|
It's a thorny question - where does state intervention stop and parental responsibility start?
It's already common knowledge that filtering systems have limited success. Making an ISP have some filter will probably give parents a false sense of security, when in reality there will be ways around filters and those will be openly available to all teens who choose to dig a little, and even those who don't, if a more 'determined' friend visits and alters the laptop settings.
Some of the campaigners have a far more restrictive motivation than just blocking pornography, and some future government, if blocking ever came under their control, could use it to limit any activity which complains about their activities.
I can see the need for education (of parents, as well as youngsters) about the internet "good and bad", but see ISP/national filters as the wrong way to do this. NetIntelligence and others provide software solutions.
It was good to see that Mumsnet chose to withdraw their support for filtering, and a shame, in my view, that this is still going ahead. I hope Plus.Net won't make any changes.
There are "clean feed" solutions which parents could opt for (at relatively high cost, the last one I saw), but why should all customers have to fund such filtering when not all customers would wish to have any filtering? (Yes, any costs will be passed on, if not as a surplus fee, then I suspect in poorer customer service and other 'cost saving' measures which the ISPs choose to implement. Let's face it, some get a lot of criticism on CS already!)
|