UK Filters And The Slippery Slope Of Mass Censorship

I do often find it funny when people moan about internet censorship on one of the most censored and restricted forums on the net.

What?

This forum is pretty lax in all honesty. Censorship here these days starts at the point of bad taste or extreme ignorance so it's not as if we're missing out on something valuable.

It's not as if it's difficult to go and find really offensive material or extreme opinion if you really want it.
 
It's a lot better than it was, but in the past it's been very bad. A lot of positive things came with the change in ownership.

Which change in ownership? I can't tell that the place has changed much since 2006 when I joined :/

But then I'd never have said the place was that harshly moderated either. A lot of things are allowed to slide here ;)
 
A German company (Caseking) bought them out a number of years ago, and with that quite a few positive changes came with it with regards to how the forums were ran.
 
A German company (Caseking) bought them out a number of years ago, and with that quite a few positive changes came with it with regards to how the forums were ran.

Wasn't that like last year? :p

And really, you think the place has changed since the takeover? I can't tell anything is different.
 
It was over 2 years ago, and I noticed a change, having been a lurker for a number of years, it's what prompted me to sign up, as well as start using the shop again.
 
You know you're tired when that read… Have a Giggle for it, there's plenty on there about it.
 
The internet can only be effectively filtered if all nations agree to the same filters.


First of all, the whole point of the article is that it's not an effective filter. Or rather it its, but not in the sense that you mean. Second of all, of course you can get around filters - if you have enough technical savvy. But most people don't. And the irony here is that people will use that technical savvy to access the pornography and file-sharing, but not to access the collaterally damaged sites, such as domestic abuse and sexual health. Thus proving the point of the article.

The one bit I do disagree with, is why this is being done. It's not about the government controlling how and what we think, it's about a government attempt to produce a certain type of society: what the Tories fondly imagine the 1950s were like, if you were rich and middle-class. It's about using technology to enforce conservative (the lower-case "c" is intentional) values.
 
People don't care because the government has made it like that, we're conditioned our entire lives to care more about the rubbish printed in the tabloids and glossy magazines, and the new things we're going to buy and a load of crap which really doesn't matter.

Half the time if you speak out against them you're a terrorist or a thought criminal or something.
 
I've said this lots, but people just don't care. They don't care enough about well anything any more.

Its sad, because we will lose the freedom of the internet and then we'll be in a position of asking how did we let this happen.
"I have nothing to hide". The most misguided, ill-used and downright ignorant phrase anyone can utter in response to this kind of news.
 
I just think that a line in the sand can be drawn on some things, and that doesn't necessarily mean it's a slippery slope. There's a growing body of evidence to suggest that free access to pornography is having a detrimental effect on children's self image and attitudes to sex, I think it's probably a good thing if that access can be controlled a bit more.

We've always had censorship in this country, yet this hasn't resulted in a descent to an Orwellian dystopia - indeed quite the opposite, the last few decades have seen the UK adopt much more liberal attitudes in all aspects of life. Films that were once banned from sale in Britain are now deemed suitable for teenagers, music that contains what might be considered offensive lyrics is now commonplace, even on Radio 2. The internet is new which means it has been unregulated and as such it serves content that perhaps ought not to be freely available. Lawmakers and regulators are playing catch up at governing this new form of media, but just as with all other forms of media it does need regulating. That doesn't mean they'll get it right first time however, and they shall be held to account no doubt. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
 
A German company (Caseking) bought them out a number of years ago, and with that quite a few positive changes came with it with regards to how the forums were ran.

Been here over 10 year's pretty much the same if you all me. A few more childish brats but that's just me being older lol.
 
IThere's a growing body of evidence to suggest that free access to pornography is having a detrimental effect on children's self image and attitudes to sex

Where is this evidence and who compiled it?

If it's a mumsnet type group you might as well dismiss it out of hand. Besides mass internet ownership hasn't been around long enough to accurately accrue any long term effects.

When I was a teenager, pre-internet years, we heard all the same stuff about teen magazines and late night Sky/Cable channels (it's too easy to access nudey ladies, think of the children!!!). Yet I wouldn't say my generation are kinky weirdos who constantly break down because we don't all have a six pack or 36DDs.
 
I just think that a line in the sand can be drawn on some things, and that doesn't necessarily mean it's a slippery slope. There's a growing body of evidence to suggest that free access to pornography is having a detrimental effect on children's self image and attitudes to sex, I think it's probably a good thing if that access can be controlled a bit more.

I think its a bit naieve to hope that it's a simple line in the sand.
 
I do often find it funny when people moan about internet censorship on one of the most censored and restricted forums on the net.

This, lol.


We've always had censorship in this country

This is very true, just because you don't always see it doesn't mean it isn't there, a glaring example of this can be shown with a simple question:

Q: In the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie, how did Splinter kill shredder?

A:
Well in the UK we saw Shredder charge Splinter with a spear and Splinter did something with his hands, the camera flashed and Shredder was hanging off the roof with Splinter presumably holding the spear to try and save him, the was some dialogue and Splinter either dropped him or lost his grip, we presumed the second because he's Splinter.

However what really happened was that Shredder charged Splinter with the spear and Splinter flipped Michaelangelo's nun-chucks (which the camera had shown us he was holding behind his back) around the spear head and tossed Shredder over the edge of the roof, he then spoke to him while the nun-chucks slipped off the edge of the spear tip and he fell.

The difference is because the BBFC had the nun-chucks airbrushed out of every frame in the UK cinema/VHS release and frames that couldn't be doctored were deleted.
 
Last edited:
When I was a teenager, pre-internet years, we heard all the same stuff about teen magazines and late night Sky/Cable channels (it's too easy to access nudey ladies, think of the children!!!). Yet I wouldn't say my generation are kinky weirdos who constantly break down because we don't all have a six pack or 36DDs.
I'd also say that things like [active] paedophilia and the like were deemed more normal a long time before the internet was around, and granted the internet has made it easier for them to share images, but awareness is also a lot higher now, as is its vilification within society.
 
Back
Top Bottom