[kel varson]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandte ... -says.html

What do you guys think about this? At sounds like a good idea to me but it seems like it might be a little difficult to police.

I'm single and do not have children and the idea of having children in an internet age kind of scares me. Anything that makes the internet safer for kids, to me is a good idea.

[PAmedic]

this reader pretty much sums if up for me:

Mr. Burnham is just another in a line of dishonest politician:
"This is not a campaign against free speech, far from it; it is
simply there is a wider public interest at stake when it involves
harm to other people," says he.

But of course that's just what it is. And you can be sure that
Mr. Burnham and others of his ilk will be only too happy to tell
you what you can and can't read, what you can and can't say,
especially since they, not you, will determine what is in the
"wider public interest".

The only thing worse than disgusting web sites, are the disgusting politicians who assure you that they are not launching their
campaign to restrict free speech as a campaign to restrict free speech.

I'll watch my own kids, thanks- I don't need the government to tell me what they ought to be allowed to do or not do.
Responsibility starts at home. With PARENTING.

[SumItUp]

The idea of having a rating system combined with a filter is not a bad idea. The government being involved or having any association is a horrible idea.

[flamesbball84]

just makes it easier for the government and your ISP to regulate the information you receive. what if your governor and ISP don't like anti-obama websites? well this just makes it as easy as it can be to prevent you from being able to view them.

“There is content that should just not be available to be viewed. That is my view. Absolutely categorical. This is not a campaign against free speech, far from it; it is simply there is a wider public interest at stake when it involves harm to other people. We have got to get better at defining where the public interest lies and being clear about it.”

Who in the hell is he to decide what content should not be allowed to be viewed by any one single organism in the entire known universe?[/b]

[LUconn]

actually, there is a level of obscenity that is not legal. All 50 states have a line drawn. This is Virginia's definition of legally obscene:

"... that which, considered as a whole, has as its dominant theme or purpose an appeal to the prurient interest in sex, that is, a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, excretory functions or products thereof or sadomasochistic abuse, and which goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation of such matters and which, taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."

It's really not a new concept. The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the 1st amendment doesn't protect these types of things. What does annoy me is there is such a thing as a "Culture Secretary". How is this needed? And also that this is a fed talking about this crap. Different states allow different things. It's none of the Culture Secretary's concern.

[RagingTireFire]

It should be noted that the quoted article is from a British news outlet and their position of Culture Secretary has no American counterpart.

My opinion is that rating systems usually have the opposite effect of the do-gooder's intent. When TV ratings came in back into being back in the 90's, it pretty gave much gave free license to programmers to do anything they wanted so long as they put a "Mature" rating on it.

[flamesbball84]

actually, there is a level of obscenity that is not legal. All 50 states have a line drawn. This is Virginia's definition of legally obscene:

"... that which, considered as a whole, has as its dominant theme or purpose an appeal to the prurient interest in sex, that is, a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, excretory functions or products thereof or sadomasochistic abuse, and which goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation of such matters and which, taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."

It's really not a new concept. The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the 1st amendment doesn't protect these types of things. What does annoy me is there is such a thing as a "Culture Secretary". How is this needed? And also that this is a fed talking about this crap. Different states allow different things. It's none of the Culture Secretary's concern.

and that definition opens up a whole pandora's box of what is "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." so it's the role of the VA government and legal system to determine what is considered literary, artistic, political, and scientific? based on who many of the VA governmental figures are and who many of the people within the LPD are, I wouldn't want them to determine rather anything has any political or scientific value, much less literary and especially artistic value. I imagine many of the local representatives and LPD officials don't have much in the way of intellectual skills when it comes to art outside of what a beautiful dead animal is after a hunting trip...

[cheerbren]

I have 3 kids age 14, 9, 8 that use the internet for Webkinz and Disney stuff. The older one has a facebook and myspace and we monitor and tell her that we will look at her email inboxes and whatever else we want to at anytime. However, we Skype my parents and just about 20 minutes ago Candace nude asked to be our friends - luckily no one said yes but even with filters or ratings things get through the cracks. I agree with PA it starts with parenting. My computer is the in the middle of our family room and will not be used in a room. It does not mean my kids may not come across something - google does not filter well and utube is sometimes questionable.

[ALUmnus]

There was a request not too long ago to add a .xxx domain for all adult sites to use, but that was rejected. Seems like with a lot of these situations, you get some good but a lot of bad when you try to implement this stuff.

[LUconn]

I figured they were interviewing an american. How can anybody in the UK control the internet other than block it? I was under the impression that we (america) control all of that type of stuff. And the UN is always putting pressure on us to give it up to an international body.

[El Scorcho]

Avoiding bad things on the Internet is incredibly simple. However, most people are content to pay a couple of thousand dollars for a computer and let it sit without actually knowing how to use it. As long as they can get to the website "that commercial was talkin about", they're content to let it be a magic box they don't understand.

The Internet is electronic press. The government has no business censoring it. If you're worried about the type of content your children or your grandmother might stumble across, learn how to use the freakin' machine you paid too much money for at Best Buy. You are capable of doing this yourself and doing it better than any government agency ever could. Don't ask Uncle Sam to hire a nanny to make the magic box not show you things you don't like.

Besides, once the government has the ability to censor the web it's game over for free speech on the Internet. You can call me paranoid if you'd like, but the Internet is still a very fragile thing. I'm not at all convinced it will always exist such as it is right now.

[JMUDukes]

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' "

[RubberMallet]

being that i'm in the industry. there is no possible way you can protect children or anyone from bad things on the internet. right now, anonymity is so rampant and there are zillions of open relay servers that it only takes a short while before they get where they want. they will even stumble on it.

our pornography filter is a bit different as it doesn't rely on a list (uses the words on the page IE sees the word breast looks for words like chicken, cancer, actually analyzing the context of how words are being used) like most filters. however it still is not perfect. regardless of what the gvt does, kids will always get to what they want. you can make it difficult and slow them down but it doesn't matter.

the best solution from a home standpoint is monitoring. when the kids are old enough i will filter for pornography and also use monitoring software....the best one? from all i've seen Spectorsoft.

[LUconn]

when the kids are old enough i will filter for pornography and also use monitoring software

But until then you can have your fun!

[ALUmnus]

This wasn't such a big concern for me since I have two girls, but we just found out our next one due in May is a boy, so that changes things a bit. Who knows what things will look like in several years, but I plan on keeping the computer in a public part of the house so someone's eyes will always be on it. And of course monitoring usage after the fact.

[RagingTireFire]

Avoiding bad things on the Internet is incredibly simple. However, most people are content to pay a couple of thousand dollars for a computer and let it sit without actually knowing how to use it. As long as they can get to the website "that commercial was talkin about", they're content to let it be a magic box they don't understand.

The Internet is electronic press. The government has no business censoring it. If you're worried about the type of content your children or your grandmother might stumble across, learn how to use the freakin' machine you paid too much money for at Best Buy. You are capable of doing this yourself and doing it better than any government agency ever could. Don't ask Uncle Sam to hire a nanny to make the magic box not show you things you don't like.

Besides, once the government has the ability to censor the web it's game over for free speech on the Internet. You can call me paranoid if you'd like, but the Internet is still a very fragile thing. I'm not at all convinced it will always exist such as it is right now.

[RubberMallet]

when the kids are old enough i will filter for pornography and also use monitoring software

But until then you can have your fun!

correct

[El Scorcho]

. the best solution from a home standpoint is monitoring. when the kids are old enough i will filter for pornography and also use monitoring software....the best one? from all i've seen Spectorsoft.

I agree. I plan on filtering, but I also plan on running all computers in my home through computer-based router that will log everything. I'll have a script regularly parse the logs for keywords and email me if it finds anything. You know, automated parenting. I really don't want to be that bad, because I could certainly make the life of anyone using a computer in my house a living nightmare, completely devoid of privacy. Then again, maybe that's what kids on the Internet need.