The Dudeism Forum

Internet porn: Automatic block rejected

Ministers have rejected plans to automatically block internet access to pornography on all computers, saying the move is not widely supported. A public consultation found 35% of parents wanted an automatic bar while 15% wanted some content filtered, and an option to block other material.

Log jammin! - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20738746

I wouldn't want to get all restrictive on what people can and can't see but it does worry me that any time they want my teenage boys can click on
MaturePregnantTeenageCumWhoreFarm-yardFuckedInAllHoles.com    -   and then there's the people who need protecting from 'Jesus'
So I don't know man - you can come at this one from two sides (so to speak).

Nobody wants their kids seeing this sort of filth

[attachment deleted by admin]

Damit there goes my beer again

I'll just go find a cash machine.....

Yeah, she's had a few corndogs in there before!

  Speaking of the Internet.......

Quote from: DigitalBuddha on December 15, 2012, 08:19:21 PM
Internet porn: Automatic block rejected

Ministers have rejected plans to automatically block internet access to pornography on all computers, saying the move is not widely supported. A public consultation found 35% of parents wanted an automatic bar while 15% wanted some content filtered, and an option to block other material.

Log jammin! - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20738746

The Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint: Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)

Quote from: not_exactly_a_lightweight on December 16, 2012, 10:08:52 PM

Quote from: DigitalBuddha on December 15, 2012, 08:19:21 PM
Internet porn: Automatic block rejected

Ministers have rejected plans to automatically block internet access to pornography on all computers, saying the move is not widely supported. A public consultation found 35% of parents wanted an automatic bar while 15% wanted some content filtered, and an option to block other material.

Log jammin! - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20738746

The Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint: Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)

Fucking eh! And, I'm finishing my coffee.

There are theories that pornography has existed as long as human kind has existed.


There are lines of thought that suggest this is not a votive image but a piece of neolithic pornography.

I use the term reservedly because I believe that the more you repress something the worse it is for people in general. look how screwed up the Victorians were.

I believe that if we were more open about sex and nudity the definition of what is "pornography" actually goes away.

I am reminded of a friends conversation with a young Swedish woman. She was confused by the UK Sun newspaper having pictures of semi-naked women in them. Her argument was "Why don't men just go and look at a naked women if they want to see one?"

Why would your teenage boys want to look at "MaturePregnantTeenageCumWhoreFarm-yardFuckedInAllHoles.com" if they had been brought up experiencing sex and nudity as a natural part of life and not something "dirty" that should be hidden and ashamed of?

Also why should the government tell me what I should and shouldn't look at? if it wasn't for pornography I would be in serious danger of colonic cancer.

Looks like a "neolithic Playboy Bunny"