Hiding the porn, hiding the real issues: The porn filter isn’t what it seems to be

Posted on July 31, 2013

0


I felt a cataclysmic disturbance in the force this week, something was wrong. Very wrong. It made me dizzy and irritable and more importantly, confused.

“What?” I said, could have caused this.

Little did I know, the coalition were going to make it slightly more difficult to see lewd representations of femininity on both the internet and supermarket shelves.

Covered: No more try before you buy

You see, ‘The Man’ is legislating to force black modesty bags onto our lad’s mags –thus hiding the ‘sexy’ front covers. Additionally, this ‘The Man’ is forcing ISPs to put opt-in filters on the internet pornography, this means that by default, explicit material will be blocked.

These actions are a frontal assault on the “corroding childhood” of the youth. Cameron who I will now dub Cumrim which ironically is a term which will be blacklisted by the filter, said the measures were in the name of “protecting the innocence” of young people from unrealistic portrayals of sexual relations.

Note the use of the term “unrealistic”. Firstly, who decides what is a realistic depiction of sexual activity? I don’t know what realistic is but I want to be the guy who gets paid to watch all the videos to decide whether or not they are.

In my experience, realistic porn would last four minutes, feature chubby, drunk beanbagesque blobs, slambanging each other to tears in a dark, dirty bedded dungeon, followed by a sticky sweat-cuddle which nearly drowns both parties. – Not really, it’s a joke y’know –

That is realism my readers. And realism is the reason porn exists. If those pornos were a realistic depiction of human coupling we would not bloody need porn because we would all be having fantastic, consensual and protected sex. You cannot ban TV show ‘Skins’ for being an unrealistic portrayal of youth life, much like you cannot ban David Cameron from the internet for being a unconvincing representation of a human being.

Realistic: The filter will only allow kids to view Japanese men in bikinis

Now, my second argument, if Cumerim wants to protect the innocence of children perhaps he could start housing them. And feeding them. And protecting them from institutionally organised sexual assault?

Seventy five thousand young people aged 16-24 experienced some form of homelessness annually – about one out of every 100 young people (1), how about protecting their innocence seeing as they are likely the ones most likely to end up in these censored films.

21,493 sexual offences against children were recorded in 2011/2012. The data, doesn’t include those aged 16 and 17 (2). With such a high number of recorded attacks against children, one would think the priority would be to protect children from real, realistic and disgusting acts of actual abuse rather than trying to shield them from distasteful videos on the internet – which parents and teachers should be responsible for-.

On the subject of protecting youngsters, systematic sexual abuser, Stuart Hall, former BBC presenter, was sentenced to a mere 30 months in prison for 14 counts of indecent assault on girls young as nine between 1967 and 1987. The crown’s inability to proper punish a man who destroyed the ‘innocence’ of at least fourteen youngsters perhaps shows the real sentiment behind the filters.

Information control!

Bradley Manning, the former military intelligence analyst who gave classified information to WikiLeaks was sentenced to a lifetime in prison after a captivity which has been condemned by the UN as torturous. Meanwhile, Julian Assange still cowers in the London Ecuadorian embassy and Edward Snowden who also leaked information, is still allegedly in Russia. The world is seeing a rise in stateless data leakers, these men change society more than any bomb or act of terrorism ever could.

Lifetime Imprisonment: Manning will serve a lifetime compared to Stuart Hall's meager thirty months

Lifetime Imprisonment: Manning will serve a lifetime compared to Stuart Hall’s meager thirty months

The legislation is not to protect the innocence of children, we live in an age of enlightenment where the internet provides knowledge at one’s fingertips. Anyone can access the content. These filters are just a way for the UK state to control information.

The alleged porn filter in actuality, blocks access to violent material, extremist and terrorist related content, anorexia and eating disorder websites, suicide related websites and additionally forums that discuss smoking and drinking.

So the legislation has a much wider, vaguer remit than is widely being reported, and vague is bad. Very bad. These filters will likely force ISPs to disable the URLS of torrent sites which host an array of pornographic material, in addition to scholarly materials and classic literature

Furthermore, if anyone wanted to cancel the filter they would have to phone the ISP and ask for it to be taken off. “Hiya pal, cin a hiv ma, emmm, porn filter aff, it’s, emmm, fur a friend, ken?”

Cynically, the filters will be used to block access to websites to the authorities have a distaste for. Forums of free speech, will likely mention any of the  restricted content, and that would make them vulnerable to the filters thus blocking them.

So, each and every person has to remain vigilant. We are in the age of information, a second renaissance and something as mundane as a porn filter in the name of child protection can in actual fact be something much more dangerous which restricts the flow of information and ideas.

Filters don’t protect children, being open about the dangers of sexual predators and giving kids proper sexual education does. These kids are getting harder to trick, hiding this content from them will only make it more desirable. You ban it and they’ll want it more.

Thanks for reading. If I’ve said anything that needs corrected or you disagree drop me a comment below.

Advertisements
Posted in: Comment, Feature, politics