Porn licence: ‘Unrestricted access’ or ‘Safe access’

worried face

Isn’t Cameron using porn, as most people – to get a cheap, diversionary thrill.

Can’t the discussion of access to porn be discussed in an adult fashion?  Shouldn’t the discussion use the terms of ‘Unrestricted access to the net’ and ‘Safe protected access’?

I have a number of concerns about this debate

1) This seems to be cynical political diversion.

2) Or is this part of the strategy to keep detailed records of everyone’s web access for government use? (They can justify it now for both terrorists and child molesters).

3) Is the broadband industry working with the government to increase prices in that they will be offering different packages?

4) By having different broadband packages will this be an opportunity for the big corporations to block our smaller businesses – ie you’ll have to access through portals – which only high value advertisers will be able to afford to use for their promotions. (This would be justified as the advertisers are helping to fight child molesters)

5) I suspect a lot of adults who want to watch porn will start looking at ways of watching, without being registered. This could lead to people being lured into the dodgier parts of the online porn industry.

6) People lured into the unregistered, dodgier side of the online porn industry are then in a position to be blackmailed. (eg criminals could easily hide within a normal porn video – child porn images).

7) Who has access to the registration information? Will the police? Will they have it for specific investigations? or will they be able to humiliate a suspect for watching normal porn? or maybe something that’s out of the ordinary – but not criminal?

8) Who is going to define what’s legal and what isn’t? For example the success of ’50 shades of grey’ – suggests some women are interested in the idea of domination – where does the law draw the line.

9) The government has cut back the funding for the police dealing with serious child abuse – it would seem more sensible to increase funding.

 

Suggestions

1) That broadband providers educate users, particularly parents, on protecting themselves and their children.

2) That the providers provide safe services – but this should be an opt in – not opt out.

3) Some of the massive profits of broadband providers should be diverted from their off shore tax havens and should be used to fund:

  • the child protection police
  • user education
  • research into areas of the internet – eg suicide sites
  • support organisations

 

Conclusion

That politicians should act like grown-ups.  Knee-jerk, short term political games should be avoiding.

But Cameron is using porn, as most people – he’s using it to get a cheap, diversionary thrill.

The two issues, Child sexual abuse, (the protection of which his government is reducing funding), and children getting access to pornography at an early age, are both serious topics.

There are sensible people in all parties who should be working together on this with educators, parent organisations and experts and researchers.  Something, Cameron drew out, I presume, on an unused piece of tissue is totally inappropriate.

Speak Your Mind

*