About an opt in filter provided for customers who ask for it?
I think those filters are generally lousy.
You say that canadians would be up in arms. So, can some say "cunt" on daytime canadian tv?
I ask because even in the US showing less than a second of partially uncovered nipple resulted in a fine of $500,000 for one broadcaster. I don't know much about the US system so maybe I'm wrong but that's an example of a government preventing people from broadcasting something. See the good wife episode where swear words are obscured in a knowing way by street noise outside the court.
If you're talking about government blocklists most people are okay with IWF because the scope is tight and there's no feature creep so far. Most people in the uk don't want images of child sexual abuse to be easy to find. But the proposed filter isn't goong to be like that; it'll be much more like existing net nanny software, and people realise that software is rubbish and stupid.
If you mean the filter: most of the support is from Conservative voters, especially the older voters and parents. Labour and the Conservatives support it, I think many Lib Dems oppose it.
A few years ago I would have said the same thing - "If they did this here, Brits would go mad!" - I think everyone wants to believe that about their country, but when it comes to it people are surprisingly accepting.
Also, it's worth noting this article is wrong: no government filter in the UK is in place yet, this was an ISP's own filter.
I think the spread of support is less clear. I vaguely recall some survey a few months back that posed a carefully-phrased question along the lines of "ISPs should do more to control what children see online (agree/ disagree)" and the support from Guardian readers was clearly in favour (can't rememeber the percentage).
There's a split in the Conservative party about infantilising adults - you just have to read ConservativeHome to see that. I would go as far to say that a majority of activists dislike what Cameron is being seen to do with the ISPs.
I feel he's dangerous because he doesn't espouse an ideology. He doesn't offer a sense of where he wants to take the country - just wherever the newspaper headlines will take him. It might most kindly be described as a misguided sense of noblesse oblige.
