8 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
8 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

UK Plans to Censor "Esoteric" Content

by LarryC
6 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
I'm not sure if this is a definite plan or just a proposal at this point. However, it's quite sinister either way. The justification is apparently to protect children from pornography. Why, then, use the word "esoteric?"

If you want to censor pornography (there are many arguments pro and con about this, but that's another discussion) why not make it a bill that filters...I don't know, maybe pornography? The word esoteric, on the other hand, can mean many things. It can include alternative health information, spirituality, UFOs and who knows what else.

If this goes through, people from the UK may not even be able to access this forum. Many topics, at least in the Off Topic area, could definitely be categorized as esoteric.

This is clearly a case of the government trying to prevent people from accessing any information that is alternative, non-mainstream or not officially approved. It would set a sinister precedent, as this isn't China or Iran but a supposed democracy. If they can get away with this in the UK, it's likely that other Western countries will soon follow.

UK Filter to Block
  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
    The plan is meant (so they say) to provide an optional FILTER to limit porn and extremist sites IF an internet user chooses to use the filter.

    UK to automatically filter 'adult' internet content | ZDNet

    Isn't the user censoring his content based on his own wishes? In the U.S. that might be called censorship as we seem to feel we not only have the right to say anything, anytime, anywhere - but that others have an obligation to listen. The U.K. doesn't have a "freedom of speech" amendment.

    You have a "right" to build a porn site, a pro-anorexia site, a bomb building site, etc....but does that override my "right" to block unwanted content from entering my home via the internet access I pay for?

    Is it truly "government censorship" if the ability to filter content is optional and decided by the individual internet subscriber?

    I don't know the answer but I think the debate will grow.

    kay
    Signature
    Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
    ***
    Dear April: I don't want any trouble from you.
    January was long, February was iffy, March was a freaking dumpster fire.
    So sit down, be quiet, and don't touch anything.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8544985].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      Kay,

      Re: As far as US law, and remembering that I am not a lawyer...

      It's a "default to on" situation, and a lot would depend on how clearly the requirement to choose is presented. I suspect the difficulty of finding and changing the setting later would also factor in to any judge's ruling on the process.

      In theory, at least, you must be 18 or older to enter into a contract for Internet service. That being the case, you could make a good argument that this is pre-emptive filtering of content that should legitimately be available to the end user. Requiring people to make a choice, but not setting a default, would seem a perfectly valid option. Beyond that point be dragons.

      (With Internet-ready cell phones being available to anyone with $20 or so in cash, that's only a theory, but still...)


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8545036].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LarryC
    If the individual user has the option of using or not using the filter, then it's not technically censorship. There are still some troubling aspects to this, though. First of all, it will be on by default, which means many people (even those without children) will never bother to disable it.

    There is also the whole aspect of using the broad and vague term esoteric (which is not mentioned in the ZDNet article) while ostensibly trying to protect kids from pornography. Censorship or not, it seems like a way to prevent as many people as possible from accessing alternative information. Granted, not all of this "esoteric information" is reliable, but the same can be said for readily available mainstream "information."
    Signature
    Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8545049].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      You can't make some of this stuff up. One group is angry that Playboy images might be included in a filter. They say looking at Playboy photos is a "rite of passage for young men".

      Maybe so - but a young boy cannot walk into a store and buy a Playboy magazine. The "rite of passage" is usually old issues hidden in his room where (he thinks) Mom can't find them.

      With easy online access to the site - without age controls on it - how long before data mining targets your computer for more graphic images?

      I can appreciate arguments pro and con on this issue....but so many of the arguments seem to fall under "stupid".

      kay
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      Dear April: I don't want any trouble from you.
      January was long, February was iffy, March was a freaking dumpster fire.
      So sit down, be quiet, and don't touch anything.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8545209].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        You can't make some of this stuff up. One group is angry that Playboy images might be included in a filter. They say looking at Playboy photos is a "rite of passage for young men".

        Maybe so - but a young boy cannot walk into a store and buy a Playboy magazine. The "rite of passage" is usually old issues hidden in his room where (he thinks) Mom can't find them.

        With easy online access to the site - without age controls on it - how long before data mining targets your computer for more graphic images?

        I can appreciate arguments pro and con on this issue....but so many of the arguments seem to fall under "stupid".

        kay
        Well, a lot is said about playboy, but playboy is TAME compared to some stuff out there. And the general public is getting VERY raunchy, so what sense does it make to REALLY restrict softcore porn any more than it already is?

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8545421].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    As long as there is a choice, I can't consider it "censorship". Anyone who wants to "choose" without knowing the exact nature of ALL content covered by the filter is just not thinking straight in the first place.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8546092].message }}

Trending Topics