Why riot when they can apparently opt in to get theirs? Even if they lose, they still keep their pornography and the government is able to put a lock and key on those who aren't going for it. Granted, it does bring the ominous reality of a government spying on its citizens to light, but given the context they're doing what any intelligence agency would when it comes to the general well-being of their people. The act allows interested parties to consult with their ISPs to allow this sort of content to filter through. It puts another step in the way of accessing what they would otherwise normally access, but it isn't exactly a ban so much as it is a step towards fostering a better home for the average family.
Will it work? I really doubt it, and it's hard to say. Prohibition flat out doesn't work in the US and the stats they give on India's obvious problem with female treatment, not to mention human trafficking, is horrifying. There may not be a correlation between the ban and the reaction of desperate people trying to get theirs, but this does straddle the dangerous line of censorship. Their government had the good measure to allow ISP patrons that disagree to continue what they're doing so long as they're aware of the fact they're being monitored, which is another situation entirely. That should be the focus on these matters, not so much that a ban is in place but that there is a monitor gathering all this pornographic consumption data, to be used for better or worse.
This looks like one of those two-way street laws: give us a little of your freedom so we'll allow you to continue to dive into the darker dens of the internet. Fair trade for those in dire straits, yes? At least it'll win Cameron the right wing "Feminazi who wears their ovaries on their outside" vote.
Home 
Wed Jul 24, 2013 12:58 pm
