Comments on: Bloggers, unite! Protect the Innocent! Safeguard the Web!

By: SteveMD

SteveMD — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:53:04 +0000

Concerning your last post, it would seem that a central ‘age verification service’, based on something like a driving licence, could well be the answer.

No cost to adults (and so more acceptable to site owners) and a central service to give passwords for the ‘free sample’ areas of adult sites.

By: Mihaela Lica

Mihaela Lica — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:08:10 +0000

This is great news. Let’s hope that Gordon Brown reads blogs… More interesting news come from WebProNews:

Connecticut lawmakers argued over a bill on Thursday to compel social-networking sites such as MySpace to confirm users’ ages and make minors to get parental consent before creating profiles. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal proposed the bill to shield children from sexual predators. Blumenthal sited six alleged sexual assaults in Connecticut with older men and under-aged girls linked to MySpace last year. Blumenthal said applicants would present a driver’s license or other form of identification and the Internet site would check the age, address and date of birth. Sites that don’t verify ages under 18 without parental consent could face civil penalties of up to five thousand dollars. If passed, this would signify the first bill in the United States to inflict rules on the social-networking sites.

By: SteveMD

SteveMD — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:04:36 +0000

I believe Gordon Brown is proposing a content standard classification scheme, similar to the BBFCs film classifications, that is being discussed in the EU.

This of course would only help if the law says those with an ‘adults only’ classification must have password protection. Any attempt at actual censorship throughout the EU would merely push the sites to other countries.

This would be law only in the EU, but if it were adopted then I see little problems in getting the USA and others to do something similar.

By: Mihaela Lica

Mihaela Lica — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:03:21 +0000

Oh, now I understand! Yes, about the first article quoted… I agree. I just mentioned it to show that who really believes in something can make a difference. I simply admire Liz Longhurst’s power to fight for something she believes in. And I think… if one woman could do so much (even when the law is now a retrial), united people could do even more.

By: SteveMD

SteveMD — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:58:17 +0000

I’m sorry if my posts have seems at odds to your viewpoint, my response was to the first article and the badly constructed law being proposed.

As for protecting children, I am all for any measure that can be shown to be effective (even if it ‘inconveniences’ adults who want to look at adult porn).

A password protection scheme would be an excellent idea (I would also suggest strong disclaimers on the sites front pages, but that is a minor matter) and I believe far easier to get international cooperation with than straightforward attempts at censorship of adult material.

By: Mihaela Lica

Mihaela Lica — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:52:39 +0000

Then what would you do? There are already thousands such campaigns and none is successful…

By: SteveMD

SteveMD — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:51:28 +0000

P.S. I do think a campaign to get the government to subsidise filtering software such as ‘NetNanny’ and educate both parents and children about online dangers, would be far more helpful than any of the pro-censorship campaigns.

By: Mihaela Lica

Mihaela Lica — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:46:20 +0000

You are right about the laws, but we don’t see these people in the same light. For me anyone who harms a child or enjoys watching a child being harmed, is a monster. (I say “harm” and I mean sexual abuse!) Enyone who publishes such content is a monster too. You are kind to say “locked up”. I don’t want to say more.
About other “violent pornography”, as long as people are adults and responsible, as long as they don’t “expose” their preferences to children and they don’t harm others, I still think it is a matter of choice. What people consentually do behind closed doors is their business. This is why I support the idea of “password protected login”.

By: SteveMD

SteveMD — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:39:56 +0000

I’m not sure I understand your point.

A man who rapes a child is a pedophile and should be locked up, a person who downloads images of child pornography is inciting sex crimes against a child and should be locked up.

Someone who publishes violent adult pornography should do so within the laws of the country in which they publish, that means no one should sustain serious and lasting injury or should be coerced into doing anything they do not want to do. Despite what may be said that is generally the case, forced sex and serious violence are crimes all over the world and no one has been able to quote a single site where real (as opposed to faked) serious violence takes place.

Someone who downloads violent adult pornography is not inciting a crime and the evidence available says viewing such images will not cause the viewer to commit a crime.

The only other consideration, in the case of violent adult porn is to keep it out of the reach of children. As has been discussed censiorship will not work.

The proposed law of prosecuting those who download such images will not affect the avilability of the images online and may even increase the demand here for them.

The law mentioned in the first article will put downloading violent adult porn on the same basis as downloading child-porn. They are clearly different things, one is causing actual harm, the other is simply ‘bad taste’ and no one elses business.

The proposed law will divert already stretched resources from tracking child-pornography and lock people up for a ‘crime’ which causes no harm.

By: Mihaela Lica

Mihaela Lica — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:08:24 +0000

Agree with you at most of the points, except nr 1! How would you call a man who rapes a 5 years old? Or better: how would you call a man (or woman) who pays to see something like this online?