Last week, I complained about the anti-porn legislation that British prime minister David Cameron has proposed for Britain. I asked this question:
Why is sexual obscenity the only area that presents a sufficient threat to British virtue to justify action? Once this opt-in list is extant, what will prevent the government from adding other indecent terms to it? Why would it elect to put a firewall around pornography? Why not include also any of the viewpoints whose expression the British have made illegal and whose advocates the British ban from their country?
Funnily enough, per the Huffington Post:
The United Kingdom’s new internet filters promise to block much more than just pornography, according to a report by the digital advocacy organization Open Rights Group.
Last week, Prime Minister David Cameron announced online porn would soon become automatically blocked in order to “protect children and their innocence.” The filters will be implemented by the UK’s major internet service providers, which encompass 95% of British web users.
Based on conversations with several ISPs, Open Rights Group says the new “parental controls” will reach far beyond pornography. By default, the controls will block access to “violent material,” “extremist and terrorist related content,” “anorexia and eating disorder websites,” and “suicide related websites.”
In addition, the new settings will censor websites that mention alcohol or smoking. The filter will even block “web forums” and “esoteric material,” though Open Rights Group does not specify what these categories would include.
The rest here.