Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Well that'd definitely cut down on trolls. But i think it'd do more harm than good because there's lots of web sites geared towards kids.
Maybe parent control would work better.

Shoot him

This Andy Burnham guy is a total fucking wanker and is not fit for government. He hates civil liberties too; not only does he love censorship but he also loves detention without charge, searches without warrants, limits on protesting, and everything else this FUCKING STUPID government has taken from us. He seems like the beating heart of Orwellian nonsense. Send him nasty emails.

At 12/27/08 06:57 PM, Earfetish wrote: Send him nasty emails.

Done.

Also, the regulation of age or IQ would put a huge strain on the government. They wouldn't dare do that for multiple reasons.

At 12/27/08 02:27 PM, RKThrilla wrote:

At 12/27/08 02:24 PM, Eyeguy wrote:

At 12/27/08 01:32 PM, TheGyro wrote: I think that instead of an age limit, there should be an IQ test.

Score below 105, small children, will not have access

IQ does not increase with age, it is constant from birth.

O really?

I would like to set up an IQ test between my past self of age 7 months, and me now.

So we're going to get the same IQ score? I doubt it..

I thought that your IQ score was divided by your age, so a person who is much younger than someone but just as smart would have a higher IQ because they are younger? Unless Im wrong of course

Damn... IRC channels will still be good for stuff.

At 12/27/08 06:57 PM, Earfetish wrote: This Andy Burnham guy is a total fucking wanker and is not fit for government. He hates civil liberties too; not only does he love censorship but he also loves detention without charge, searches without warrants, limits on protesting, and everything else this FUCKING STUPID government has taken from us. He seems like the beating heart of Orwellian nonsense. Send him nasty emails.

The terrible thing is that our government is just getting started. Remember Milibands comments about forcing other countries to accept Democracy, if we have to do it by force?

I guess the Iraq war really wasn't about oil - it was about ideology.

At 12/27/08 07:09 PM, StationToStation wrote: The terrible thing is that our government is just getting started.

I don't ever want to vote for them but I'm looking forwards to the Tories getting in. At least they say they care about our civil liberties.

At 12/27/08 07:31 PM, MrCongeniality wrote:

At 12/27/08 01:13 PM, mranarchy wrote: Oh Lawd

Where will the 13-year-old-kids go for their Porn Flash games now if this shit goes ahead?

I'm fine with a ratings system, just as long as it doesn't regulate people who won't use the content filters it provides. If it does, then I'll fight against it as much as I can.

He insisted he was not trying to curb free speech, but wanted to protect the public from unacceptable" material.

It said on an older version things like beheading videos should be illegal. Just like they made 'violent' pornography illegal, the fucking CUNTS AHAHAHAHASHQS fuck it makes me so fucking mad

And anyway, do you think a regular Joe is gonna pay money to the government so his site can be rated and monitored? Nope. Every website will be rated 18 because it will only be a select few large corporations that will put their money forwards; kids will be allowed to view Disney.com but not browse the internet.

And if you don't have to pay for your website, then it's even worse - in this economic climate the government are planning to hire loads of people at the taxpayer's expense so they can rate EVERY website? And what about dynamic websites like forums?

At 12/27/08 01:13 PM, mranarchy wrote: Oh Lawd

Where will the 13-year-old-kids go for their Porn Flash games now if this shit goes ahead?

seeing as its a British website this doesnt relate to me and its 12 - 13 year olds who ruin it for everyone seriously I'm 18 and i'm mature

"Other safeguards mooted by Burnham include compelling websites such as YouTube and Facebook to remove offensive material within a specified time after they have been alerted to it, and changing Britain's libel laws to make it cheaper for people to sue publishers if they have been defamed online."

If these laws/regulations go ahead, this will ultimately be the most damaging aspect of them. Britain's libel laws are already absolutely draconian; making it even easier to sue people for content published online will essentially lead to a further curtailment of freedom of speech and will simply scare off people who otherwise would have published risque/controversial/offensive/investiga tive content because they know they will almost inevitably end up in court for it. Thus nullify the whole point of the internet.

Appalling, despicable cunts.

nullifying*

motherfucker

At 12/27/08 10:21 PM, Mr-Pope wrote: libel

our libel laws are so terrible that we are the only country mentioned on the wikipedia page for 'libel tourism'. Seriously we need a total overhaul of some laws in England

Too late, the internet has already messed me up with it's violent, offensive stuff you would only see on the internet (Pain olympics, 4chan, rotten, beheading videos, etc).

Information is volatile when placed in the hands of humans.

And power?

Don't get me started.

If they even pass this, the first thing people will do is find ways around it.

I think I'm personally going to have to move into politics just to sort all this shit out. Just sit tight for a decade or so gentleman.

The IQ test idea would leave 4Chan empty.

"to protect children from harmful and offensive material..."
Is where I stopped reading. Children do not need to be protected from offensive material.
Silly.