Sunday, January 04, 2009

We know The Obama isn't 2nd Amendment-friendly

but I wonder how much attention this has gotten?
In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Andy Burnham says he believes that new standards of decency need to be applied to the web. He is planning to negotiate with Barack Obama’s incoming American administration to draw up new international rules for English language websites.
So has this nanny already talked to The One and his staff, or is this a 'I want to'?

Giving film-style ratings to individual websites is one of the options being considered, he confirms. When asked directly whether age ratings could be introduced, Mr Burnham replies: “Yes, that would be an option. This is an area that is really now coming into full focus.”

ISPs, such as BT, Tiscali, AOL or Sky could also be forced to offer internet services where the only websites accessible are those deemed suitable for children
Ah yes, 'forced'. Because "Only WE are knowledgable/smart/caring enough to decide what you and your kids can see on the internet."

“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.”

Mr Burnham reveals that he is currently considering a range of new safeguards. Initially, as with copyright violations, these could be policed by internet providers. However, new laws may be threatened if the initial approach is not successful
And the"All-Knowing Nanny-State will decide what can and cannot be viewed. But it's not censorship, oh no; that's what someone else does: with us, it's being caring overlordskeepers. Er, you know what we mean."

Mr Burnham, himself a parent of three young children, says his goal is for internet providers to offer “child-safe” web services.

“It worries me - like anybody with children,” he says. “Leaving your child for two hours completely unregulated on the internet is not something you can do. This isn’t about turning the clock back. The internet has been empowering and democratising in many ways but we haven’t yet got the stakes in the ground to help people navigate their way safely around…what can be a very, very complex and quite dangerous world.”

Tell you what, you miserable little tyrant wannabe, it's very simple: Don't Let Your Children Browse Around All By Themselves. How about that, instead of planning massive censorship by another name because you're too chickenshit to honestly say what you want to do?

And again, is this something The Lightbringer has already been discussing?

Considering the leanings of the Brit government lately, I can see it now: jihad sites with unbelievers having their heads cut off left alone out of 'cultural sensitivity' while sites protesting such are shut down. Just effing wonderful.


Robohobo said...

Shades of the Chicoms.

[Move along. Nothing to see here. These are not the freedoms that you thought you had.]

GunGeek said...

Not to mention that there are already ISPs that provide filtered internet access in case you're worried about the little one's eyes seeing something you'd rather they not see...

There's no legitimate reason for the government to force a service on its subjects that is currently being provided by private industry.