Oh ...
The government had asked all internet service providers (ISPs) to block illegal websites by the end of 2007.
But firms providing 5% of broadband connections have still failed to act.
Right ... so the government is protecting us. From what, you may ask?
Home Office Minister Alan Campbell said: "In 2006 the government stated that they wished to see 100% of consumer broadband connections covered by blocking, which includes images of child abuse, by the end of 2007.
"Includes" ... well, isn't that just a handy word, then? Is there anything else they are protecting us from? Unfortunately, no-one knows:
So not only do we not know how many mistakes are on the IWF's blacklist, it may be hard even to agree on an objective definition of a "mistake."
These unelected and entirely unaccountable cock-suckers are acting as censors, protecting us from "harm" and even when they make mistakes, they are unlikely to be found out.
And by choosing child porn as the moral justification for this, no-one in their right mind [ipse dixit] is going to argue against it. But given the shroud of secrecy that already surrounds these cunts at the IWF, what happens when something happens that the government wants to keep out of the news? What happens if swearbloggers get up the Prime Mentalist's nose, or Guido discovers something they want to keep quiet? Quick call to the IWF and job's a good 'un.
Still, it's lucky our government is honest and true, and not at all a bunch of totalitarian cunts, like those horrible Chinese!
PS: I hope the entire staff of the NSPCC die lingering deaths from face cancer for supporting this absolute shit.
7 comments:
It's becoming increasingly obvious that child pornography, paedophilia, extreme pornography etc. are the hooks upon which will be hung increasing restrictions on free speech on the internet.
"It's for the chiiillllddrrruuuunnnn" after all.
Depressing.
I wish we could get a hold of that list.
Wikileaks has Finland's list (as well as others such as UAE and Thailand) and surprise, surprise, there are sites on there that have nothing to do with Child Porn!
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/797_domains_on_Finnish_Internet_censorship_list%2C_including_censorship_critic%2C_2008
Of course, the Internet Watch Foundation is a fake charity. As is, of course, the NSPCC (must add them to fakecharities actually)...
DK
"And by choosing child porn as the moral justification for this, no-one in their right mind [ipse dixit] is going to argue against it."
I am, actually.
Because the definition of 'child porn' is so wide. As pointed out by Heresiarch over at the 'Letters from A Tory' site, this has been used to include teenagers taking and emailing pictures of themselves to each other.
Admittedly, that's in the US, but are we sure we can trust our legislators not to do the same?
"trust our legislators"
Surely an oxymoron. And a paradox!
The Penguin
Same story down under. In fact I think the government is getting its own back for the Olympics by trying to outdo the UK in internet censorship and general twattiness. I dunno, flew 10,000 miles to escape cunts and look what happens.
Post a Comment