Search This Blog

Sunday, December 19, 2010


looks like thse con/dems are looking to shore up their traditional hang 'em and flog 'em brigade by trying to control porn on the internet (though they will miss out on some nice flog 'em videos).
as ever this is couched in terms of protecting children - we don't want them seeing it on the internet. maybe there is an argument there. i have yet to be convinced. surely if you want to protect the little dears you don't want to be starting with the hard core stuff that you have on the net, but the casual sexualisation that is all around us - no more lads magazines, no more skimpies in advertising. these are the things that are going to have lasting effects on the mind of the young not them stumbling across a web site showing 'bukkake broads do doggy 4". while the porn movies are stronger and not to most tastes it is pretty honest: wham bang thank you ma'am.
the other stuff, it could be argued, is much more insidious because it is all around, it becomes background noise, it becomes all pervasive. yet that isn't a sexy (forgive the pun) target, it doesn't press the right buttons for the tory heartlands.
being hard on porn (again excuse the pun) gives the tories the ability to look like they are being tough on family values without actually doing anything much.
of course asking parents to ensure their kids don't spend too much time on the internet searching out porn.

the government's solution is that internet service providers should block all porn sites (the question of what constitutes porn will be one that will take some discussion - a mass debate if you will, you knew it had to happen) and that adults have to opt in to be able to access the porn sites.

just tell me where to sign up.

No comments: