When the British Prime Minister (David Cameron) announced that later this year, online pornography prohibition measures would begin to work, there was a stir.
What is intended is protect the menores of the effects that access to these contents may have, but the detractors of the measure, defend freedom on the Internet, and criticize the hypocrisy of a society that will limit porn, but will allow children to continue having access to other inappropriate content .
The prohibition measures will initially be applied to new broadband users - also to those who change operators - as they will automatically have activated filters that block websites with adult content ... unless you explicitly report that you wish to explicitly deactivate this lock. Former users may request that filters be applied (as I understand it). Where is the problem then ?, Miguel Comín (of Alia2), comments that it is a situation similar to the one that happens with the 'premium' numbers, since if the adult wants to receive the content, it is as easy as calling the provider of Internet services.
Among the criticisms that this controversial decision has received, there are also claims that minors are still exposed to sex, for example when it is used to advertise different products.
And I say, okay, I don't like that eroticism surrounds us indiscriminately. But is a sensual image the same as images of domination of women (fundamentally), or sadism? In addition, we all know that all porn is not the same, and that even hardcore is available to minors.
Is it not right for a society to have control mechanisms to facilitate coexistence and / or protect minors? What then do you tell me about the prohibition on the dispensing of alcohol or tobacco, and the speed limitations on the road?
Protect minors: a shared responsibility
It is true that the main responsibility for children not to be exposed to pornographic content it's from the parents, but we can't tie our children inside the house. In other words, sometimes they go to friends' house ... wouldn't we want to be equally safe?
On the other hand, I would include in the debate about sexuality that parents try to keep at home with our children, pornography, especially from the age at which they can potentially be exposed, which stands at 10 years.
Why the 10? Because they have more freedom and go to other children's homes to play the video console, the tablet, or connect to the Internet. My son recently told me that he played a computer game about torture with some friends (why do many of you stay wide-eyed?), A friend's son has been a long time without confessing that in someone's house, the star game was about street gangs that beat prostitutes (my mother!). Who tells me that my child will not see one day (if he has not already done so) pornography?
It is true that I can still guide you directly, and that in a dangerous situation, it could prohibit him from going to someone's house, or talking to the mother of the other child, but is there a little help from the state?
As I said, I would cautiously include the topic in family conversations, to express my assessment, which may be ambivalent, because in principle I might have nothing against pornography and the freedom that many defend. But as I have said on occasion, I do not like the role of submission that women normally adopt; Not to mention that there are versions of porn that promote sadism.
Cameron has also called for some searches that contain certain terms not to return results on Google or Bing
But I still think that the main reflection that we should all assume is that we must protect children from content that does not correspond to them by age. And stop thinking that a measure like the one proposed by the British Government is moralistic, because the adjective that characterizes it is that it is eminently 'practical'.
