No sex please we're British!

[Skyrad 0]

So Dave the UK PM, (Like the POTUS but not as big, important or tanned) is gonig to ban Porn form the internet in the UK (Yea, good luck with that).

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/cameron-one-click-protection-against-porn-045609534.html

From October users will have to opt in to see porn (supposedly). Would this be consitutional in the USA? Could BHO do the same?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Well, first off, BHO doesn't have the power to enact laws. He could propose it, and do a bunch of arm-twisting of congress-critters to get it introduced and passed, but he couldn't simply "do it."
For legislative purposes, all the President does is sign or veto stuff.

It's one of the major differences between our setup and yours.

This is a cartoon segment from the '70s, part of a series called "Schoolhouse Rock" that played in between Saturday morning cartoons. 3 minutes of how a bill becomes a law. here in the US.

I'm just a Bill

I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't pass constitutional muster.
Even serious, hardcore stuff is pretty much covered under "free speech" rules.

I get very, very nervous anytime the politician pull out the "For the innocent children" line.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[jakee 1,489]

Skyrad

So Dave the UK PM, (Like the POTUS but not as big, important or tanned) is gonig to ban Porn form the internet in the UK (Yea, good luck with that).

From the most staunchly conservative of the serious UK papers, Cameron doesn't understand the internet.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mr2mk1g 10]

Cameron doesn't have the power to enact laws either - in fact he doesn't even have the veto power BHO has. Overall, the two systems (US and UK) effectively work in very similar ways.

Cameron (and indeed, any MP) can propose a law, which gets drafted as a bill and laid before the lower house, voted on, amended, and goes through 3 readings and at least 1 committee stage. If passed by the lower house it's sent to the upper house who can vote on it and propose amendments and it again gets 3 readings and a committee stage. If not passed, it goes back to the lower house and bounces back and forth (basically) until there's a mutually acceptable version of the bill.

'Liz then signs off on it because that's "the done thing" and no monarch has ever refused in more than 300 years (ie, almost a hundred years before our friends on your side of the pond decided to do your own thing) and it would take one heck of a constitutional crisis for any modern monarch to withhold consent.

Any member of parliament, from any of the parties, can propose a law which Cameron doesn't like and get it passed through both houses if it has enough support. Equally he can blow all the hot air he likes in support an official government proposal which ends up going nowhere without sufficient support in parliament.

As such, overall he holds a lot less individual clout than BHO does. He is only the 'Prime Minister' after all - primus inter pares - the first amongst equals - at the end of the day he's just another a minister like all the rest.

Likewise, even if the law passed both houses without significant amendment, there's no saying the Court's would let it stand. Will probably just end up in the Supreme Court and declared against one human right or other... in the highly unlikely event it passed.



/here endeth the lesson

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Got it. Thanks. I really don't know exactly how a parliamentary system actually functions. From your description, it isn't all that different from our full Congress (House is lower, Senate is upper).

And that article Jakee linked is right on.

More posturing and "Doing SOMETHING" rather than taking effective steps toward actually addressing the problems.

Typical politicians doing typical garbage.
Not any different than over here.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[kelpdiver 2]

wolfriverjoe

Well, first off, BHO doesn't have the power to enact laws. He could propose it, and do a bunch of arm-twisting of congress-critters to get it introduced and passed, but he couldn't simply "do it."
For legislative purposes, all the President does is sign or veto stuff.

The President can and has done a lot of 'legislative action' via executive orders. There was some talk that Obama might get his gun control agenda put in that way in the face of a dead locked Congress.

It's pretty sketchy wrt the Constitution, but it's been the way of the country since before Nixon.

That said, this particular matter is an unlikely one to do that way. But I can easily see it passing muster in our puritanical society. Opt-in protects the children against smut masters and negligent parents. Sort of.

[lawrocket 3]

What you do is not say you are banning porn. Rather, what you are doing is "offering common-sense proposals to eliminate only the most dangerous and harmful pornography."

Proposal 1 would be to ban all porn where there is fluid transfer since it encourages unsafe sexual practices and the transmission of diseases, which have a significant cost and effect on interstate commerce.

All heterosexual sex is also irresponsible, since it both encourages violence and demeaning of women and such porn is also addictive. And thus common-sense solutions require elimination of hardcore genres showing insertion.

Nevertheless, we should be open to the LGBT community and thus, so long as safer sex practices are depicted, these should be available for public consumption.

Who can disagree with fighting the spread of disease and violence against women?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,026]

Thank you for that Modest Proposal, Jonathan.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

What else we can do is make pornography an issue of national security. Anybody found producing, distributing or possessing pornagraphy can be found to be taking actions against the policy of the US.

Or, subject the possession of porn to reasonable restrictions and background checks. A person may, after all, view the porn in a place where children may be present. Children may also obtain pornography that is not locked in a safe or otherwise secured.

Thus, we have to have some limitations on the possession of porn. For the children.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jgoose71 0]

lawrocket

What you do is not say you are banning porn. Rather, what you are doing is "offering common-sense proposals to eliminate only the most dangerous and harmful pornography."

Proposal 1 would be to ban all porn where there is fluid transfer since it encourages unsafe sexual practices and the transmission of diseases, which have a significant cost and effect on interstate commerce.

All heterosexual sex is also irresponsible, since it both encourages violence and demeaning of women and such porn is also addictive. And thus common-sense solutions require elimination of hardcore genres showing insertion.

Nevertheless, we should be open to the LGBT community and thus, so long as safer sex practices are depicted, these should be available for public consumption.

Who can disagree with fighting the spread of disease and violence against women?

So lesbian porn is OK as long as the women are not spanking each other?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Maybe the UK is (rightfully or wrongfully) reacting to this guy who has held high profile positions in education and government bureaucracy not only in Canada but also consulting in education practices in the UK and New Zealand and who recently was charged with numerous child pornography charges (which include the more serious charges of making and distributing child porn). You have to know his name though "Benjamin Levin", because the consensus mainstream media has done a very good job sweeping this story under the carpet after his arrest earlier this month. Why? Because he has been an insider to the Ontario Liberal Government's agenda to bring Gay, Lesbian and Transgendered sex education studies to children as young as 6 year old. Imagine that, an Edu-crat, responsible for helping to mold the sex ed curriculum to the youngest students up on charges of making and distributing child pornography. If this was a Conservative, the consensus mainstream media would be having a field day running daily scandal stories on him. But because he is one of them, a Liberal, it is swept under the carpet, his name known by only those who happened to catch brief glimpses of the story on the back pages of the news the day he was arrested.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[turtlespeed 220]

CanuckInUSA

Maybe the UK is (rightfully or wrongfully) reacting to this guy who has held high profile positions in education and government bureaucracy not only in Canada but also consulting in education practices in the UK and New Zealand and who recently was charged with numerous child pornography charges (which include the more serious charges of making and distributing child porn). You have to know his name though "Benjamin Levin", because the consensus mainstream media has done a very good job sweeping this story under the carpet after his arrest earlier this month. Why? Because he has been an insider to the Ontario Liberal Government's agenda to bring Gay, Lesbian and Transgendered sex education studies to children as young as 6 year old. Imagine that, an Edu-crat, responsible for helping to mold the sex ed curriculum to the youngest students up on charges of making and distributing child pornography. If this was a Conservative, the consensus mainstream media would be having a field day running daily scandal stories on him. But because he is one of them, a Liberal, it is swept under the carpet, his name known by only those who happened to catch brief glimpses of the story on the back pages of the news the day he was arrested.

And because he didn't coach a football team, he doesn't get the recognition he deserves.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[davjohns 1]

That's pretty disturbing.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[babz 0]

I am a bit curious as to what ole Dave is trying to distract us from. Personally I think the proposal is badly thought out (well its not a proper proposal yet) and will be dropped.

There seems to be a few veins to this to try and curb access to legal porn between consenting adults (gender irrelevant), but seems to blur the issue with protecting children from accessing material and the more heinous proposal of throwing images of child abuse into the equation too.

If the government want to enforce a series of ISP filters in place to protect kids - then cool, as long as I don't have to pay more for it in my subscription and it comes off as default. The emphasis on opt in not opt out, because holding a list of people who've opted out of filters can be misused to profile individuals (does it matter if a person applying for a sensitive job looks at porn?)

The real gripe is that it doesnt matter what the UK.gov do, the internet is too big, too distributed and encryption is cheap. If they ban all these things then you'll likely see a spike in services like Tor which open encrypted sessions for which the UK.gov can't decode so an ISP filter is therefore bypassed (blocking encrypted traffic would shaft a lot of banks, businesses and anyone who wants security on the web).

[jakee 1,489]

No offence dude, but it's probably because he's Canadian. I mean, Canada - who cares?

Secondly, the timing isn't great either. Bad news gets diluted, the more of it there is, the less powerful each bit becomes. There have been so many high profile people charged or accused of child rape or molestation recently that one more guy who's 'just' writing child porn isn't going to stir up a whole heap of much at all.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?