Is the guy a scumbag? Obviously. Should people go to jail for speaking their mind? That's probably where we diverge and think each other are crazy, but the key is: if you can be put in jail for, say, racism then a corrupt government need only make disagreement be framed as racist, for example. It's safer to just allow anyone to say what they want (with obvious exceptions like yelling "FIRE!") and point out why their argument is stupid.
For some balance, the USA didn't let someone into the country because of their tweets: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093796/Emily-Buntin...
Has anyone given it a name? It would be nice to call people out on this.
Excuse me?
But yeah... we're not banning porn. We're not even actually going to start using an opt-in / opt-out system, either.
It's not /law/ yet, but once all the ISPs fall in line, it won't need to be law.
The UK didn't pass a porn ban. Some ISPs now offer an "opt-out" option for people who want the ISP to block things for them.
[edit] Just to clarify, by "opt-in", I'm referring to opting in to receive everything. Perhaps "opt-out" in reference to opting out of the block, is clearer.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/talktalk-to-offer-paren...
Mobile networks have always done silly blocking, and it takes a phone call to them to ask them to remove it. I assume it's more about them not wanting you to use more data than anything else.
It's a bit ridiculous (from the article) "meaning that any new TalkTalk users who require access to such content will first have to "opt-in" through a highly embarrassing call to customer services."
It's hardly "highly embarrassing" to ask them to remove a filter.
If they do go that route though, and as the article claims, ask you to opt-out once a year, then they'll simply lose customers to ISPs that don't hassle their customers.
I completely disagree. Many people would be very embarrassed phoning up to have an adult content filter removed. You can argue that they shouldn't be, but that's a different thing altogether.
US is actually not that far behind from doing this and more - Constitution or not. They'll just pass the laws and deal with it 10-20 years later. After all US still has the Patriot Act, and that never seemed too constitutional to me.
What's funny is that the Eastern Europe countries are probably the least likely to go this path anytime soon, and that's because it wasn't that long ago when they had revolutions over this kind of thing. But UK and US hasn't really done that in a long time, so neither the Governments nor the people there really get what it means to have mass-surveillance and have the Government know everything you did or want to do, and how bad of a thing that truly is.