Britain's Right-Wing Porn Hypocrisy--coming to America?

[FreeThinker]

The Conservatives in Parliament have made mandatory, effective next year, a porn filter on all ISP accounts that defaults to the Opt-In and if one wishes to view naughty things, one has to actually ask the ISP to opt-out. David Cameron says this is to protect the children. Bullshit. This is a perfect example of typical right-wing hypocrisy, declaring they don't like the nanny-state and then turning around like good nannies and telling us what we can and cannot do. If the British public does not demand an end to this hypocrisy and stupidity, how long will it be before the Republicans in the US decide that they can follow Cameron's lead and be hypocritical on yet another point? Why should I have to have my ISP's permission to do anything? And where will it stop? If the government can institute this on porn, what's next? What else will the government decide for us is not good for us? Or how will they abridge free speech even further?

Britain doesn't have the protections on Free Speech the US has, but the First Amendment won't stop the next Republican administration, particularly if they can put a clear Republican majority on the supposedly non-partisan Supreme Court.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/23/britain-s-idiotic-opt-in-porn-ban.html

[Nick Deverill]

I suspect the "porn ban" will catch far more than porn, sexual advice, NHS sites, perhaps even sites like this. It won't be a case though of needing your ISPs permission, they'll need your permission to not apply the filter.

True the present government is right wing, but I bet this is the sort of thing that'll attract all party support. And while it seems to them to be a good idea, I bet the computer literate 13 year old will find a way round it - might be as simple as using a proxy server.

[JamesSavik]

Both sides want to be the nanny- they just disagree with the definition of naughty.

Transfats or fire arms? 44 oz softdrinks or coal?

I think we'd win telling them both where to stuff their neo-puritianism.

A hint: it's all about the millionaires and the billionaires that back the parties. They decide that which is moral for the parties.

For instance: Obama's backers are heavily invested in solar energy. Obama's policy reflects that despite 9 out of 10 engineers that will tell you it a stupid idea.

There is no engineering fix for NIGHT.

[FreeThinker]

No one is suggesting using solar energy as the only source of power, but in conjunction with many sources.They each contribute.

I admit there is a great tendency for the left to be as closed-minded as the right and to be as intolerant of differing views. I suppose I am more afraid of the right because they are more intolerant of the things I value than is the left. However, the left does its share of violating people's rights and Nick has a good point that it is unlikely that Labour, should they replace the Tories after the next UK election, as is likely, will not vigorously oppose this latest outrage to freedom of speech. There is a strong anti-porn movement within the Progressive wing of American politics, as well. I'm not defending porn, or Holocaust deniers, or neo-Nazis, or any other controversial groups or classes. But I am defending their right to express their opinion and James has a point. The Left is just as guilty as the Right in restricting the Freedom of Speech. There are a lot of things I find repugant. I think climate change deniers are ignorant pawns of the hydrocarbon industry, but they have a right to be ignorant pawns of the hydrocarbon industry. Freedom of Speech must be defended because if we give someone the power to censor someone else, what will stop them from censoring us, me, you?

Just a quick note-- I am not saying that James is an ignorant pawn of the hydrocarbon industry. I was speaking in general, albeit a little sarcastically. :-) OK, so maybe I am defending porn, just a little. Um, well, just the porn with cute twinks getting rammed by... um Yes. well... never mind. <blush>

[Cole Parker]

I think solar power, and wind generator, and tidal machines, and all the rest, along with more engineering of fuel cells and hydrogen cells, makes more sense than sending money to the Middle East. We can certainly see how much good that has done.

Oil will run out, eventually. Not in my lifetime, but it will run out. So isn't it a good idea to find an alternative? I think so.

We have tons after tons after tons of coal. Why not find a way to make clean energy out of it? We have options, and find the best ones before they are needed makes good sense.

C

[JamesSavik]

Geothermal FTW.

All you need is enough heat to boil water. You only have to drill an average of ~750meters in most of the US. A little more in some places, less in others. Compared to the oil drillers, that's but a mere pin prick.

The sweet thing about geothermal that gives it the edge is that it is constant and clean. It doesn't require the heavy metals associated with solar cells- the manufacture on a large scale is very dirty (the Chinese are much less environmentally conscious- that's why we can never make them as cheap).

If you can replace coal, oil and natural gas for producing electricity, phase out uranium based nuclear plants and replace them with Thorium piles, your long term supply of fossil fuels will last much longer and can be used in applications where only hydrocarbons will do (like lubricants, plastics and pharmaceuticals that use them in much lower quantities).

Natural gas may be the easiest replacement for gasoline in the near term and we don't have to import it.