Default inappropriate contentography block, and Rape inappropriate content Ban

[Forest Wolf]

Does anyone know if European Human Rights can protect us?

It may be wrong of me but reading that I could just see the proposal.

Come on EHR! There must be some law somewhere that says we English have the right to perversion and strokeoffery!

Look harder! OK, ignore the pun but still, mate...

 

[Oafman]

Does anyone know if European Human Rights can protect us?

Good question.

Maybe Article 10 could apply:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

Or perhaps even article 8:

"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."

Seems like a long shot, but I'd love it to happen. Internet filters blocked by the ECHR would be the Daily Mail's worst nightmare, and I would definitely enjoy their anger the next day!

 

[Paradoxum]

Wait, hang on, this is what made you hate him?, the banning of inappropriate content?

I said when you were defending him about his decision of gay marriage that you cant say the bloke cares about Justice when all he does it scapegoat the poorest and put more and more restrictions on those at the bottom and that he was just using the Gay marriage thing to garnish popularity, but you thought he was okay.

So the banning of inappropriate content (unless opt out) is worse than targetting the weakest and the poorest in society???

Sorry to be blunt like this, but the mind boggles!

It's ok, I know it sounds like a weird reason to hate him. I was annoyed more about the criminalisation of people looking at inappropriate content he doesn't like, rather than the opt-out block. I hate it because it is a violation of free expression, and importantly because it could potentially punish innocent people.

I don't like Tory economics, but they aren't sending poor people to prison for being poor. Apparently they do want to send people to prison for liking the wrong type of entertainment though (that harms no one).

He said he was a liberal Tory, and I thought he might be. Apparently not.

Does that make sense? :s

 

[Paradoxum]

It may be wrong of me but reading that I could just see the proposal.

Come on EHR! There must be some law somewhere that says we English have the right to perversion and strokeoffery!

Look harder! OK, ignore the pun but still, mate...

The Tories clearly need a good spanking by the EU.

Good question.

Maybe Article 10 could apply:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

Or perhaps even article 8:

"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."

Seems like a long shot, but I'd love it to happen. Internet filters blocked by the ECHR would be the Daily Mail's worst nightmare, and I would definitely enjoy their anger the next day!

Looks like a horribly big long-shot.

 

[Billnew]

Avoiding internet inappropriate content is much easier than avoiding some street preachers. Not frequenting a inappropriate content-site has no side effects. Not frequenting a street with a preacher can have side effects ranging from the walk to work taking much longer, or certain shops becoming inaccessible, to not being able to use public transport or go to work.

The types of speech unacceptable in public can just be decided by a (super)majority of the populace (via parliament), with the courts making sure that only categories of speech are banned, so there is no discrimination (e.g. ban preachers from all religions, not just Christian ones).

As a further thought: avoiding internet inappropriate content is easy in sense of avoiding inappropriate content sites, but there are plenty of other sites with "accidental" inappropriate content, the occasional nude/topless picture, etc (how naked/sexy do people have to be for it to count as inappropriate content?). And unless the implementation of this law is going to be draconian by also banning all these non-inappropriate content sites, the law thus won't have any effect on preventing people from accidentally stumbling across inappropriate content.

If a law does nothing to lower the exposure to unwilling audiences, but does lower exposure to willing audiences, it's a bad law.

We don't have a big problem of street preachers in the US. Maybe because we don't walk the streets as much as others.
There are some, if you don't want to listen roll up your window until the light turns green.
So its better to restrict someones freedom to speak just because someone walking by might become an unwanted listener for a few seconds as the walk by?

The free flow of ideas allows people to display their personality and show their true self. Silencing this discourages thoughtful dialoug to shape the illconcieved ideas into something a little more rational, or allows people to realize the person speaking is Bat dung crazy and might need help.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt"

 

[YoungJoonKim]

feminists in UK have been pushing for this motion for some time now.
It's good to see that it has worked.

What a foolish nation.

 

[Mystman]

There are some, if you don't want to listen roll up your window until the light turns green.
So its better to restrict someones freedom to speak just because someone walking by might become an unwanted listener for a few seconds as the walk by?

When I went to university, for about a year there was a (horrible) street musician on the only sensible pedestrian route from the train station to the campus. Every single day, this guy decided he had the right to annoy me and hundreds/thousands of others with his tunes and his begging, ruining fine mornings with mangled renditions of whatever song could coax a few cents from the dumb minority who appreciate accordion music at 8 AM. And that just involved horrible music. Someone telling me that I'm going to hell every morning is much more than "just being an unwanted listener for a few seconds". It ruins the mood, it ruins the atmosphere, it makes the society a crappy place to live for everyone except the one guy who really feels a need to shout at strangers.

I really like the dutch word for society, "samenleving", or literally something like "together-living". It indicates that the idea is to live together, that the thing only works if you keep each other's needs, wants, and desires in mind. Actions that are only beneficial to one person and detrimental to everyone else (and no, some madman raving on the streets is no way beneficial towards establishing "thoughtful dialogue" or anything of that kind..) are not beneficial to the society, and thus don't belong in public.

 

[YoungJoonKim]

so....whats your point? because you don't like something, you want it removed from the public? is that it? who measures who should treat how and why? How should one measure his "good" or plus to public atmosphere? You? the government? These things change with time. I'd rather have the society regulate that and measure what's good and what's not good. By pure competition. So long as it does not harm that individual physically.

 

[AceHero]

Look at the bright side: With professional inappropriate contentographic websites blocked, the country will have to turn to amateur home-made inappropriate contentography. The quality of acting will improve dramatically despite the loss of cinematography.

Grass roots, eh?

 

[TerranceL]

Goodness.

You say something mean on the internet and the government comes after you, you want to watch adult entertainment and you have to beg permission from the government.

They really do consider you folks children over there don't they?

 

[Mystman]

I'd rather have the society regulate that and measure what's good and what's not good. By pure competition. So long as it does not harm that individual physically.

Society can just regulate it via elections. How exactly does one regulate it via competition? By also standing there and yelling Islamic theology at the preacher yelling Christian theology? Also known as being even more annoying to the rest of the population? What if said preacher isn't impressed by you yeling at him and still comes back every day?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Goodness.

You say something mean on the internet and the government comes after you, you want to watch adult entertainment and you have to beg permission from the government.

They really do consider you folks children over there don't they?

Someone once told me we get the government we deserve.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Society can just regulate it via elections. How exactly does one regulate it via competition? By also standing there and yelling Islamic theology at the preacher yelling Christian theology? Also known as being even more annoying to the rest of the population? What if said preacher isn't impressed by you yeling at him and still comes back every day?

Did you not consider the fact that elections are competitions? I guess our cultures really are very different. I, for instance, would never consider for an instant that it was the government's job to be concerned with making sure I am never annoyed.

 

[Supreme]

Did you not consider the fact that elections are competitions? I guess our cultures really are very different. I, for instance, would never consider for an instant that it was the government's job to be concerned with making sure I am never annoyed.

Neither do I, nor many other people in the country. The government has waaay overstepped its mark in this instance. Needless to say, I shall not be voting the Tories next election (which was a possibility) for this stupid, stupid policy Cameron has done some good things, but such an idiotic move infringing on civil liberties has lost him my support.

 

[Billnew]

Someone once told me we get the government we deserve.

If we're lucky, we get a goverment better then we deserve. Because the one we deserve would be so much worse.

When I went to university, for about a year there was a (horrible) street musician on the only sensible pedestrian route from the train station to the campus. Every single day, this guy decided he had the right to annoy me and hundreds/thousands of others with his tunes and his begging, ruining fine mornings with mangled renditions of whatever song could coax a few cents from the dumb minority who appreciate accordion music at 8 AM. And that just involved horrible music. Someone telling me that I'm going to hell every morning is much more than "just being an unwanted listener for a few seconds". It ruins the mood, it ruins the atmosphere, it makes the society a crappy place to live for everyone except the one guy who really feels a need to shout at strangers.

I really like the dutch word for society, "samenleving", or literally something like "together-living". It indicates that the idea is to live together, that the thing only works if you keep each other's needs, wants, and desires in mind. Actions that are only beneficial to one person and detrimental to everyone else (and no, some madman raving on the streets is no way beneficial towards establishing "thoughtful dialogue" or anything of that kind..) are not beneficial to the society, and thus don't belong in public.

I can support a limit on output (bagpipes, large accordians, bullhorns) can be overwhelming and hard on hearing. But I suppport freedom of expression. If they want to go out every day and be a pain to people, thats their right. I would also point out, every person has the same right, so tell the person how bad they are. Tell them they are so far from reality they might need to seek help. Or just point and laugh at them.

If they are rude in their expression, you are not required to be nice. (non-violent of course)

 

[Khadanish]

inappropriate contentography must be available only for adults, and only those who want it. It's kind of not really good thing when sometimes you look for some useful infomation on the web and get tons of inappropriate content ads on the sites which have nothing to do with sex.

 

[Gadarene]

inappropriate contentography must be available only for adults, and only those who want it. It's kind of not really good thing when sometimes you look for some useful infomation on the web and get tons of inappropriate content ads on the sites which have nothing to do with sex.

On the plus side, it's a handy excuse.

 

[KitKatMatt]

inappropriate contentography must be available only for adults, and only those who want it. It's kind of not really good thing when sometimes you look for some useful infomation on the web and get tons of inappropriate content ads on the sites which have nothing to do with sex.

To be honest, the only places I've seen inappropriate content ads in the past few years are all shady places to begin with... maybe you should think twice about the websites you visit!

As a bonus, use a browser like Firefox or Chrome, they help prevent popups. Also, get Adblock! It blocks out ads so you aren't annoyed by them.

 

[Ave Maria]

I think this is a great idea. I think all inappropriate content should be permanently blocked, deleted, and the owners and producers of inappropriate contentography prosecuted. That's how strongly I feel about inappropriate contentography.

 

[KitKatMatt]

I think this is a great idea. I think all inappropriate content should be permanently blocked, deleted, and the owners and producers of inappropriate contentography prosecuted. That's how strongly I feel about inappropriate contentography.

I'm sure there are many people who agree with you, maybe join in their fight?

As for me, I'll be on the other side, for I see it as freedom of expression