A government ban on internet porn? It’s what Jesus would want

December 22nd, 2010 12 Comments By Paul Smith

5249613624 eae6609d6d m A government ban on internet porn? Its what Jesus would wantEarlier in the week we reported on the government’s plans to request ISPs block all websites considered pornographic in nature, and force the adults that pay for online access to request permission to view specific sites. Why was this being considered? Because, according to minister Ed Vaizey, the government wanted to relinquish the ISP’s customers of parental responsibility and ensure children couldn’t view inappropriate material.

So what forces may be behind this improbablyeattempt to censor the intamaweb and relieve those lazy parents who use it as a pacifier?

The website Liberal Conspiracy picked up on the BBC’s reporting of the story, and noted that a woman called Miranda Suit was quoted extensively in their coverage, a woman with very strong Christian values:

We must not forget the influence of the media: it needs much stronger regulation so that our young people are not constantly conditioned by violent films, video games and lyrics; pornography must be outlawed so that it cannot undermine marriage and the dignity of women and encourage sex crime. All schools should teach Christian values.

The BBC doesn’t mention Suit’s views are religiously motivated, or provide any background on the watchdog Suit co-founded, Safer Media. In fact there’s next to nothing about Safer Media online, except for on the website of an organisation called Media March:

Safermedia is a Charity seeking to reduce the harmful effects of the media on our children, families and society.

We engage in raising awareness, educating and supporting the public, monitoring the media, highlighting relevant academic research, and lobbying.

At least Media March comes forward in revealing it is a religiously motivated pressure group. But what of the link between violence and pornography in media, and the ‘harmful effects’ on society? Go no further than the Media March website, where ‘proof’ is delivered in the form of a quote from The Guardian:

The debate over the effect of violent films looks set to be revived after reports emerged that Derrick Bird watched the grisly Steven Seagal film On Deadly Ground hours before embarking on a shooting rampage last Wednesday in which he killed 12 other people and injured 11.

The 1994 film, which Seagal directed and starred in, centres on an environmentalist oil rig worker who, aggrieved after he learns faulty equipment is damaging Alaskan wildlife, goes on a murderous rampage against his co-workers and employees.

It’s all Steven Seagal’s fault, then.We suspected as much.

Out of interest, who founded the high profile Media March, which holds annual conferences at the Houses of Parliament, and has MPs not only speaking but sponsoring the events? Miranda Suit, that’s who.

Given their current flair for the idiotic, it’s possible the Government dreamt up their scheme to ban internet pornography themselves. However, it now seems that agenda dovetails perfectly with a religious campaign group already engaging MPs and recruiting them to their cause.

Comments (12) Jump to most recent comment
  1. Posted by klingelton December 22, 2010 at 11:24 am

    “pornography must be outlawed so that it cannot undermine marriage and the dignity of women and encourage sex crime”

    WTF – apparently only blokes watch skin flicks. now that’s a rather large assumption.

    i think the porn industry should speak up over the loss of earnings they’re likely to incurr over these restrictions.

    I’d like to say it will never pass, however – the digital economy bill passed, and that’s a load of tripe.

  2. Posted by Marky Mark December 22, 2010 at 11:49 am

    Religion meanwhile has never harmed anybody.

    No wars, no bombing innocent people on tube trains, no abortion clinics being torched. Priests don’t abuse children, families aren’t broken up, acolytes are never instructed to sell their homes to fund TV evangelism, “expansion into new markets”, or for personal gain. Lambeth Palace is actually a restrained and basic refuge for the homeless, the priceless works of art in the vaults of Rome are all fake, the golden temples are just simply painted. Women in developing nations are never encouraged to have a baby a year till they (and their children) die early because they are following God’s instruction. The Vatican holds no shares in contraception companies or Swiss armaments factories, HIV has never been spread because protection is against holy law.

    The sight of consenting adults shagging each other is much, much worse than that, and should be banned.

  3. Posted by Internet Troll December 22, 2010 at 12:53 pm

    What about lesbian porn, where there isn’t a penis involved? Would that be banned?

  4. Posted by Marky Mark December 22, 2010 at 1:08 pm

    @ Internet Troll

    There would be no need for it to be banned, because lesbianism is a sin against God, and that merciful God instructs that you should kill them. It’s for their own good.

    I tell you what else should be banned: mirrors in bedrooms. I mean, what would happen if you saw a glimpse of yourself in flagrante delicto?

  5. Posted by Zleet December 22, 2010 at 1:30 pm

    The pure unadulterated joy I get from crap like this is when one of the instigators bleating about family values and the evils of sex is inevitably found found hanging from a doorframe with a giant dildo up his arse in an asphyxiwank gone wrong.

  6. Posted by oliverreed December 22, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    Fuck Jebus!

  7. Posted by Hannah December 22, 2010 at 4:32 pm

    The assumption that porn leads to violence against women is ludicrous. We have some
    strict laws on what acts of violence can be shown in porn. But in Japan, where some of the most violent porn is made, there is less violence per capita than here in the United States.

  8. Posted by Derby_k December 23, 2010 at 4:29 am

    Gotta love soccer moms

  9. Posted by Zleet December 23, 2010 at 4:03 pm

    Jesus freaks.

    If it makes them feel dirty and sinful then they have to ruin everyone else’s fun.

  10. #Posted by Internet Troll | December 22nd, 2010 at 12:53 pm
    “What about lesbian porn, where there isn’t a penis involved? Would that be banned?”

    Only for those evincing an… unhealthy… level of interest in it — such as yourself, now that you ask.

  11. Posted by Why? October 11, 2011 at 3:53 pm

    Jesus didnt exist for me so this title really annoys me!!!
    Porn ban, has anyone ever heard of downloads??
    u cant just block porn there is always around e.g. page 3 on newspapers or bbc at night!!!

  12. Posted by Nick wajasey September 5, 2014 at 3:34 pm

    If someone took off their clothes down the street they would be arrested for streaking.
    The reason porn stars get away with their mentally ill profession is because it makes money.
    Another fake orgasm another dollar.
    The feminists and feminists males say these whores are oppressed but I say they are the oppressors.
    Communist liberals call this freedom.
    Note its also freedom to walk across a highway with a blindfold on.
    It doesn’t matter whether you are religious or not.
    Porn stars are trailer thrash.
    The peoples republic of America has turned into a big softy.
    Soft on whores soft on liberals soft in the head.

Leave a Reply *(required)