In Bullying Facts, Bullying Laws, Cyber Safety, Internet Safety Trends

David Cameron works on banning pornography in the UK

David Cameron's work on banning porn in the UK, a step in the right direction.

In its annual reports, Google Inc has continuously revealed the word ‘porn’ as number one in the list of searches worldwide, yes, porn, not money or even soccer, said to the world’s favourite game. So let’s face it, online pornography is here with us and most people like it, if it were not so, it would never top Google’s charts. The UK Prime minister recently proposed a ban on online porn and as always, critics believe this banning pornography is an exercise in futility, but let’s be reasonable before passing any harsh judgements of Cameron’s new found war on online pornography.

As a parent, the UK Prime Minister is right because even those addicted to these graphic images would not allow their two-year olds to join them in watching the scenes, so Cameron is doing what any parent would do to protect his family from dangerous materials.

By virtue of being a parent in authority, Cameron has the power and accompanying instruments to see this ban through, so all parents with any moral values left in them should support this proposal. The reason many are critical of this ban on pornography is perhaps informed by the lack of understanding of what our society would look like if porn was free for all, including children.

One case that underscores the need for pornography ban, not only in the UK as proposed by Mr. Cameron but also in America, is the potential of perversion from continuous consumption of these images. America’s Theodore Robert Cowell, famously known at Ted Bundy is one serial killer in the country’s history that can help critics understand the possible outcomes of exposure to pornography. In his confession just before execution in 1989, he said to have brutally murdered 30 women, with authorities believing that the figure was conservative and his victims could have been much more than 30. The extra confession that he would visit the murder scenes as the bodies’ decomposed, to do sexual acts was even more graphic; in fact, he confessed to having kept the heads of some of his victims as souvenirs. Can it get creeper than that? But then how did all this start? Ted revealed that it all begun when he watched a single pornographic image as a child. Just one image and a cute little boy began his transformation into a monster.

Bundy’s case gives a glimpse into the repercussions of exposure to pornography at a tender age. The internet today has provided a platform for creation of millions of ‘Ted Bundys’. Through mobile phones and other internet enabled devices, children have a window into the ‘XXX’ world and that is what Mr. Cameron aims to limit and possibly stop.

Theguardian.com highlighted Mark Bridger’s case; he was found guilty of murdering five-year-old April Jones and confessed to deriving addiction from online sex–abuse videos. This case further affirms the negative outcomes of exposure to pornography and should persuade Cameron’s critics to support his noble course.

In as much as most, if not all adults love porn, exposing children to its contents is something the human race should support without appearing to be playing the role of world’s ‘moral police’. Denying families pornographic contents at the click of a button and instead requesting them to opt for it through subscription, will not clean up the UK, but provides the first step in stopping poisonous websites from children’s eyes. Let pornography be consumed by its intended adult audience.

Cameron’s proposed ban is a first step in the long journey to making the internet safe for not only children, but also adult consumers who could get addicted to pornography by default after randomly coming across these websites. It’s believed that even performers in the ‘loved’ videos would not allow their children to watch, so protecting children of innocent consumers is a good place to begin the pornography ban.

It should be understood that the ban as proposed by the UK Prime Minister is to limit access and not outlaw pornography entirely. Through subscription, adults will still enjoy porn, so there should be no fear among consumers.

Many compare this proposal to the UK’s Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) of 1991 that was instigated by the death of a child from vicious attack by a pit bull. But then, there are clear parallels between these two; the DDA of 1991 was founded on a single incident without proper review of root causes, Cameron’s pornography ban proposal is on the basis of a profiled and legitimate concern by a society in crisis, so it’s a war worth fighting.

Related Posts

Comment Here

Leave a Reply

Send Us Message

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>