Originally Posted by
.:neuko:.
Personally, I don't care for pornography at all, as I can (and do) certainly have a fulfilling life without it, but that's not really my concern here--it's about that fact that whenever some government-enforced restriction (even if people can choose to opt out of this one in this case) is implemented it usually starts out as unobtrusive enough, then creeps to the point of resembling socialist regimes, much like what seems to be happening under the US under the Obama administration right now (albeit not so centred around pornography).
What I find incredible is how the British government (or rather the Conservative Party) is going out of its way to "protect" children from supposedly innocence-violating material when it doesn't exactly employ the same attitude towards equivalent physical magazines in shopping stores, which are often in close proximity to physical magazines designed for children and preteens. Okay, so they're usually placed on a higher shelf, but so what? That only serves to put them out of reach, not out of sight. And how short-sighted this whole idea is: as if pornography is the only means by which children can be stripped of their innocence. How about placing some restraint on newspapers, TV and adverts for a change (arguably more damaging industries). Oh yeah, that's right--that's not going to happen while those industries are funding your elections.
And Let's not forget, this is the same government that pretends to endorse matters of health and the environment in one hand, while allows corporations that endorse their exact polar opposites (smoking, alcohol, fast food, etc.) to sponsor the British Olympics and public services like the NHS (Please explain to me why there's a convenience store that sells cigarettes and alcohol, and a Costa embedded in my local hospital...). Sad fact of the matter is, if everyone did the "right thing" such benefits would not have had the requisite funds in the first place.
Now I'm not opposed to the idea of protecting children from harmful material per se, but it seems that whenever the British government implements some law or policy that's seems to be for the benefit of people, the true motives behind them are often selfish and never really about social well-being at all. Isn't it funny that pornography on the Internet has been as much an issue since the '90s, yet only now the government thinks its time to "tackle" the issue. It strikes me as so convenient that recent policies, such as the Bedroom Tax, critical benefit caps, increased fees for unfair dismissal claims, so called NHS efficiency measures, and of course, the latest attempt to divert pornographic content so that people won't be able to access it so freely as the Internet allows (and in due course, rely on the more expensive means imposed by big-name publishers) is all consistent with the governments obsession with saving money. And for what? For the benefit of most people? Oh please...
How dare you Mr. Cameron? By all means, protect children from harmful content; but don't you DARE insult the British people's intelligence and use the "vulnerability of children" as a weapon to excuse ill-thought policies that have nothing to do with protecting children in the first place. Otherwise, my question is simple: Why didn't you implement this before?
Bookmarks