UK to block pornography by default; it corrodes your childhood

Man of Steel, or Man of Steal?

Online pornography is to be blocked by default in the United Kingdom, with Prime Minister David Cameron stating that access to such materials 'corrodes childhood'. Customers will have to choose to 'opt-in' with their ISP, should they want to see anything explicit.

The ban is meant to come into effect before the end of the year, with family-friendly filters affecting new and old customers alike. Internet search terms Cameron described as 'horrific' are on a list of things to blacklist (what kind of debauchery remains to be seen). Below are the changes in a nutshell, via ISPreview:

  • Adult content filters to be enabled on all new mobile phones (this already happens for most people).
  • Adult content banned from public Wi-Fi services (some public hotspot operators already do this).
  • It will be a criminal offence to possess pornography that depicts rape.
  • Videos streamed online in the UK will be subject to the same restrictions as DVDs and BluRays sold in shops.
  • Google, Bing and other major internet search engines will have to block any results/sites and specific search terms blacklisted by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (i.e. this mostly relates to child abuse content). It should be said that Google and the like already remove related sites once they’ve been notified.
  • The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) will also gain new powers to examine P2P (internet file sharing) networks for child abuse content and to hopefully help trace their users (working alongside the police).
  • People whom attempt to access websites that contain child abuse content will also be met by a strict warning about the risks of doing so.
  • The country’s largest broadband ISPs (BT, Sky Broadband, TalkTalk and Virgin Media) will all need to enable automatic network-level filtering of adult websites (i.e. Active Choice+), although you will be given a choice to opt-out (though the opt-in “Yes” box will stay pre-ticked if you ignore it).

Somewhat ironically, former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre Jim Gamble told BBC's Radio 4 that it was important to "get to the root cause of illegal pornography". In other words, make shutting down the origins a greater priority.

Unsurprisingly, images depicting rape are to be banned, bringing UK law in line with that of Scotland; although an apparent loophole in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 means it's not currently a crime. Experts have suggested that UK ISPs will be reluctant to act out of an unwillingness to become censors. Pity they couldn't censor the royal baby news.

Source: BBC and ISPreview | Image via Daily Telegraph

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Android Jelly Bean 4.3 update spotted on Galaxy S3 [Update: Fake!]

Next Story

Is Nokia teasing a tablet announcement for Tuesday?

95 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I don't understand where he's coming from here. Doesn't make a lot of logical sense. I mean, think of all the products that already exist to get around this...there are proxy sites, VPNs, browsers like Tor, or the torch browser. I mean, what is this guy thinking?

This is ridiculous...hopefully he'll get his head out of his backside and stop this horrible idea before it actually starts!

The biggest issue I see with this is say, the internet is not in your name (under parents' name, roomate's name, landlord's name, maybe even wife's name and she doesn't want you to view pronz) and you can't call them yourself to opt-in to pronz. Then you may be screwed (no pun intended).

I have no problem with blocking porn and asking for the option opt out of the block. But who watches the porn watchers? Who decides what is porn on what grounds?

Couldn't some indiscretion of a british political figure be flagged as porn and made invisible for most UK citizen just because someone has the power to do so? Don't brits have that superinjuction crap? Would a home video of an (almost) naked baby at the beach with his/her parents be flagged? Would bellydancers be flagged as porn?

How will this stop pornd distributed via torrents or some other similar technology? How does this help stop distribution of actual illegal pornography.

Will this also affect email content? Are attachmenst going to be searched for porn?

Some of the posts on this subject are dismaying. For instance:
'weapons actually kill people masturbation or any sort of sexual does not other than someone raping which is sick.'
Not nice......

This will be a good way to generate a list of 'degenerates'.

list generation and profiling.

Requiring citizens to opt-in to a world where they have their freedom is dangerous.

Tha Bloo Monkee said,
When you have to uncheck "Filter explicit results" in Google Images, are they limiting your freedoms, too?

Google is a business that provides a service. The use of said service is optional and there are many alternatives. This is NOT the same as a government imposed restriction on ALL services.

If every UK isp has a similar web access tool with a simple (un)tick option that does the exact same thing as google, i think people would be less outraged. Also having safe search on google search does not interfere with the option of you acessing pornographic content by using gmail or google's dns servers.

Did weapons bans result in more assaults? I think that in theory if you are not exposed to sexual images (readily and in great quantity) at a young age, your desires of that nature will be less pervasive. Obviously most people will always have sexual desire since it is part of our chemistry, but if we don't have constant images to fuel it, it should naturally be self-contained.

Might as well live under a dome. Banning weapons is not the same as having sexual feelings or watching a sexual act. weapons actually kill people masturbation or any sort of sexual does not other than someone raping which is sick.

Tuishimi said,
Did weapons bans result in more assaults? I think that in theory if you are not exposed to sexual images (readily and in great quantity) at a young age, your desires of that nature will be less pervasive. Obviously most people will always have sexual desire since it is part of our chemistry, but if we don't have constant images to fuel it, it should naturally be self-contained.

In theory if I clap 3 times and spin around a million dollars will rain down on my head.

Point being, anything you have to prefix with "in theory" just translates to "I'm completely making this up".

Instead of fixing recession and social issues like parallel societies e.g. in East London, UK elites are going to ban porn. Are they on high or something?

Let me get this straight... it's okay for the BBC to broadcast shows with nudity and soft-core porn sex scenes, but it's not okay for an ISP customer to view online porn without "opting-in?"

Pornography creates unrealistic expectations of what sex really is. If you want to explore your sexuality, simply zip down your pants and start exploring.

Mr. Dee said,
Pornography allows you explore your sexuality in a safe way. No STDs, no unwated pregnancies.

Maybe kids will explore the outside world. I know back when I was a kid, the pixies in the forrest used to leave pages of the porno mags at the bottom of the trees. You just had to go out and explore them.. or open page 3 of one of the national news papers.

metalguy90 said,
Pornography creates unrealistic expectations of what sex really is.
Surely that's an issue which the way the porn is made, not the fact it's porn.

metalguy90 said,
Pornography creates unrealistic expectations of what sex really is. If you want to explore your sexuality, simply zip down your pants and start exploring.

The same way that the Terminator 2 creates unrealistic expectations of what a cyborg really is. I mean seriously, friends with a robot? I'm not falling for that one.

I don't see what the big deal is.
If you want more channels, call your cable provider.
If you want your internet unfiltered, simply call you ISP.

This is for 90% of the population who are not tech savvy and want to protect their children.

If you don't think there is a problem with pornography and children, simply search the internet and there are quite a few studies that show otherwise.

metalguy90 said,

This is for 90% of the population who are not tech savvy and want to protect their children.

This isn't going to help. Anyone who thinks otherwise is the non-tech savvy 90% of the population, and they're being fed a pipe dream. It's just another piece in place for the government to monitor everything and fine us or charge us for extra usage on the internet.

We'll get to the point where we'll only have pre-approved websites from businesses that have paid for access to the whitelist. By default you'll only get access to these sites, and if you want extras, you'll have to subscribe to them.

Cameron has been told by the experts its not the way to deal with it, instead, he's pushing forward with it... even though he's no expert in computer technology, let alone internet filtering.

If he really wanted to make a change, he should ban the half naked influence in TV show/adverts and music., etc.

You don't think the government isn't already monitoring activity?

and I agree about banning the aforementioned content on TV as well.

metalguy90 said,
I don't see what the big deal is.
If you want more channels, call your cable provider.
If you want your internet unfiltered, simply call you ISP.

This is for 90% of the population who are not tech savvy and want to protect their children.

If you don't think there is a problem with pornography and children, simply search the internet and there are quite a few studies that show otherwise.

BS for every one of these studies there's another that concludes the exact opposite. It's all FUD. On both sides.

its just some nipple!!! it didnt ruin my childhood! didnt corrupt me! this is just a stunt because you are a **** pm and want all the stay at home computer illiterate parents on your side

Governments want to now control what I watch on a service I pay money for? What kinda BS is that? Kids don't pay for Internet the adults do. So, if I have a teen who so happens to watch porn...so what? What frikkin business is it of his to care about what goes on in my house. Porn isn't the problem, things like drugs and parents who don't teach their kids about sex do more harm than anyone who watches porn.

Of greater interest I think, is how are they going to handle parents complaints because a child has still been able to view a pornographic image (despite these filters).

No filter is 100%, the message from government will neglect to mention this, leads to ISPs getting sued for pornographic imagery. Yet the ISPs always knew the filters would be inadequate so surely aren't to blame - government simply gave them no choice (and they even stipulate what description of the filtering is allowable).

Surely better to educate users and use an opt-in system, that way the parent has the correct expectations of what is being provided (and can supplement them if feel required).

And the big elephant in the room - once you start default filtering of content then what next do you block access to?

adam.mt said,
And the big elephant in the room - once you start default filtering of content then what next do you block access to?
this is my biggest concern over the whole issue. Once the infrastructure is in place it will be very easy to add to the blocklist.

I think this is great... if you have kids, you install netnanny or something similar anyways, but that's only if you know about it, and lots of kids don't have technically knowing parents. Sure kids can get around it, but that's at the age they start WANTING to, then they are old enough (opinion only) that you don't have to anymore. This is more for the 5-12 year olds.

rippleman said,
I think this is great... if you have kids, you install netnanny or something similar anyways, but that's only if you know about it, and lots of kids don't have technically knowing parents. Sure kids can get around it, but that's at the age they start WANTING to, then they are old enough (opinion only) that you don't have to anymore. This is more for the 5-12 year olds.

I think if you're letting a 5-12 year old on the internet without watching what they're doing, and by watching I mean actually sitting next to them, before you can trust them to visit sites that aren't porn based or social networking sites with them giving their information out.. then you've got more things to worry about then them seeing a bit of porn by accident.

The filters, net nanny etc are not going to help things. All's its going to do is dumb down yet more people into a false sense of security about letting their kids online without a care in the world.

If the government really wanted to help matters, they'd have setup a information campaign on how parents can sit with their kids to help them use the internet responsibly, and of course, use the filters and net nanny software as TOOLS to aid looking after the kids as they grow up.

As it stands, it's just shovellingg the dirt under the carpet and telling people every-things ok.

By allowing your child access to the internet, you've giving them the ability to wonder any where in the world. If you're not happy about letting your 5-12 year old back pack around the world alone, you shouldn't be letting them wander around cyberspace either.

Cry if you want, but porn pops up EVEN with you sitting right there. Its everywhere, and i prefer not to be a hover parent. I would prefer it not to pop up but if you like it to pop up in front of your kids then you should seriously reconsider your role as a parent.

sagum said,

I think if you're letting a 5-12 year old on the internet without watching what they're doing, and by watching I mean actually sitting next to them, before you can trust them to visit sites that aren't porn based or social networking sites with them giving their information out.. then you've got more things to worry about then them seeing a bit of porn by accident.

The filters, net nanny etc are not going to help things. All's its going to do is dumb down yet more people into a false sense of security about letting their kids online without a care in the world.

If the government really wanted to help matters, they'd have setup a information campaign on how parents can sit with their kids to help them use the internet responsibly, and of course, use the filters and net nanny software as TOOLS to aid looking after the kids as they grow up.

As it stands, it's just shovellingg the dirt under the carpet and telling people every-things ok.

By allowing your child access to the internet, you've giving them the ability to wonder any where in the world. If you're not happy about letting your 5-12 year old back pack around the world alone, you shouldn't be letting them wander around cyberspace either.

rippleman said,
Cry if you want, but porn pops up EVEN with you sitting right there. Its everywhere, and i prefer not to be a hover parent. I would prefer it not to pop up but if you like it to pop up in front of your kids then you should seriously reconsider your role as a parent.

If you've got porn popping up randomly, then you need to stay off the dodgy porn sites already because it sounds like you've got a trojan or spyware already installed on your computer.

For the vast majority of sites that your kids will be using, there isn't going to be porn, or anything related to porn and certainly not porn that just randomly pops up while you're sitting there.

true, but email what i was meaning, sure, porn links get sent to your spam folder, and kids are click happy, so it would be very comforting to know that if your kid gets an email from a porn spammer, the link in question pops up with a "404" or whatever the block code would be. And also, think about non-tech parents who DO surf porn and get malware that DOES do the popups... this would stop the child from seeing unintended porn pop ups because of their parents unkowningness.

sagum said,

If you've got porn popping up randomly, then you need to stay off the dodgy porn sites already because it sounds like you've got a trojan or spyware already installed on your computer.

For the vast majority of sites that your kids will be using, there isn't going to be porn, or anything related to porn and certainly not porn that just randomly pops up while you're sitting there.

rippleman said,
true, but email what i was meaning, sure, porn links get sent to your spam folder, and kids are click happy, so it would be very comforting to know that if your kid gets an email from a porn spammer, the link in question pops up with a "404" or whatever the block code would be. And also, think about non-tech parents who DO surf porn and get malware that DOES do the popups... this would stop the child from seeing unintended porn pop ups because of their parents unkowningness.

I honestly understand where you're coming from, as a parent you naturally want to try and protect your children and while a filter like you explain for email popups would be great, the reality is not so.

Let me try to explain, firstly and this is no disrespect to your parenting skills on anti-porn, but something you really need to hammer home in the kids from a young age with regards to email. Don't let them use an email account by them self until they know why it's a bad idea to open an email from someone they don't know, and more importantly one they weren't expecting. This should be common practice for adults as well as children.
It's not just seeing porn that's bad, opening an email they weren't expecting even from a friend can infect your computer. More worryingly is such infections can create a 'zombie' machine used to attack government computers, used as a relay for more spam, or even be used remotely to activate things on the computer, such as webcams. I'd hate to think my child has a laptop open with someone seeing their every move.

Next up is the issue with blocking content in emails. Now, for the majority of email clients now (certainly with the likes of Microsoft), the default is to block external images from unknown contacts and known spam lists. Spam emails are double blocked with warnings and confirmations.
However regardless of that, and say your child managed to unblock the content of a spam porn email, sometimes the images aren't loaded from a website externally to the email, but rather the images are stored in the email itself.

This isn't something that Cameron is trying to block, and probably never will be able to with todays technology. Unfortunately a lot of people are going to be lured into a false sense of security, and probably let their kids getaway with more then they would have otherwise without the filter in place.

The best thing to do as a parent in this case would be to tell your child not to click or open on emails from people they don't know (just like they wouldn't take sweeties from a stranger).
Then, you can setup their email account to automatically delete spam straight away and also delete emails from everyone not on their contact list. You'll find most legitimate mailing lists will give you their email that they're emailing from so you can add it to your white list email addresses for your account.

Simply hiding spam with a vale of filters isn't going to get rid of the root cause. We need the spammers to be taken off line. Wallpapering over the cracks isn't going to stop the house from falling down, right?

A strong foundation for your kids with sound advice and teachings on net safety is more worthwhile in the long run, giving your child the attitude of being safe online, rather then blanket filtering anything they might come across.

Now, you say about non-tech parents. How about the government does a proactive scheme where the parents get to go to school and learn some basic security and safety, even if it's just down to saying check your kids smart phone regularly for new apps and look what they do.
Might sound like a silly suggestion, but when kids have access to apps such as snapchat and a unlimited amount of random 'friends', it's begging for trouble, yet it's almost a right of passage for kids to get a smartphone to going to high school with these days.

At the end of the day though, the parents who are viewing porn on their computer, even if its their own rather then their kids PC, is going to have to call or login to their ISP to turn the filter off so they can view it in the first place so it's a bit of a mutt point as to if it's even needed.

flick a switch, problem solved... everything doesn't have to be hard. Most people don't want to be educated in something where it can be fixed fast and easy with a filter. You could learn about killing and skinning a wild animal too but isn't it just easier to buy your meet from the supermarket? Some people just do not have an interest in learning something that they don't need to learn. I know hundreds of parents that would prefer to just cut it off at the source (isp). if you want your porn, you can still have it too... everyone wins.

sagum said,

I honestly understand where you're coming from, as a parent you naturally want to try and protect your children and while a filter like you explain for email popups would be great, the reality is not so.

Let me try to explain, firstly and this is no disrespect to your parenting skills on anti-porn, but something you really need to hammer home in the kids from a young age with regards to email. Don't let them use an email account by them self until they know why it's a bad idea to open an email from someone they don't know, and more importantly one they weren't expecting. This should be common practice for adults as well as children.
It's not just seeing porn that's bad, opening an email they weren't expecting even from a friend can infect your computer. More worryingly is such infections can create a 'zombie' machine used to attack government computers, used as a relay for more spam, or even be used remotely to activate things on the computer, such as webcams. I'd hate to think my child has a laptop open with someone seeing their every move.

Next up is the issue with blocking content in emails. Now, for the majority of email clients now (certainly with the likes of Microsoft), the default is to block external images from unknown contacts and known spam lists. Spam emails are double blocked with warnings and confirmations.
However regardless of that, and say your child managed to unblock the content of a spam porn email, sometimes the images aren't loaded from a website externally to the email, but rather the images are stored in the email itself.

This isn't something that Cameron is trying to block, and probably never will be able to with todays technology. Unfortunately a lot of people are going to be lured into a false sense of security, and probably let their kids getaway with more then they would have otherwise without the filter in place.

The best thing to do as a parent in this case would be to tell your child not to click or open on emails from people they don't know (just like they wouldn't take sweeties from a stranger).
Then, you can setup their email account to automatically delete spam straight away and also delete emails from everyone not on their contact list. You'll find most legitimate mailing lists will give you their email that they're emailing from so you can add it to your white list email addresses for your account.

Simply hiding spam with a vale of filters isn't going to get rid of the root cause. We need the spammers to be taken off line. Wallpapering over the cracks isn't going to stop the house from falling down, right?

A strong foundation for your kids with sound advice and teachings on net safety is more worthwhile in the long run, giving your child the attitude of being safe online, rather then blanket filtering anything they might come across.

Now, you say about non-tech parents. How about the government does a proactive scheme where the parents get to go to school and learn some basic security and safety, even if it's just down to saying check your kids smart phone regularly for new apps and look what they do.
Might sound like a silly suggestion, but when kids have access to apps such as snapchat and a unlimited amount of random 'friends', it's begging for trouble, yet it's almost a right of passage for kids to get a smartphone to going to high school with these days.

At the end of the day though, the parents who are viewing porn on their computer, even if its their own rather then their kids PC, is going to have to call or login to their ISP to turn the filter off so they can view it in the first place so it's a bit of a mutt point as to if it's even needed.

rippleman said,
flick a switch, problem solved... everything doesn't have to be hard. Most people don't want to be educated in something where it can be fixed fast and easy with a filter. You could learn about killing and skinning a wild animal too but isn't it just easier to buy your meet from the supermarket? Some people just do not have an interest in learning something that they don't need to learn. I know hundreds of parents that would prefer to just cut it off at the source (isp). if you want your porn, you can still have it too... everyone wins.

That's the key problem though, it's not as simple as cutting it off at the ISP. As much as everyone would like it to, It simply doesn't work like that.
I understand that you don't want to spend time having to learn the inns and outs of things, most people don't know the inns and outs of their car let alone their computer.

Sometimes we have to learn to do things for our own safety as well as others. Take learning to drive a car for example, easy enough to get the car moving and stopping it, but the rest of learning the road signs and markings as well as how to react with other drivers is key in not getting hurt.
The same needs to be applied to internet use, otherwise we could just say ban all cars since it's too much trouble for people to learn to drive when we have taxi and bus services.

I'm not saying filters are bad and shouldn't be used, I think they're great, but Cameron is proposing can be already had for free with many of the 3rd party DNS providers who, most ISPs will be turning to anyway, BUT they should be used as a tool, not a way for the masses to become ignorant of the technology they're using.

Like you originally said, when kids are of that age where they do want to find porn, they will go looking for it and will quickly find a way past filters. At that point, however, they'll be pushed deep into the most dodgy hidden sites, simply by the nature of how they got past the filters.. with next to no online safety know-how enriched into them, so they'll be the most vulnerable on the internet prime for exploitation to everything they come across.

Are they going to ban Back To The Future? There's a scene where Biff tries to rape Marty's mum in the car before the school dance...

Mugwump00 said,
This is coming from a man who left his own child in a pub... FUDC.

Yeah, well that's the reason he's asking for porn to be blocked. He left his laptop on at home and was trying to hurry back to turn it off, didn't really want any of the other MPs seeing his favourite gimps-r-us porn. /s

edit: i'll probably be arrested for this comment.

sagum said,
edit: i'll probably be arrested for this comment.
Of course you will. There's no such thing as freedom of speech in the UK. Look at all the people put in jail for saying stupid things on Twitter.

WTF! I thought this was thrown out of parliament weeks ago? Looks like Cameron was carrying on talks the "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" groups. -_-

Ad Man Gamer said,
WTF! I thought this was thrown out of parliament weeks ago? Looks like Cameron was carrying on talks the "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" groups. -_-

I can't wait until the list of MPs are leaked that have opt-out of the porn filter ... shortly before the list of sites they've visited

" Videos streamed online in the UK will be subject to the same restrictions as DVDs and BluRays sold in shops."
Erm, what does this mean precisely?

n_K said,
" Videos streamed online in the UK will be subject to the same restrictions as DVDs and BluRays sold in shops."
Erm, what does this mean precisely?

It means softcore, lots of kissing/cluddling, dimly lit rooms and 70s porno music playing the in the background. All tits and.. thats about it.

Dashel said,
Isn't that more of a 'broadcast' standard? Surely you can buy all sorts of porn on disk.

Sorry, I was being sarcastic lol.

Until the Extreme Pornography act was introduced in 1997/8, it was illegal for anything other then basic vaginal sex on screen. Anal was classed (and still is) buggery, but has since been made legal for 18+ x-rated movies. A lot of things are still illegal though.
Hard bondage, fisting, water sports (of any kind), wiping/excess gagging etc where one the porn stars are in pain/harms way or unable to give a safe word is all illegal still (to an extent). Probably a lot more too.

Of course, that's only for material made outside the UK and imported...
it is still illegal to *produce* a lot of the legally watchable porn in the UK. UK based and created porn is little more then what can be shown on TV.

Stupid politics, instead of working to stop child porn and perhaps horrific porn, now they are blocking all porn as something horrible

It looks like someone forgot how people reproduce, it is a beautiful process fill with love and emotions, instead, stupid religions (islam and christianity) made it something horrible.

john.smith_2084 said,

... instead, stupid religions (islam and christianity) made it something horrible.

Huh? I'm not sure Cameron's decision to ban pornography was really anything to do with religion! ...he's not doing it on any "religious" basis/belief!

Read the Song of Solomon. Nothing wrong with sex! More, it is about how the PEOPLE used in prostitution and porn are often young runaways in need of money and find that sex is the way to survive. It is about taking advantage of other people. I do suppose some Christians might construe it as cheating if you are married since in your heart you are desiring sex with another woman.

But in general it is the itemization of a person. Making a person a "thing".

Tuishimi said,
it is about how the PEOPLE used in prostitution and porn are often young runaways in need of money and find that sex is the way to survive.

Some statistics to back that up, please.

It would be interesting to see the number of "opt-in" requests that are made after the first month or so. Or will we see a load of proxies spring up ala TPB?

Not sure what the fuss is about. He's actually right. Naught wrong with pr0n, but for the non tech savvy who can get around any filter, it's extremely easy to obtain porn on the net - too easy in fact. If you want it, sure, go for it. Nothing wrong with it. But for people who shouldn't see it, like kids, that's good.

And no before anyone says it, it's not the same as applying a filter at your home. This one will catch more people, even if it can be breached, because the former scenario relies on the user/parent/guardian/school/myriad other carers to install the software which just won't happen.

Just going on the very last line of your post, The options are there, there's no need to install any third party software, one scenario would be to have an admin account on the pc, set up the blocks on all sub accounts, and then only using the sub accounts (it's a start)

ZipZapRap said,
Not sure what the fuss is about. He's actually right. Naught wrong with pr0n, but for the non tech savvy who can get around any filter, it's extremely easy to obtain porn on the net - too easy in fact. If you want it, sure, go for it. Nothing wrong with it. But for people who shouldn't see it, like kids, that's good.

And no before anyone says it, it's not the same as applying a filter at your home. This one will catch more people, even if it can be breached, because the former scenario relies on the user/parent/guardian/school/myriad other carers to install the software which just won't happen.

"Won't somebody please think of the children."

Please. Governments have no business legislating morality. Whether people like it or not it's the responsibility of the parent or guardian to monitor and control what a child is exposed to, on the internet or otherwise. The system absolutely SHOULD rely on this.

Adults should be allowed to make adult decisions without having to ask the government for permission or be added to some list.

What would happen to the Hollywood movies that have someone attacking a women, she is struggling and someone is coming to save her? Is that blocked too?

I can imagine an English commentator will pause the scene and tell everyone "what you are about to see is not actual rape, it is part of the movies, and there will short interview with the actress in the middle of the movie to tell everyone she is OK?

Why are they mixing blocking perfectly legal pornography with child pornography? They are two different things. By all means block child pornography, in fact, they already do its called the Internet Watch Foundation (http://www.iwf.org.uk/) list which every ISP in the UK complies with and anything made onto there list is blocked from access.

I also agree with adult content being blocked at public places like libraries and public wifi hotspots because that content shouldn't be viewed in public.

If any parent wants to control what is seen online in there household they should consider setting up some filters like OpenDNS which is perfect.

It will be a criminal offence to possess pornography that depicts rape...An apparent loophole in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 means it's not currently a crime.

Wow. That's quite surprising to hear.

Terrible they label such depictions 'crime', and as noted, it deprives of some really good Asian content.

Whats next, no 'murder' in moves? Hi-larious.

Dashel said,
Terrible they label such depictions 'crime', and as noted, it deprives of some really good Asian content.

Good lord, I hope you're joking there...

Just when you think a Man can't get any more clueless or out of touch with reality. He pulls a stunt like this.

Christopher Reeve would be turning in his grave after seeing that butchered excuse for a photoshop
In other news:

Somewhat ironically, former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre Jim Gamble told BBC's Radio 4 that it was important to "get to the root cause of illegal pornography". In other words, make shutting down the origins a greater priority.

This would be of greater impact than just banning internet porn, which incidentally, historically has proved about as useful as a flat spare.