More on the David Cameron’s plan to install an "opt-in" switch to allow users to view porn, which Claire Perry calls a "comprehensive and pragmatic approach to tackling the key issues which threaten the safety of our children online."

Quoted ‘ Mr Cameron stated when asked if the opt-in system would mean a husband having to confess to his partner if he wanted to look at porn, Mr Cameron told Radio 5 Live: ‘If an adult wants to get rid of the filter on their computer, that’s up to them.’ Pressed on the issue, the Prime Minister eventually conceded: ‘Yes, it does.’

But in his defence *rofl* Cameron admits there ‘maybe’ problems down the line. He notes (sorry not sure of the source now) for example, that the erotic novel Fifty Shades of Grey, would likely still be accessible online. But of course unless the filter is ‘deactivated or declined’ reading ‘such’ material will lead where? But not to worry, filters will be activated but can be defaulted off. So hey, even more reassuring that freedom prevails.

So what will occur? Notification to the local police station, to your employer? Your knicker size? The newspapers frequently have topless pictures will there be a ‘do not look nipples alert added?

In the UK Claire Perry, the Tory MP who has led the campaign to launch the "porn filter" has had her website hacked with porn images. Of course she knew exactly who was to blame for this, or at least she thinks she does. Paul Staines founder of the Guido Fawkes blog isn’t too pleased at this allegation and plans to sue. Of course Perry just had to comment further on this, via her twitter account apologising for anyone affected by the hacking of her account. The report does mention that she mistook a screengrab with a link. I also read somewhere that she then continued to mention its time to cook tea now. Now that’s dedication.

Nicci Talbot interesting asks can Iceland ban internet porn? http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/nicc...b_2741403.html

She notes ‘We are a progressive, liberal society when it comes to nudity, to sexual relations, so our approach is not anti-sex but anti-violence. This is about children and gender equality, not about limiting free speech".

The ban will aim to censor 'violent' and 'hateful' porn that demeans women - a great idea in principle but who will decide what constitutes 'violent' and 'hateful' porn? Where does it leave non-vanilla sex - BDSM and other alternative genres? The US website Gawker quotes Justice Potter Stewart who said of hardcore pornography in a Supreme Court obscenity case: "I know it when I see it.”

So it seems some poor person will be locked away in a ‘private’ room to ‘research’ *cough* away. Can’t wait to see this employment offer go up for grabs.

One comment I did find really relevant, from a response to one of the articles along the lines ‘if you don’t want your children to look at porn, educate the parents’ totally agree.

Regards Sett