PORN BLOCK

Words: ALEX HORNE
August 11, 2013

The greatest moment of ineptitude came when MP Claire Perry, one of the most vocal in support of these new measures, had her page ‘Goatsed’. Her response was to threaten Guido Fawkes with a lawsuit for ‘hosting a link that distributed porn via my website’ just because he reported the hack. If that quote makes no sense to you that’s because it doesn’t make any sense. The woman’s knowledge of how technology works is possibly on a par with my Grans and she put my iPod in her VHS player.


art by Mary Naylor

As many of you lecherous perverts are no doubt aware, David Cameron, in his infinite wisdom, has decided that one of the most imminent threats to the people of Britain is access to pornography. Consequently, by 2014 he plans to force Internet service providers to block 2sites that contain ‘explicit material’ by default.

This move is purportedly to prevent the ‘corrosion of childhood’ by protecting children from accidentally viewing adult material and simultaneously somehow clamping down on online child pornography. The fact that children are highly skilled in accessing things that aren’t meant for them seems not to have crossed David’s mind. Similarly, just as terrorists don’t make plans through Gmail, only the most inept paedophiles would trade child porn on a site anyone could access. Cameron also seems to be blissfully unaware of the constant barrage of sexualised imagery children face everyday in every media format.

Of course, I don’t really believe our PM has overlooked these things. If he did, an easy first step to make would be to draw some attention to the anachronistic tradition of page three, or maybe to rid our nation’s talent shows of the soft porn performances which take place every week by idolised mega stars.

To properly address the issues David Cameron claims to want to tackle would require a sustained attempt to overcome the type of sexism that has become so engrained in our culture that it is seen as inevitable. It would require a reasoned analysis of our attitudes to sex and a concerted effort to encourage parents to supervise their children properly. None of these options, however, are vote winners.

The most optimistic view one can take of these new proposals is that they are unashamed pandering. However if you ask around these new measures don’t appeal to anyone. The Daily Mail claim to have ‘championed’ this cause however a cursory glance at their always entertaining comments section reveals that even the tragic hoards who patronise the publication have the mental capacity to see that it is a pointless and wasteful exercise.

Not only have the Government once again revealed themselves to be completely insulated from the wishes of the people, they have also displayed, in spectacular fashion, their complete lack of grasp on the basics of how this technology works. Cameron has stated that internet firms must use their ‘greatest brains’ to overcome the problems he is foisting on them with his new demands. This is despite the fact that China has a decade head start in censoring the internet, and still can’t control it.

David lazor

art by mary naylor www.marynaylor.com

The greatest moment of ineptitude came when MP Claire Perry, one of the most vocal in support of these new measures, had her page ‘Goatsed’. Her response was to threaten Guido Fawkes with a lawsuit for ‘hosting a link that distributed porn via my website’ just because he reported the hack. If that quote makes no sense to you that’s because it doesn’t make any sense. The woman’s knowledge of how technology works is possibly on a par with my Grans and she put my iPod in her VHS player.

Now, if you’ll permit me to take off my condescending pope hat and replace it with my slightly tin foil-esque pirate hat I have another theory behind the motivations for this blacklist.

The ruling powers in the world share two top priorities. The first is ensuring that the Endless War remains just that: endless. Whether this is through engagement in proxy wars, drone wars or waging war against constructed enemies who can be redefined and therefore never beaten (terrorism, the war on drugs blah blah blah…). The second priority is to gain some control over that slippery beast: The Internet.

At a time when deep web, Bitcoins and 3D printers are presenting opportunities to truly challenge the capitalist paradigm it is entirely logical that governments would want to step up their game in this area, and Britain is no exception.

First we had Theresa May trying to push her Snoopers Charter onto an unwilling public backed by clichéd screeching about preventing terrorism. This was followed by Snowden’s whistleblowing through which we discovered that the government had been doing a lot more than ‘snooping’ on our internet activity. Protest was silenced by more references to national security and the dreaded T-word.

The government has changed tack slightly when introducing their latest plans to curtail web freedom; terrorism has been replaced with child pornography. After all, if there’s one thing people hate more than a terrorist, it’s a peado. And if you combine the two you have a red top journalist’s wet dream.

The ironic punch line to this next step in censorship is that under the guise of protecting our youth, we become further infantilised. And too right ay. How can we be expected to turn our own internet porn filters on? It was only a matter of time before an 11 year old wanked himself into oblivion. Three cheers for Cammy, the brave bastard has probably watched every last megabyte of porn, such was the depth of his research.

The damage goes further than just snatching our ability to make a decision though. Long have governments used the following method to keep the public in both adoration of the state and in fear of their own faculty for decision making:

1. Find them
2. Frighten them
3. Solve their problem.

The ‘threat’ of pornography isn’t based on anything concrete. It’s Government busy work, used to keep us shrieking thanks at them, for saving us from evil, only to have the all-to-convenient side affect of shifting the docile public’s topic of debate. Suddenly, a load of people stop giving a cunt hair about PRISM or the Manning Trial, they only give a cunt’s hair about cunt hairs.

I reckon we’ll probably get the axe for having three X’s in our web address!


< Back