www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall UK to block online porn

Yes, I'm aware of the problems you describe in terms of persecution of Christians, and I think it is only going to get worse, here in the US as well, whether we have optional filter laws for Internet porn or not. It's the direction our secular society is moving in.

But that being said, we still have to deal with this problem of children being exposed to such harmful material on the internet, as well as adults who unwillingly are seeing it, as in Pani Rose's description. It seems to me we have a real responsibility to somehow control its entry into the mainstream, as we have done in the past with films, TV, bookstores, libraries, etc.

It seems that making access more difficult, while not perfect (there are always those who get around such laws), does accomplish some good, as in the case of laws limiting consumption or use of certain products like alcohol to adults.

How would you address the problem, JDC? Do you have another solution?

I'm aware this isn't your law. I created a hypothetical law based on your stated intentions in this thread in order to demonstrate how giving the government control over what you are allowed to access - by "filters" - allows the government to decide what is or is not permissible. YOU should filter the internet content for your family and children - not Big Brother.

You agree with these filters when you agree with the ones who are doing the filtering, but the moment you disagree - you have no recourse left, because you have handed over the power to someone else to filter as they see fit.

That this is a UK law was why I didn't bother commenting about it specifically - I don't live in the UK and they have a different tradition of civil liberties than the country that I live in (we are an international forum).

But once the conversation shifted away from the particulars of this UK-specific law into generalities (government filtering things is good in principle, etc) then I addressed them as such.

Here's an example of a country that filters out "objectionable" material in order to "protect" the citizens from "hostile elements."

http://www.opendemocracy.net/china-correspondent/great-firewall-of-china

What's the difference between a good filter and a bad one?

As for the "slippery slope" argument, let's not be *too* dismissive, since this very forum and nearly every single electronic communication that is broadcast (including phone calls) - public or private - is being gathered by the US and other governments as we speak after being given a bit of power to "protect" us from terrorism. A very, very slippery slope indeed.

Once the Authorities decide that our religion is a terrorist religion - and one day they will - you or your children, or their children, will be persecuted under the very laws their ancestors advocated for so fiercely. You'll try to explain that it was intended for something different, but it won't matter anymore.

So let's just make it easy for them.


Restricting access to minors is entirely appropriate, but that isn't what we're talking about.


It accomplishes nothing as you note yourself (requires a few extra clicks for anybody who seeks it out) while giving the State the legal authority to decide what is or isn't permissible. A fine thing when we are talking about exaggerated sexual vices, but we'll all sing a different tune once they start to enforce other things that are "objectionable."


It's a great idea to start a thread about solutions to problems - but a question is not an argument that may be used to curtail liberty.

The basic premise of what I am saying is this:

If YOU take the responsibility to be the filter, then YOU will always be the one who gets to decide what is or is not allowed.

If you let someone else do the filtering, then you are at their mercy. When they choose to filter something that you need, you'll have no recourse left.

The choice is very easy for me.

Really? Because I had no trouble getting lots of alcohol to drink underage.

Leaving aside good laws and bad, if a parent is leaving it up to the state to keep evil away from his kids, he might as well not bother.

The sarcasm and rudeness is getting out of hand. A fruitful discussion cannot be had this way.

After 7 pages, I believe that all involved have made their points sufficiently.

This thread is closed.

Alice, MODERATOR