace of ideas and so may be considered censorship in its broadest sense.

There are almost as many justifications offered for the suppression of communication as there are would-be censors, but at root the motivation is always the same. It is a fear that the expression, if not curtailed, will do harm to individuals in its audience, or to society as a whole. Thus so-called obscene material is attacked because of a fear that it will corrupt personal morality or perhaps even lead to deviant sexual acts. School textbooks and library materials are sought to be purged by groups who fear that they may inculcate subversive values in children. Information concerning national security is controlled by government, with particular severity in wartime, for fear that its revelation may aid an enemy. In the judicial system, pretrial publicity about a crime may jeopardize a fair trial. Publication of personal information by police (such as the names of rape victims) or by the press (such as one's sexual preferences) may seriously intrude on one's right to privacy. The fear of such consequences, real or imagined, is what drives the censorial impulse.

Censorship has been practiced in both the narrower and the broader senses as long as there have been organized cultures. Those societies which have been most confident of their principles and of the loyalty of their members have allowed the greatest freedom from censorship, for they have been the least fearful of the consequences of dissent. In societies whose values have not been fully accepted by their people or whose leadership rests on shaky foundations, the heaviest hand of censorship has fallen. The relative prevalence of censorship is one of the features that has most distinguished autocratic from democratic societies and is most obvious in the thorough going preventive censorship practiced today in nations such as Communist Albania. Nevertheless, even the freest of nations find some forms of censorship necessary.

I suppose you have to consider which is the greater of two evils - I'm no supporter of censorship but I believe that child pornography is very, very much worse and so therefore I'm quite happy for censorship to apply in this case. You are right, it is definitely censorship.

This isn't about freedom of speech or the right to express an unpopular opinion its about warped individuals getting their jollies at the expense of innocent children who are abused and probably psychologically scarred for life.

I have also heard that senior Cabinet ministers in the Blair government were ALLEGEDLY implicated in child pornography consumption. It all happened just before we were due to invade Iraq last year. Nothing ever came of it and no minister was charged.

A cover-up?

Which ministers resigned around this time for no apparent reason?

Fact 1) Yes, this is censorship in every sense of the word.

Fact 2) It is entirely justified. Paedophiles are the lowest of the low, and their 'wares' NEED to be censored.

Does this infringe your rights to uncensored materials on the net? The answer to that is undoubtably yes. Do you care? If the answer to this is still yes then you should tread very carefully as you will be either inadvertantly branding yourself a paedophile, or at best a paedophile sympathiser. There are times and situations where it is totally acceptable for the people in control of the content of websites to trample over many to get to the few. This is one of those situations.

Benjj

It is, indeed, censorship and common sense, and I for one will not be changing from my present ISP, BT, for taking this stance.

How do they aim to actually discern that a site is providing child porn?

I suppose they can go look at them, but I assume it would work based on the textural content, which is where the filter may fail and end up blocking adult porn sites, and giving that this is one of the largest areas of the internet, could end up losing customers.

The argument for censoring child porn websites is only valid if there is evidence that censoring the sites would reduce the amount of child abuse happening in the world.

My feeling is that this is the thin end of the wedge. Personal freedom in a civilised society demands the arrest and punishment of those who engage in criminal activity, not a blanket prohibition which will merely force those criminals even further underground.

Am I saying that child porn should be linked to from Google? Of course not. But ignoring the issue - or pretending that this type of superficial action will have any effect - will not help the children who are abused every year. This action has only been greeted by approval because child pornography and abuse is such a controversial, headline story at the moment - I'm concerned about what will be next. Bomb making, probably? Information regarding biochemical warfare? And then perhaps information about outlawed groups such as Al Qaeda or the IRA? Censorship of any single topic weakens our rights to free access.

We demand the free distribution of information, and that, given human nature, will include things which are unpalatable, disgusting and illegal. Censorship is not the answer - prosecution and punishment is.

Of course the ISP will enforce the ban, and will trumpet it as evidence of their socially responsible attitude. But while they try and make the world shiny and pure for their users, they could be establishing a precedent which we may all come to regret.

I agree with Strangelands. On the surface this kind of censorship does look like a Good Thing, but...

(1) if it has no real impact then what is the point? and

(2) Britman's original point was that this consorship could gradually spread and spread until eventually the only things that aren't censored are things that are specifically OK'd by the government. Because they would be ostensibly censoring "for the common good", people in general will accept it with open arms, giving away their freedom in exchange for "protection" from "evil". The problem comes when the government ends up running every aspect of your life and people realise that we actually allowed that to happen...

Originally posted by StrangeLands
We demand the free distribution of information, and that, given human nature, will include things which are unpalatable, disgusting and illegal. Censorship is not the answer - prosecution and punishment is.

All very well and good from your own perspective. But people aren't all the same. There are those who do get their jollies from this sort of thing and there has been evidence that internet child pornography actually does lead to physical abuse of children. Banning it can only be a good thing.
I'm sorry, but I don't see this as a liberal argument for freedom. I don't see what right anyone has to complain if only one child is saved from the clutches of a pedophile because of this action.

Censorship would not be the answer in a society where every person is a reasoned individual, but unfortunately that society does not exist. Utopian pipedreams are all very well and good but pipedreams don't actually solve anything. Sure, prosecution and punishment are the desired outcome - and if you read the news you will see that the police have been very active in pursuing these people, but this gives them another weapon to use. Child pornography sites will probably now be easier to monitor and therefore their users may become easier to apprehend.

We can argue all day about the semantics of the word censorship. But as I said earlier, I don't see this as censorship. It's more closing a door and denying access to something that a person has no right to. Censorship to me is a closing down of personal liberty. Nobody has the right or freedom to view child pornography - it is totally unacceptable. There is no curb on liberty to be found here.

Regarding your comment over the IRA. The IRA actually was censored as far back as the 80s. Republican factions could not have their airs viewed and if you remembered, everything they said in the media went through a filter. This ban was lifted in the late 90s. A reversal of what you are actually claiming might happen.

With respect, leveller, we're not talking about banning child porn. We are talking about one ISP censoring sites using an imperfect system - I can say that, because all censoring systems I've ever heard of are woefully imperfect. If incidences of child abuse related to pornography did not decrease as a result of furious press attention, grave threats from the police around the world, ever-increasing numbers of arrests, and a popular moral backlash, what makes you think that BT's nod to social responsibility will have any effect whatsoever? And if it does not cause a reduction in abuse cases, then it is censorship for the sake of censorship and should be condemned as such.

My argument is simple - instead of censoring child porn and hoping it will all go away, don't censor it! Make it free to access, make the URLs short and snappy, then monitor ISPs and arrest every bastard who does access it. Banning the sites doesn't mean the police will have an easier time finding people and arresting them - rather, it will make things harder. The members of ATS, I'm sure, will have a thousand stories how censors and blocks can be bypassed with little or no effort.

So lay out the bait for the perverts. We won't stop them accessing these images, but we can make sure that we catch them when they do. Then, and only then, will you have reduce the number of abuse cases. That should be our ultimate aim, after all.

Two points to close on:

Firstly, I'm aware that I'm making certain assumptions about the general decency of most people, and that my argument could well be considered utopian, but why not? Human beings can be capable of such nobility and virtue, I don't see why society at large should be penalised because of a small number of subhuman degenerates.

And secondly, whether you want to use the word or not, whether you're happy about the broader inferences or not, this is censorship, plain and simple.

Originally posted by StrangeLands

I don't see why society at large should be penalised because of a small number of subhuman degenerates.

How are you being penalised? That's basically the crux of the argument here.
I don't see how you can demand a right to have access to child pornography.

A facile point.

As I said earlier, once censorship has been accepted as an appropriate measure against "unpleasantness" on the internet, we'll see more and more issues and topics cut off by the ISPs and the government. Censorship is never the answer to problems in society.

I don't believe that it is facile. I do believe that your argument is a very hard one to defend. "Unpleasantness" is a vast understatement in this context.
Maybe in your opinion, this is censorship, but I don't see how it can be construed in anyway as being detrimental to society.

I also don't see any other examples of censorship elsewhere on the net. This does seem to be a one off. Claiming that it might lead onto further censorship is groundless without proof.

Sure, censorship is not desirable. As I previously stated, in a Utopian world we would not need censorship - but then in a Utopian world there would be no child pornography on the internet would there?
The blatant fact is that pedophiles have used the internet to further their seedy cause. If the internet is a tool that they use, doesn't it make sense to deny them access to that tool? If you are saying "let them use the tool and then arrest them" you aren't thinking things through enough. Once the tool has been used, it will probably be to late for their victims.