One of the things obvious about the governments attempts to ban hate speech was not who it was aimed at but who decided what was and wasn't hate speech. At the moment it is mostly used by the race industry to prevent often fair criticism, though no doubt if a group of pets falls out of favour it will be applied to them just as rigorously. The same goes with censorship, personally I believe the best person to censor me is me, if I don't want to look at something, I wont. However as ever the government is approaching the issue from a "for the children" mindset in getting an automatic block on all online porn unless you opt out.
Internet users should automatically be blocked from accessing pornography at home to stop the surge in children seeing adult material, MPs will demand today.Yes kids are quite internet savvy, but the fault for them looking at what they do lies with parents, letting a kid run unsupervised with a computer is a bit like leaving a loaded gun around the place, it's just something you should not do. But because some parents are irresponsible, they've given the government an opportunity to legislate for all. So, what the government is proposing is an opt out system, where you no doubt have to go through some process to clear a filter. I rather suspect a lot of parents might have to get their kids to do this for them.
Anyone wanting to view hardcore images online should have to ‘opt out’ of a special filter, according to the panel of MPs and peers looking into child protection.
Their report said that six out of ten children download adult material because their parents have not installed filters. The use of protective filters in homes has fallen from 49 per cent to 39 per cent in the last three years.
They concluded that parents were often outsmarted by their web-savvy children and felt unconfident in updating and downloading content filters. Many parents were ‘oblivious’ to the type of material available on the internet and were often shocked when they realised the content that children were accessing
The danger is of course once they've managed (assuming they do) get a system in place that works it will then be available for other purposes, anti-government websites, inconvenient bloggers and political movements being but a few of the options. After all, if we can't find it, how will we know it's there? Particularly if there is a secondary filter that cannot be over ridden for extreme sites...
The problem with anything like this is that at some stage it always ends up being abused by those in power who do not cope well with criticism and who do not like their motives and business being in the publics eye. Much easier to blame someone else if those who want to know can't find the evidence in the first place as it's hidden away from the publics view.
Don't say you haven't been warned...