Reddit is going nuts over this statement by David Cameron at question time last month, given in response to a question about potential terrorists being released:
The Prime Minister: We have put in place some of the toughest controls that one can possibly have within a democratic Government, and the TPIMs [Terrorist Prevention and Investigation Measures] are obviously one part of that. We have had repeated meetings of the extremism task force—it met again yesterday—setting out a whole series of steps that we will take to counter the extremist narrative, including by blocking online sites. Now that I have the opportunity, let me praise Facebook for yesterday reversing the decision it took about the showing of beheading videos online. We will take all these steps and many more to keep our country safe.
It’s the “blocking online sites” part of the response that has people tweaked, since Cameron is also a proponent of opt-out Internet filtering.
Here’s my question: what is it with the Empire and porn filtering? Australia’s ruling coalition recently tried (and quickly took back) the same kind of opt-out filter Cameron advocates, and they’ve been flirting with filtration for years.
The US is supposedly more puritanical than these places, but even the staunchest god botherers here aren’t really serious about filtering Internet porn. It’s obvious that anyone who wants to filter their Internet connection can do it quite easily: almost every commercial router sold for the home market has the ability to filter, and there are dozens of different software filters that can be purchased and installed. So why do the Tories think that government needs to get involved and spend millions on something the free market has, in its infinite wisdom, already provided?
Violet
Isn’t it the same motivation of conservatives everywhere–get all up in people’s business? Seems like one of the defining characteristics of conservatives–outside of the main one, lack of empathy–is the desire to control other people’s behavior. Religious conservatives do it. Political conservatives do it. The freedom to choose to use free market solutions isn’t good enough. People need to be controlled so they don’t have to use any free market solutions.
Napoleon
We have the 1st Amendment, they don’t.
Ben Cisco (onboard the Defiant)
@Violet: Done in one.
Scott S.
@Violet: The crazier the wingnut, the more they want to censor everything. And these days, it’s a fucking miracle they haven’t started burning books already.
Frankensteinbeck
I think @Violet is right. Plus, those nations are more comfortable with the idea of government involvement in anything and everything. They believe less that pornography is evil (they’re still famously up-tight countries) but are more willing to do something about it.
Gene108
The Tories failed to prevent the UK from becoming a socialist hellhole by allowing the formation of the NHS, therefore they need to make up for list ground somewhere.
R-Jud
Because they have friends who stand to benefit from lucrative government contracts when this initiative is put into place, who will then offer them cushy directorships after they retire or are chucked out of office? That’s usually Dave and George’s primary motivation for everything.
AnonPhenom
“The US is supposedly more puritanical than these places, but even the staunchest god botherers here aren’t really serious about filtering Internet porn.”
Because the god botherers are online porn’s biggest customers. (.pdf)
Joey Giraud
Like abortion, it’s a political tool.
1. Fearmonger about a “problem”
2. “Solve” problem
3. Win election
sparrow
A more logical reason is that tons of redstaters look at porn. You can get an intuitive sense of this just by driving through rural parts of Missouri, Texas, Arkansas… the P O R N X X X signs rival the “jesus saves” signs out there for sure. An opt-out filter would make them OWN UP to that fact, which they hide with all the the self-righteousness they can muster. So of course no one here is arguing for it…
(And AnonPhenom beat me to it)
AnonPhenom
@AnonPhenom:
Now if urban minorities and the wimmins were big consumers of Internet porn, well ….
“The salient fact of American politics is that there are fifty to seventy million voters each of who will volunteer to live, with his family, in a cardboard box under an overpass, and cook sparrows on an old curtain rod, if someone would only guarantee that the black, gay, Hispanic, liberal, whatever, in the next box over doesn’t even have a curtain rod, or a sparrow to put on it.”
…the usual rules would, then, apply.
Viva BrisVegas
Won’t somebody think of the children!
Seriously, that’s about it.
There are wowsers on all sides of politics. For years the previous Labor government also threatened an Internet filter, as did the conservative government before them. Before that there wasn’t a commercial Internet.
It hasn’t happened yet and may never happen. And for all those congratulating themselves on their First Amendment protections, just remember that we don’t have to put up with Second Amendment bullshit.
Swings and roundabouts.
mai naem
I remember reading a story about some company in Utah wh PG’d R’ movies by cutting out the nude scenes and the swearing and such basically for their Mormon clientele. But, then the owner/owners got caught up in some kiddie porn stuff.You couldn’t make this stuff up.
AnonPhenom
@AnonPhenom:
That reminds me, a request:
Can we please hyperlink entries on the lexicon? Thanks.
cmorenc
To be fair, neither authoritarianism nor libertarianism are exclusively right-wing things; there are plenty of purportedly progressive folks who are so deeply offended by hard-core pornography as a form of sexist, even violent oppression of women that they think it deserves being shut down by force of law. Just try to say anything even mildly critical of any measures the LBGT community is advocating, and you’ll be subjected to nasty verbal harassment of the sort the RedState community inflicts on anyone who says anything even mildly positive about the ACA. OTOH you have plenty of Rand Paul supporters who would repeal all federal and state laws against marijuana in a heartbeat.
Point is that the real difference between substantial segments of the progressive vs conservative community isn’t authoritarianism or libertarianism per se, but rather over which sets of things the state should exercise authoritarian control over vs which sets of things should be subject to libertarian government minimalism. Or, to turn an ugly spotlight on right-wing libertarianism, Paul-istas believe in “liberty” to let the free market control discriminatory business practices and the freedom of individuals to negotiate their own labor contracts with huge corporations.
jayboat
@sparrow:
One of the annual gigs I shoot is a couple hundred miles southwest of St Louis, so the drive is rife with advertising for both.
Have noticed it in northern Michigan, west of Charlotte, in the Fla panhandle and pockets of ignorance all over Texas.
Shuckers gotta shuck.
Frankensteinbeck
@Viva BrisVegas:
‘Think of the children!’ almost always means ‘Think of my ability to control my children!’ Rarely does it pay attention to what’s actually good for children, or even try to find out.
Mike E
Ever knows fapping brings down empires. Heh.
Cacti
@Napoleon:
More or less.
We’ve had the First Amendment enshrined in law since 1787.
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights only dates to 1953.
Violet
@Frankensteinbeck: It also means, “Think of me and how embarrassed I’ll be to have to talk to my kids about that issue.”
Mike E
@Mike E: This is what happens when you post one handed! Heh heh.
MattF
@Napoleon: Yes, and, I think, more broadly, the notion of ‘rights’ is different in the US than pretty much anywheres else. In the UK, for instance, the government has apparently discovered that it has unintentionally given Brits the right to an unfiltered internet, and so, can take that right away if they feel like it. That logic doesn’t work here.
geg6
Repressed puritanical conservatives are the same the world over. Always totally freaked that someone somewhere might be having unapproved by them sex and enjoying it. Can’t have that!
Amir Khalid
@mai naem:
I’ve always wondered about that outfit: how did they do that without violating the studios’ copyright?
NotMax
Wait just a cotton-pickin’ minute.
You tryin’ to tell me there’s pee-oh-arr-enn on the internet?
Villago Delenda Est
Because the Tories are fascist dogshit.
Villago Delenda Est
@AnonPhenom:
The godbotherers are not only the greatest consumers of pr0n, they’re also your biggest group of alchoholics, meth-heads, serial monogamists, and abusers of children.
postmodulator
@Villago Delenda Est: And that maps onto the American treatment of pornography.
Never filter Internet porn. If you did, the megachurch set wouldn’t be able to secretly obtain it.
Instead, criminally prosecute pornographers. This has a long tradition which is still healthy. Max Hardcore, whose films I find literally stomach-turning but who worked only with consenting adults, just did prison time.
muricafukyea
Reddit is filled with hipsters that do nothing but wank over privacy porn news all day long when they are not upvoting stupid memes and fake confessions.
Another Holocene Human
@postmodulator: I had to look that up. Federal obscenity charges? Jesus!
So a porn film involving a speculum that might offend somebody (who is breaking the law opening your mail?) puts you in prison (I would never watch one of his films–yuck–but give me a fucking break) but all the obscene racial content in the world doesn’t even merit a little visit from the Secret Service.
When do they shut down VDARE’s website for obscenity?!
Draylon Hogg
All you ever hear from the Tory vermin in opposition is nanny state this, nanny state that, yet in power they never practice what they preach.
Shinobi (@shinobi42)
How else are they going to collect a national database of perverts?
James E. Powell
So why do the Tories think that government needs to get involved and spend millions on something the free market has, in its infinite wisdom, already provided?
Because they aren’t doing a very good job at governing. They need to distract people from reality.
Lurking Buffoon
To be fair, do you think the average Faux Noise viewer would know how to get on the internet, much less look up porn? I mean, it’s not like it’s the viewers that comment on Fox’s site, it’s the employees!
Keith G
Why?
I think part of it comes down to the historical journey of the society. The UK’s government is still Her Majesty’s government. That government has always been a bit more present (at times intrusive intrusive) in the lives of it’s citizens, even in it’s constitutional form.
sm*t cl*de
government needs to get involved and spend millions
Prolly helps that they’re not proposing to spend millions, but rather to make internet providers spent millions.
karen
So the GOP wants to control women’s bodies in real time and the UK wants to control women’s bodies on the web. At least on the web, you won’t have a mandatory pregnancy.
polyorchnid octopunch
Actually, you’re all wrong. It’s part and parcel of a movement that’s brewing in the westminster parliaments in the anglosphere: UK, Canada, and Australia. The Harper Government(tm) is taking its third shot at being able to snoop all internet traffic using a very similar mechanism. This is similar in scope, and given that the Australian Abbot government pretty much instantly set down the Harper agenda when it won their recent election, I expect legislation to be introduced there soon. Basically, this permits a few things.
One, the mechanism will be abused to filter out political speech the state and its corporate partners don’t like.
Two, ISPs are to be required to log all the traffic that go to and from their customers. This will make it relatively easy for police to go on fishing expeditions on people they don’t like… in Canada, the last set of legislation didn’t even require court orders for the police to go asking for a given person’s traffic.
Three, since most people will continue to lay hands on things like internet porn etc, it’ll make keeping them out of the inner circles much easier, or to guarantee that they won’t behave inconveniently when they do: “I dunno if you want to go down that road… be a real shame if your family and colleagues were to find out you like kitchen sink anal.” See point number two.
ETA: that last point is not nearly so relevant in the US; if your PTB really want to know, they can already get it thanks to the NSA. No problem with inconvenient legislation!
krishnamurda
I am on my phone and haven’t read the whole thread but from a programmer’s perspective, in order to filter, you have to monitor traffic. So this is basically carte Blanche to spy on internet activity without worrying about passing new spy laws.
Blinky Bill
In the big scheme of things it probably doesn’t add up to a hill of beans, but the Australia’s ruling coalitition referred to in this screed was soundly tossed out of government in September, largely due to their socialist leaning schemes and constant interference in peoples’ lives. The fact that they were just plain incompetant played a large part in their demise as well.