
The Great Big Porn Block is coming - coldwired
http://www.sheeldz.co.uk/2013/12/blocked.html
======
h2s
Stop calling it a "porn filter". It's censorship of the internet.

If it was actually a "porn filter", its purpose would be to filter
pornographic material. In reality, there is a list of categories to be
censored, and porn is only one of them. Focusing on the words "porn filtering"
was a deliberate strategic move by the government, because it makes it more
difficult to oppose convincingly.

Those of us who oppose censorship are playing into their hands by referring to
this issue using the favourable terms coined by the government. We should all
stop referring to it as "porn filtering" and start referring to it as
"internet censorship".

~~~
wtracz
This has already happened.

The Internet Watch Foundation already tell ISPs to block child pornography,
and the court system can tell ISPs to block file-sharing/streaming sites.

It is a myth that the internet is uncensored in the UK at the moment.

~~~
Silhouette
Both distributing child pornography and distributing content in violation of
copyright are explicitly against the law. Distributing "normal" porn is not. I
think there is a qualitative difference between attempting to prevent illegal
activity and attempting to prevent legal activity that some vague authority
out of the public eye just doesn't like, and I'm not sure it's helpful to
equate the two cases in a debate like this.

~~~
MildlySerious
The thing is, you can't just censor it away until it's gone. It doesn't fight
the root of the cause and in the long run will only hurt the society as a
whole.

We all know that it doesn't matter how illegal something is; if it can be
found, the person looking for it will find it. That's especially true for the
internet. Obstacles always bear the chance of making it worse for the wrong
people.

~~~
Silhouette
_The thing is, you can 't just censor it away until it's gone._

To play devil's advocate for a moment: how do we know that?

I'm guessing you and I are both liberally inclined in our politics from the
very fact that we're having this conversation. Probably we are both naturally
sceptical of any form of censorship.

However, objectively, it is clear that some children really are being
exploited in horrible ways to produce the kind of material that we sometimes
hear about in the news. If a responsibly operated system for limiting its
distribution could have a significant actual benefit in terms of reducing the
incentive to create that material in the first place, I don't think a
principled "absolutely no censorship allowed" argument is sufficiently
powerful to dismiss the alternative out-of-hand.

To make these kinds of policies, I think you have to look at the big picture,
and the merits of both positions, and ideally hard evidence about the likely
outcomes of each outcome. Even then, you are almost always choosing the least
of evils in such a situation, because there will be real and legitimate
concerns about any policy you might finally adopt.

 _It doesn 't fight the root of the cause and in the long run will only hurt
the society as a whole._

I am absolutely in favour of going after the root cause of abuses, or any
other criminal activity. But when you're talking about legislation and law
enforcement, I think you have to take a pragmatic view and accept that you
aren't going to be able to protect every vulnerable person overnight by
magically eliminating all sources of evil in the world, no matter how noble
your intentions.

If a responsibly operated system for limiting the distribution of things like
child pornography can reduce the amount of exploitation going on in the
meantime, at a direct cost in terms of limiting the freedom of expression of
those who would distribute such material and an indirect cost of requiring a
technical mechanism for censorship and the risk of that mechanism being abused
for other purposes, I think it is still reasonable to consider it.

Then again, I also have strong views on the need for accountability in public
office. In particular, I believe that betrayal of the public should be
considered a high crime. If you're going to give that much trust to anyone
then the penalties for abusing that trust must be severe, and anyone who tried
to censor other material using this sort of system should expect to be caught
and should be facing significant jail time and a ban on holding public office.
If any government isn't willing to accept that responsibility and transparency
and oversight, then my view on whether they should be trusted with the kinds
of system we're discussing swings sharply against them.

 _We all know that it doesn 't matter how illegal something is; if it can be
found, the person looking for it will find it._

No, we don't know that. This is my point.

 _Obstacles always bear the chance of making it worse for the wrong people._

Yes they do, and that is why those obstacles must have credible oversight to
ensure they operate responsibly and severe penalties for anyone who abuses
them. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider taking the chance anyway,
depending on what is at stake.

------
smtddr
Oh yes, it starts as ThinkOfTheChildren... but then it's an opt-out process.
They know people will feel kinda embarrassed to call their ISP and say "I want
porn". And of course, this filter will eventually expand to cover more than
that. And now, you have those in power censoring the internet in a China-like
fashion, but the masses assume it's just porn. Maybe at first they'll put up
an error message from the ISP that "This site is blocked by porn filter" but
that would make some people curious and ask questions. So eventually, it'll
just 404.

[http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/12/20/bt-gives-parents-
tool-t...](http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/12/20/bt-gives-parents-tool-to-
block-kids-from-learning-about-sexual-health-and-gay-rights/)

[http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2013/07/uk-internet-filter-
wil...](http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2013/07/uk-internet-filter-will-block-
alternative-news-sites/)

[http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130107/1119...](http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130107/11190721597/)

 _> >This very broad, default censorship is disturbing for at least two
reasons. First, because many people will be unaware that this kind of "mature
content" censorship is taking place at all, and therefore won't ask for it to
be stopped. And secondly, even if they are aware, the fact that asking for the
filter to be lifted could be seen as tantamount to wanting to access porn --
something that many will understandably be reluctant to have noted down on
their Internet access record -- means that they will simply put up with a
limited feed_

~~~
goatforce5
> They know people will feel kinda embarrassed to call their ISP and say "I
> want porn"

I called my Canadian cable company on some trivial matter. The end of the call
went something like: "We've got a great deal on the kids TV channel package.
Do you want to sign up?"

"I live by myself. Not interested."

"Oh, in that case, I can give you a deal on our adult channels."

Moral of the story: the call centre staff couldn't care one way or the other -
they're just doing their jobs. Call 'em up and get the stupid filter removed.

~~~
adrianb
They are charging you for the extra channels. The call center people are
motivated to make you pay more.

It's a bit different with this Internet filter.

~~~
makomk
Yeah. In fact, historically some of the UK mobile providers used their
Internet filtering to direct users to their own for-pay porn of which they got
a cut.

------
svdree
From TFA: " I don't mind certain art, like films or computer games being
censored"

Right. He doesn't mind censorship, he just disagrees with where the line is
drawn. Which is what a lot of debate seems to boil down to these days: we
don't care about anything unless it affects us personally.

And, as others have said, trying to keep teenage boys away from porn can only
fail in the most spectacular way possible.

------
mikegioia
This whole thing feels like a way to embarrass people into accepting a filter
on pornography, while including non-porn content in the filter at a later
date.

Once any type of filtering is set up it opens the floodgates for what content
can or will be filtered. Imagine how easy it would be to filter out anti-
government content when the response is merely "oops, must be a bug with the
filter".

How can you even be sure that the opting out will still truly allow you access
to the full, unfiltered internet?

~~~
DanBC
> How can you even be sure that the opting out will still truly allow you
> access to the full, unfiltered internet?

We already know that opting out of this filter does nothing about other
filtered content - stuff the IWF has filtered will be hard to find; stuff that
courts have ordered ISPs to filter (at the request of the companies asking for
the court order) will be harder to find.

------
spiritplumber
Dear UK government: You are putting your technological expertise against a
horde bored, horny 14 year old kids. Your abject failure will amuse the world.

~~~
ihsw
The target was never bored, horny 14 year old kids -- it was the likes of
WikiLeaks/Snowden sympathizers.

Currently, military personnel and other public servants are barred from
viewing any and all 'classified' content (WikiLeaks/Snowden material). This
restriction will now be applied on a national level resulting in a variety of
news websites being rendered inaccessible.

It's not _if_ but _when_ the censorship will be applied across the world. It's
coming to nations whom are regarded as shining beacons of democracy
(especially all of whom are in the sphere of US influence), and such
censorship policies will be as untouchable as our ever-growing war budgets.

No politician wants to be the one responsible for tragedies resulting from
rolling back censorship in the same manner no-one wants fingers pointed at
them for reducing the defence budget.

~~~
hahainternet
> The target was never bored, horny 14 year old kids -- it was the likes of
> WikiLeaks/Snowden sympathizers.

This is stupid to such a level you should delete your account immediately. How
exactly could optional ISP filters possibly ever target people who know about
computers to any reasonable degree.

It won't be applied nationally, and you're busy predicting the future when you
don't even understand the present.

~~~
adventured
And you should stop insulting people on Hacker News and consider rereading the
guidelines.

~~~
hahainternet
If someone posts nonsense, then no possible response can ever be seen as non-
insulting. What was posted was grade A total nonsense. So I can't see how I
can tell the poster this without being insulting.

------
vfclists
It has nothing to do with blocking porn and has more to do with creating a
database of people who have no fears of making it known that they don't want
filters on the Internet connection.

Of course later on they government can label them has people who are happy to
view porn or visit terrorist websites. It is a way of creating a database of
people who can be labelled in a negative manner in relation to some government
agenda.

~~~
walshemj
Or sold to the daily mail and other hypocritical smut pedlars

------
rwmj
Opt out, or better still, vote with your pounds and use one of the many ISPs
that aren't blocking sites.

~~~
dspillett
One of the reasons I use AAISP: they provide a nice clean connection with no
mucking about.

That and a bunch of other technical reasons too: proper dual-stack IPv4/IPv6
across the board (they've provided IPv6 for a decade while many UK ISPs don't
even have solid plans to support it soon), fully delegated rDNS for the
addresses (both IPv4 and IPv6) I am assigned and so forth.

Also excellent support when something goes wrong as I experienced when BT's
vDSL box died. Unlike some ISPs I could mention, after making sure I'd done
all the relevant tests so _knew_ what the problem was rather than guessing
they both handled nagging BT for me and kept me well informed (all comms were
visible from my login on their control panel) of that process. When a friend
had similar trouble (there was a spate of those units overheating, to the
point where BT eventually started proactively swapping out those installed
between certain dates) it took much longer to get resolved as he was passed
from pillar to post.

Caveat for balance: there are other ISPs that people describe in similarly
positive terms for much the same reasons, of course. Unfortunately, like with
AAISP, you do pay a bit extra for the better service.

------
return0
What if people massively "opt in", thus dismantling many social taboos around
the subject?

~~~
VLM
Leak the list of course, and use it as a weapon against anyone in politics or
the public eye. Much as you can fire any public schoolteacher seen consuming
alcohol in any form, now any librarian or political opponent will be attacked
for being "on the list". May as well wear a scarlet letter "P" on your 3-piece
suit.

Of course if you'll agree to support what we define as network neutrality,
perhaps your name can accidentally not be included on "the list". Or we can
charge an extra fee for an unlisted account much as the phone company used to
charge extra money for an unlisted account.

Even funnier it would be a shame if your political opponent were added to the
list, right? I mean, obviously no one would ever execute a pretexting attack
to tarnish the good name of their political opponent, or perhaps the good name
of a coworker aiming for the same political appointment as yourself.

All you really need to do is see how the Germans treated the Jews in the mid
30s. I'm not trying to be inflamatory, merely factual. I specifically listed
the 30s not the 40s.

~~~
hahainternet
> All you really need to do is see how the Germans treated the Jews in the mid
> 30s. I'm not trying to be inflamatory, merely factual. I specifically listed
> the 30s not the 40s.

Wow. I have nothing to say but wow.

~~~
VLM
I feel the need to list the specific treatments we can soon expect, inspired
by mid 1930s Germany:

A list will be created of people requiring special treatment by those in
power, and a crowd of miscreants will enforce that treatment against anyone
opposing it.

Those on the list will not be permitted to participate in the government,
sensitive posts in the military, or to teach.

Those on the list will be publicly identified for ridicule. Would not be
surprised to see a scarlet "P" on drivers licenses and such. After all, its
"to protect the children". Some people are more equal than others.

At some point they'll be unable to hold certain non-public jobs; companies
will be terrified to be identified as hiring people "on the list" so to limit
liability they'll have to stop hiring.

Businesses opened and operated by people on the "scarlet P" list will be
picketed. If you think I'm making this up, you probably think the Westboro
Baptist Church is a made up story.

Political and family enemies will be added to the list, guilty until proven
innocent of course.

"To save the children" maps of neighborhoods with "scarlet P" overlaid on
homes on the list will be distributed, much as we already distribute predator
maps in the USA.

Divide and conqueror, baby, divide and conqueror, thats what its all about.

Thats why I specifically listed the 30s not the 40s. I don't think we're quite
up to lighting the ovens just yet, although I'm sure theres a segment of the
population and a segment of .gov who wants it.

~~~
hahainternet
> "To save the children" maps of neighborhoods with "scarlet P" overlaid on
> homes on the list will be distributed, much as we already distribute
> predator maps in the USA.

Please see a doctor. You are experiencing paranoid delusions.

~~~
VLM
A delusion would imply a site like mapsexoffenders.com and a bazillion other
online mapping competitors do not exist. I will give you an out, that your
current locale might not release information like this to the public, but many
locations do. Or you may simply not have known about these old, popular-ish,
existing services. So much for claims of delusion.

If, however, that was a ridiculously bad attempt at an ad hominem, well, I'm
sorry to say that was just pitiful. You can do better. I mean, even something
like "your mom" would have outshined that. There's a level of disrespect
beyond disrespect where not even putting in enough effort to be properly
disrespectful is in itself disrespect squared, and from that point of view I
can salute your effort, but still it wasn't very good. Practice practice
practice...

~~~
hahainternet
> So much for claims of delusion

You are claiming this will be implemented like a combination of 30s Germany
and 00s USA. Despite the fact this is the UK and you have no evidence
whatsoever for any of your wild predictions.

Seriously, see a doctor. Your statements are massively paranoid and not at all
based in reality. If I wanted to say you were wrong because you were stupid I
would. In this case you're just believing in wholly illogical things.

~~~
VLM
I think the root problem of our disagreement would be that you think I am
making a formal engineering prediction and is therefore held to an extremely
high standard, which is a wee bit higher than I was aiming (I was aiming for a
little higher than "the green bay packers are going to the superbowl" but not
too much higher).

On the other hand your outlook is falsification of a formal hypothesis merely
requires repeating over and over "illogic" "paranoid" and such as though
they're magic incantations which in and of themselves will convince others,
which is highly unlikely. Practice argumentation and debate. Repeated
incantations just don't work.

Needless to say we aren't agreeing on a mutually acceptable, and equally
applied, level of "proof". Oh well. Makes for a boring debate if we can't even
agree on the rules of the road (thats a pun, you guys drive on the wrong side
of the road you see)

I also sense a bit of bias toward a belief that large groups of people tend to
behave in a rational and logical manner, whereas my extensive observational
experience and historical reading tends toward the exact opposite. Sure would
be a nice planet if you were not completely incorrect!

So I apologize for implying you were an inexperienced troll, in that I missed
the root cause that we have mutually dramatically incompatible outlooks on
life (although note I'm a little more of a gentleman WRT not suggesting
medical treatment).

So have a nice day, and good luck with the whole fascism thing, hope it works
out for the UK better than famous historical examples and I hope their
cultural phase ends better than some awful historical examples. I'm sure
civilization will maintain itself despite people burying their heads in the
sand when faced with what boils down to evil and/or a cultural/political
hygiene issue.

~~~
hahainternet
> although note I'm a little more of a gentleman WRT not suggesting medical
> treatment

I'm not saying that to hurt you or your reputation. From my perspective your
views are paranoid and illogical. From extensive experience debating people
with similar beliefs I believe the best solution is to discuss your feelings
with a doctor.

The chance of this system ever getting any further is incredibly small. The
public backlash has been almost universal and the filters are already being
exploited publicly. I honestly have no idea how you could rationally
extrapolate 'scarlet P' letters stamped onto licenses.

~~~
VLM
LOL you must be a lot of fun at sci fi and alt history cons, or any time
people start brainstorming about greatly extrapolated trends.

The 'scarlet p' is a literary allusion to a very old book of Hawthorne's,
wikipedia link below. Some decades ago it was trendy to include it on the
reading lists for school children, at least in the midwestern USA. As a piece
of literature, its absolutely drowning in symbolism to the point of ridicule,
although it certainly demonstrates the utter inhumanity of theocracy as a form
of government, so its not all bad. Its has the virtue of brevity. And a
scarlet "A" makes quite an appearance. There's worse ways to pass the time,
than reading "the scarlet letter".

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scarlet_Letter](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scarlet_Letter)

------
austerity
I used to get pretty upset at these constant news reports of expanding
Internet censorship. Then it occurred to me that it simply means that the
reactionary forces are (finally) starting to see it as a threat. And that is a
good sign.

------
gmuslera
There may be a point on optionally blocking pure, meant to be porn, sites. But
when you block wikipedia, youtube, art galleries, xkcd, social sites and so on
because it could show somewhere some skin or talk about life as it is, you are
forcing people to skip your filters in the best case, and get disconnected to
good part of the digital world in the worst with all that could come after
that.

------
NAFV_P
> _Of course, certain censorship is fine. I don 't mind certain art, like
> films or computer games being censored, and think that it is key to keeping
> a powerful art community when protecting those from harmful images or
> powerful material._

The author hasn't made a distinction between _restriction_ and _censorship_.
Films unsuitable for children, say _Sword of Vengeance_ have their
availability to them restricted. On the other hand, I'm quite sure that the
British release of _Ichi the Killer_ has scenes edited from it, ie. it is
censored.

I was wondering if this porn filter would block access to the works of the
Chapman Brothers.

[http://jakeanddinoschapman.com/](http://jakeanddinoschapman.com/)

------
thenerdfiles
Porn is not the problem — you are[0].

[0]: [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/women-who-
stray/201305/p...](http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/women-who-
stray/201305/porn-is-not-the-problem-you-are)

~~~
forktheif
Nothing in that article is a reason why they are introducing the porn filters
in the UK

~~~
thenerdfiles
"What is Porn Anyway?" is a philosophical question. So you're actually
misfiring in your claim of irrelevancy.

OP opened a can of worms. Seriously. (No, really: _seriously_.)

Arguing that it's _art_? That it is in itself valuable to culture as "low art"
is? This isn't a question restricted to the UK, and it's one we need to get
philosophically astute about pretty fast. So, again: Porn is not the problem —
you are.

Whatever it is, analogies to automobile accidents and art, in any sense, is a
stretch beyond palatability, and makes this entire discussion look entirely
intellectually one-sided. I think such talk is a disservice to the discussion,
and maybe porn should be blocked on those grounds alone, for I am quite sure
OP's aesthetics are common.

~~~
mseebach
The uncontroversial answer to "what is porn anyway?" that underpins the UK ban
is "something children shouldn't watch".

This is ostensibly a "think of the children" move, it has nothing to do with
aesthetics or art, low or high. In reality, it's probably also an old school
conservative play to "clean up" the filth.

~~~
danbruc
_The uncontroversial answer to "what is porn anyway?" that underpins the UK
ban is "something children shouldn't watch"._

On the list of things children should not watch people having sex should
really not be close to the top. It is just sex. After breathing, drinking and
eating it is one of the most natural and common activities on earth. A coyote
trying to smash a bird with an anvil seems a way less appropriate thing for
children to watch.

~~~
DanBC
The UK doesn't have much of a problem with children watching adults having
sex.

The UK has more of a problem with children watching the weird unrealistic sex
portrayed by the US porn industry.

~~~
thenerdfiles
This is an excellent observation to make.

 _This._

Now, _why_ is the US unique here?

~~~
DanBC
Also, in a thread about censorship: an accidental showing of a half-covered
nipple on terrestrial broadcast TV would not result in a half million dollar
fine and many many years of legal action. (I think the original fine was
eventually overturned, but only because the FCC had changed a policy before
taking action??)

US TV shows have to censor their language unless they're broadcast on cable or
satellite.

------
VLM
In the british movie adaptation of "1984" which was filmed in 1984, when he
had sex with Julia, was that explicit enough to get the film blocked on the
internet? Just idly curious. I haven't seen the film adaptation in probably 20
years (or more?) so I have to call out to the wider HN community.

I think the movie adaptation of 1984 would be a good idea to rally around. I
say "idea" rather than "film" because I don't remember if the actual film is
any good, but the idea of censoring 1984 "to save teh children" but primarily
motivated to politically censor is too juicy to pass up.

------
w_t_payne
Why block porn? The cynical answer is this: Government is about power, and
power is about sex.

Boiled down to it's raw animal fundamentals, having power is about being able
to maximise your reproductive chances and suppress the reproductive chances of
lesser males.

As a result, the powerful will always impose a (hypocritical) morality on the
weak. Even if it just provides a symbolic victory over their libido, it plays
an age-old role in cementing the pecking-order of society.

~~~
gadders
>Boiled down to it's raw animal fundamentals, having power is about being able
to maximise your reproductive chances and suppress the reproductive chances of
lesser males.

So blocking porn minismises the reproductive chances of lesser males? So you
feel that watching porn would _enhance_ their reproductive success?

~~~
w_t_payne
I didn't say it was anything more than a symbolic act, or perhaps an
unconscious throwback to a primitive sociological drive. I seriously doubt
that those who crusade for a restrictive moral code have the self-awareness to
recognise their motivation for what it is.

------
qwerta
Censorship is small problem in UK.

The SS forced c-section on pregnant woman and stole her baby. She was visitor,
foreign citizen who stayed in UK just for a few days...

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/social-
servic...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/social-services-
forcibly-remove-unborn-child-from-woman-by-caesarean-after-she-suffered-
mental-health-breakdown-8975808.html)

~~~
hahainternet
No they didn't. The doctors made the request which you'd know if you bothered
to read more than a few lines.

~~~
iwasanewt
"Despite the woman’s mother explaining her daughter’s condition to police over
the telephone from Italy, she was taken to a psychiatric hospital and
sectioned under the Mental Health Act. Five weeks later, her daughter was
removed from her womb without her consent."

~~~
hahainternet
Right, because she was not capable of giving consent. The doctors looking
after her decided that it would be best.

Hell if you bother to read even slightly then it's wholly reasonable:
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-
order/1049605...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-
order/10496054/Forced-caesarean-was-manifestly-in-Alessandra-Pacchieris-
interest-says-judge.html)

If only people on HN could be downvoted for being completely and arguably
wilfully ignorant about what they comment on.

~~~
iwasanewt
troll

~~~
hahainternet
Read the goddamn reports. You're wrong. You have no idea what you're talking
about.

~~~
iwasanewt
"No they didn't. The doctors made the request which you'd know if you bothered
to read more than a few lines."

Hang on! No they didn't --what--?

~~~
hahainternet
Yes, they did. The woman had had two previous children this way and so they
judged that it was much more preferable than to risk a breech and the health
or life of both the baby and mother.

How hard is it to do trivial research?

~~~
qwerta
This is retarded. The decision was made 5 weeks before c-section, they could
have send her home before that. What will be next? 'Voluntary' kidney
donations while changing flights?

\- there were other relatives who had rights and could take care of the baby.

\- she was held for 5 weeks in the hospital before the baby was delivered,
than deported!

\- And on top of that there is gagging court order, so she could not ask for
help, otherwise she would lose all chances to get baby back.

Also there are other similar cases.

------
ColinWright
More interestingly, O2 has not blocked access to its own site. That would be
silly. It has, however, blocked access to
[http://www.giffgaff.co.uk](http://www.giffgaff.co.uk), one of its
competitors.

I've seen it claimed that it's blocked access to the Conservative Party's web
site. Based on all this, that's a block I'd like to see remain in place.

~~~
drcongo
O2 own giffgaff, so not exactly a competitor. Which makes it all the more of a
facepalm.

------
oscargrouch
Government controlling what people can see and know... smells like teen
dictatorship

------
etanazir
I'm less in favor of network blocking and more in favor of just making porn
illegal. Establish civil and criminal liability for displaying it. Seize the
assets of porn producers and burn them to death in an electric chair or
whatever.

~~~
michh
I have one simple question: why? For the children? For the fraction of
performers involved in it involuntarily? Because you simply object to it
yourself and want to force your morals on others? Because you're just
trolling? Oh..

~~~
etanazir
Why flush the toilet? Why not just excrete your waste into the living room.

------
stefan_kendall
Author's statement: "Censorship is bad!" Author's point 1: "Some censorship is
okay! But this is more censorship than I personally agree with!"

If you hold the premise that minors must be protected against media _by the
government_ , then you can't possibly argue that this move is radical or
illogical.

~~~
DanBC
Sure you can.

Most people in the UK are _totally fine_ with some levels of censorship.

Ask them if they want a ban on people producing or distributing images of
child sexual abuse and most people would say that they do want a ban.

Extend that to images of people having sex with animals and many people are
happy with a ban, and some people saying that they agree it should be
restricted to those over the ages of 18, and not accidentally available to
anyone.

But when you ask someone in the UK if a TV show should receive a huge
($500,000) fine for an accidental < 1 second showing of a partially clothed
nipple most people are going to laugh and say "no". (Unlike US FCC which
imposed such a fine for Janet Jackson nipple slip. That fine was overturned 7
years later, but only because FCC had used new powers before taking action).
Or if you ask whether it's okay for terrestrial broadcast TV shows to include
nudity or swearing after 9pm most people are going to say it's okay. (Unlike
US, where shows have to censor their language. See for example The Good Wife
which parodied this situation with a street noise during a courtroom hearing.
The noise was used to mask bad language.)

------
adrianlmm
The truth is, that pornography today is not the same as 10 years ago, today,
porn is more about humilliation of women and really low depravation,
psycological studies have found the high impact this is having on young
citicens, the social future of the UK is in jeopardy, and this is what they
are doing save it.

