[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Paul Sutton wrote: > As I said I agree we need to be targeting abusers and > making sure they are not only caught but punished so it sends a message > out, however I don't think our MP's have the guts for that. Of course they do. If there's one thing that makes you score points as an MP, it's being "tough on paedophiles". The sole motivation behind making pornography something you have to opt-in to seems to be two pretty horrific cases of child abuse. (By a third-party, I should add. Most cases of child abuse are committed by someone who knows the victim. But people tend to find a strange kind of comfort in the idea that it's strangers we need to be afraid of.) I recently attended a talk about child abuse and the Internet. Thinking of some of the stories I heard about what it does to victims still sends shivers down my spine. But that doesn't mean I think it's easy to find all of the abusers. And it really doesn't mean I think we should make Google et al jump through some hoops, because we somehow think that will help. And I hope the opening post made clear what I think of the ban on porn, which, as someone pointed out yesterday, is actually much more sinister than a ban on porn. It's illiberal, it's none of the government's business and it's rather hypocritical - see Cameron's defense of Page 3 girls (where I agree with him, much as I loathe Page 3 girls) and see https://twitter.com/jackman365/status/359282317572841473/photo/1 But it's also not going to help a tiny bit, because whatever method they can reasonably use, it'll be so easy to to circumvent. On a positive note, if this goes through (which I seriously doubt), the country will end up with a lot of 14-year-old boys with some decent computer networking skills. That's a good thing. Martijn. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq