Will Anti-Wanking Legislation finally secure Government Control of Internet Access?

Left to its own devices, it’s the nature of government to gradually seek to control all aspects of your life, which is why in a real democracy we periodically change administrations. It effectively resets such creeping ambitions. Over the last three decades, there’s one area that governments all around the world have tried to bring to heel without much success, and that’s the internet.

Various schemes have been tried, such as; voluntary rating of content, hiding disapproved of sites from search results and even Microsoft touting around something they called an internet passport.

Voluntary codes that would rate the content of a site were to be set by the site’s operators, if they could really be bothered, but who exactly was going to check, enforce and hand out punishments to the nonconformists was left suitably vague for several reasons. The geographic and legislation problems with such a course are huge, as is the not so minor point of who’s going to be footing which portions of the various bills that would arise.

If you’re in Caen France, trying to persuade someone operating a tit and ass site in Stettin Poland which is running on a server in Canberra Australia to conform to some rating system dreamt up by some boy scout in Salt Lake City Utah, you’re always going to find it a bit of an uphill struggle. And anyway, all that bureaucracy and some sort of vague enforcement capacity could only swing into action after you’d somehow agreed to synchronise legislation all around the world. The idea was always going to be a non-starter.

The second idea was to lean on the big search providers like Google to drop from search results sites you wanted to restrict access to. This is already happening in certain cases such as the Google search engine in China only returning links to sites the Chinese dictatorship approves of. After hopping into bed with regimes like that, it’s no wonder Google dropped its “don’t be evil” motto last year. So much for it putting on the mantel of representing itself as the internet’s standard-bearer of moral rectitude. Their treatment of James Damore last year hammered a wooden stake through the heart of any such self-congratulatory notion.

The problems with censoring search results are manifold. You have to credit the average internet user with having the smarts to realise it’s happening and simply switch to another search engine that isn’t working hand in glove with their government against them. Mostly the search companies tend to be collaborating in the usual pursuit of a buck and under threat of their access to a certain country being curtailed unless they oblige, though since all the internet giants are hopelessly biased towards the liberal globalist viewpoint, you can’t rule out they’re just doing it for the cause, essentially acting like political censors.

As I write this piece on the morning of Saturday 12th January 2019, the French Yellow Jackets are protesting all over France. As has by now become customary with the Yellow Vests revolution now in its ninth week, the MSM are silent on it but more tellingly, so is Google and its wholly owned subsidiary YouTube. A search for “yellow vest live coverage” on the latter produces a page of month old video clips. I’m sure real-time video content being uploaded right now is in the results somewhere, but either placed right on the last page of results or in a waiting loop until the weekend’s protests are safely over.

Once you realise search engine providers are co-operating with governments, it suddenly becomes a lot easier to believe those what you’d previously considered to be slightly off the wall conspiracy theories, such as mass surveillance of search queries to pick out people of interest looking for information on certain trigger topics for Kafkaesque government surveillance agencies.

Another way to cut off access is to pressure ISPs to block their customer’s access to a particular site. This has been used with not a great deal of success by companies obtaining court orders against sites providing links to movies and series for downloading. This legal process can only be done on a site by site and ISP by ISP basis, and is therefore a necessarily slow process. It also has the disadvantage that it can only be applied by an open court of law where a breach of intellectual property can be proven – in this specific case, downloading copyrighted videos.

A more comprehensive approach used by totalitarian regimes is to put in place a software wall around your whole country that is used to screen out foreign sites which the government disapproves of while subversive domestic sites are dismantled by the internal secret police. The biggest example of this approach is called the Great Firewall of China which filters everything an internet user in China sees. For all the money, effort and manpower expended, it’s still quite porous to the exchange of free ideas.

Microsoft’s idea of an internet passport didn’t find much traction with anybody, most especially the governments, because they wanted to be the only ones controlling access to the internet, not bloody Microsoft which had already by that stage got a webwide monopoly stranglehold with its Windows operating system which also came with its free Internet Explorer bundled into it. Anyway, according to what’s by now a conspiracy theory with whiskers on it, it was much simpler for government to insist Microsoft added in a few talk back to the NSA bits to their products.

The latest idea to limit access is a law coming into force this April in Britain. Nominally, it’s aimed at denying access by the underage to porno sites and the mechanism being used is the presentation at the site of your credit card details, even if you’re not going to make a purchase, or by supplying the details on a Pay as you Wank card you’ll be able to buy over the counter at your local shop. The shopkeeper will, of course, verify your age.

It’ll be interesting to watch the flurry of web development that won’t happen before the April deadline. Why should every porno site around the world spend money developing an access mechanism just to accommodate a little island off the coast of Europe? As for it stopping pubescent youth of either gender accessing good old-fashioned raunchy material, it’ll never happen since as every adult knows, if you’ve a problem with your internet, just ask your average sixteen-year-old what the work around is.

Failing that, if there’s one facility on the internet that’s over represented, it’s discussion forums and chat rooms where a plea for help or a question left behind will be answered by a zillion how-to-do-it replies ranging in expertise from Laika in orbit to some of the smartest arses on the planet. At least one of the replies will do the double for you; something that works and something you kinda understand.

You can get around such an access restriction using a vast array of hacks. Lots of things like old school wheezes such as replacing the desired URL in a certain way with the four numbers it’s translated into by DNS servers, using something called IP address chaining tweaked to hide where you’re coming from and going to or using a VPN with custom crafted IP addresses – the list goes on and on, but nowadays you don’t need to do any sort of super-slick hacker stuff like that or even understand what all those buzz words at the start of this sentence mean.

All you need to do is to download the TOR software and install it with its custom Firefox internet browser and you’re through. You’ll also be much better protected from snooping, by the way.

If it’s actually so easy to bypass such a restriction, you have to ask why it’s being done, especially when the technical and legal advice given was that it was neither practical or enforceable. A facile answer is it was just the traditional trivial signal by one or two MPs to their constituents and to the moral crusader wing of the party that they were actually doing something in parliament, while what they were actually doing was nothing more than wasting valuable legislative time.

When you start to think through all the permutations of how a site can be distributed around the world, the international legal reach of any domestic legislation and whether the user is foreign or domestic and accessing a foreign or domestic site, it quickly becomes clear exactly how unworkable it is.

A more devious reading of the motivation behind it is that it’s trying to establish a mechanism, and put the administrative procedures in place, to prevent access to any sort of site, not just the T&A variety. Perhaps so, but even then the very same workarounds would apply.

At this point in time, the given knowledge about restricting internet access is that it’s an arms race with new kinds of barriers going up and ways being constantly found to get through them, but that would be wrong. My experience of watching it for decades is that it’s more like guerrilla warfare. Bases and barriers and walls are set up, but the guerrilla always figures out a way to get through. He can perhaps be hindered, perhaps slowed down for a while, but it’s a war that can’t be won.

On any practical level, the scheme is doomed to never be used anyway. Who the hell is going to risk keying in their credit card details to a dodgy porno site anyway? How eager do you think credit card providers are to have their product used as a porno pass? The punter will just use the simplest workaround that’ll be available all over the internet the day after the legislation is enacted. Like too many well-intended initiatives such as Prohibition, it’ll just encourage previously law-abiding people to break the law.

All throughout human history, people have always liked looking at erotica and that’s not going to change no matter how many laws are passed. The walls of the whore houses in Pompeii are covered in paintings to elicit a response by any patron, no matter what their particular sexual persuasion, and bear in mind Pompeii, like its close neighbour Herculaneum, was a seaside recreation town. One thing I’ve absolutely no doubt about, is that the sex drive is the one thing the Romans didn’t bloody-well invent.

There are definitely more romantic ways of saying it, but at heart all lads are all horny little devils in pursuit of nubile young lassies, who for the right little devil make that fine judgment of running just fast enough to get caught and brought to earth in a rolling tumble of giggles, trousers at half mast and a skirt raised a little bit higher than the knee while their knickers have travelled in the other direction. That all starts with looking, and perhaps some imagining, by both parties to the resulting fun and games.

There’s no way on Earth of stopping that, so the answer to the above question is no.


Related articles by Pointman:

A welcome to the dark side.

A message in two parts – part two.

Internet censorship and whither shall we go?

Click for a list of other articles.


11 Responses to “Will Anti-Wanking Legislation finally secure Government Control of Internet Access?”
  1. Blackswan says:


    As Captain Beatty explained to Montag – “If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war.

    If the government is inefficient, top-heavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it.

    Peace, Montag.

    Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of noncombustible data, chock them so damned full of ‘facts’ they feel stuffed, but absolutely ‘brilliant’ with information.

    Then they’ll feel they’re thinking, they’ll get a sense of motion without moving. And they’ll be happy, because facts of that sort don’t change.” – Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451.

    I suppose the same can be said of the poor sad wankers among us, who are so bereft of genuine passion and imagination that they need to endlessly gawk at film of used-and-abused young men, women and children to get their rocks off, except that they’ll never be satisfied.

    Beatty (or Bradbury) was right; most people will tolerate politicians’ most heinous abuses of their freedoms and finances (as well as repeated grabs at the internet), and as long as they’re distracted by bread and circuses, they barely register a reaction at all … BUT restrict their right to hedonistic voyeurism at someone else’s expense and all hell will break loose.

    Governments may well see this issue as an excuse to initiate internet censorship but the fact remains, in the 21st century, the entire porn industry is the wellspring for human trafficking, sex slavery, child abduction and murder, the drug addiction and rising suicide rate of it’s ‘stars’ – their degradation eventually more than they can live with.

    Modern on-demand pornography isn’t remotely like ogling the lewd graffiti on Pompeii’s brothel walls. It’s not about a randy teen having a harmless wank under the covers; it’s a rapidly escalating gateway to depravity under the spurious cloak of “artistic freedom of creative expression” or somesuch nonsense; it’s society’s morals and integrity circling the drain into a cesspit of an exploited “porn star” underclass of our most vulnerable from which they’re unlikely to ever return to whatever “normal” might be.

    It’s highly unlikely we’ll ever find our way back from a brink we’ve already crashed over, and it will taken a better imagination than mine to find a viable solution to underage porn access, but something has to change about what we find acceptable … and soon.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Rumpole says:

    Pointman, having some knowledge of law, I can see the complications arising especially when it comes to cross border disputes over this legislation. I’ll take your expertise as granted about how easily the under age can circumvent this barrier to viewing pornography. Assuming you think minors accessing inappropriate material is a problem, how would you address it?


  3. Pointman says:

    Dear Rumpole (like the name BTW), I certainly do think it’s a problem, which is why I’m ticked off at such a “going through the motions” effort at actually doing something about it. I think the problem comes in two parts, neither of which have easy solutions.

    The first one is actually agreeing what is porn. It would be nice if there was some universally agreed neat sliding scale that went from posters of girls wearing bikinis (removed from the London underground by order of its Muslim mayor) to child pornography and worse, but there simply isn’t. With regard to child exploitation, most people in the West quite rightly consider it a criminal activity, but you would get a counter argument on that from the Muslim world.

    In most civilised countries, there is already legislation in place to track down, identify and try individuals who display, share or sell underage child porn or material deemed to be illegal or breaking DRM laws. Where such illegal activity comes to light, it’s a police matter.

    Once you take what’s been adjudged to be criminal stuff out of the problem, you’re back to the question of what consenting adults get up to behind closed doors being the law’s business or anyone else’s for that matter. If a woman dressed in rubber, leaping off the top of a wardrobe with a shout of “Geronimo!” onto a man dressed as a woman spreadeagled on a bed doesn’t quite ring your bell, then fair enough, but if someone else can make a buck out of selling pictures of the curious event, then good luck to them. They’re selling a product, which isn’t illegal, to a customer who’s willing to pay for it.

    As for keeping children away from it, I can’t see a technical way that’s feasible or would be effective. It does come back to old-fashioned attentive parenting. You tell them not to do it, and then you trust but verify. If they transgress, I’m told withholding their smart phone or home computer privilege seems to do the trick. Responsible parents looking to the Nanny State to do their job never works.



    • Blackswan says:

      Problem is, the “product” is no longer just a “tits and ass” peep show.

      “Australia’s online porn horror: Girl, 16, is forced to get a colostomy bag after rough group sex – as an increasing number of female high school students suffer serious injuries from their porn-addicted boyfriends”


      “Teen boys and men are developing dangerous attitudes towards sex as a result of their compulsive consumption of hardcore and violent online pornography, experts have warned. 
      Cyber safety expert Susan McLean said many high-school aged girls have suffered injuries trying to replicate porn scenes.”

      The Porn Industry is apparently now a legal excuse for causing grievous bodily harm to someone without penalty. If a young girl’s body was so damaged by a “group” of young men, then we can assume it wasn’t without protest, tears, screams and blood. How is this not rape?

      What’s that? She initially consented and it was behind closed doors, so it’s nobody else’s business. Yeah, right.

      It’s all become ‘socially acceptable’ so there’s no longer the appeal of ‘forbidden fruit’ in accessing it; no more having Playboy Magazine (just for the articles of course) delivered in a plain brown wrapper; it’s been legitimised and any true libertarian’s ‘wet dreams’ have come true.

      But drunk driving is no longer acceptable, smoking tobacco is a ‘filthy habit’ and throwing trash in the street will get you a hefty fine or a telling-off from passers-by.

      How can we ‘trash’ the lives of young people on both sides of the porn camera and still find that ’socially acceptable’?

      When will we draw a line in the sand on pornography, and say ‘Enough is enough’? When will it become “uncool’ to buy it, watch it, or assume sexual partners can live up to the unrealistic expectations engendered by porn moviemakers and the Moneymen?

      Those horses have long disappeared over the horizon and the stable doors are left banging in the wind. Nobody will close those doors until we do.


  4. OneWorldGovernment says:

    Glory be Pointman!

    You have given us a ‘doozy’ to ponder upon with this post.

    What I despair of is the lack of recognition of the predator operating in society and our societies inability to deal with the predator in our midst as in summary execution of some truly evil bastards whether sexual or not.

    I despair of our societies inability to acknowledge the industrial scale level of killing babies in the womb particularly as there is rarely a need for a woman to become pregnant in this day and age of the pill and modern condoms.

    But I’m not sure that ‘controlling’ the human sex drive has positive outcomes.

    One only has to look behind the recent suicide stories of 5 young Australian Aboriginal girls and the traditions and power plays occurring in their communities.

    One only has to read the testimony of Jacinta Price from Alice Springs or search online for pictures of Acid scarred faces of people, particularly women.

    Do people that can do that deserve to live?


  5. OneWorldGovernment says:

    I came across a reference to this article at Catallaxyfiles.com and thought some may find it interesting (C.L.
    #2908473, posted on January 16, 2019 at 1:58 am

    An important editorial in First Things by R.R. Reno: A FAILING PAPACY.
    Authoritative and brutal.)

    The article doesn’t just deal with The Papacy.



  6. OneWorldGovernment says:


    I am not trying to bombard your site but hell, the topic you have raised is in the back of my mind as I scan various websites.

    A good article on evil from a man I have followed for years, Lloyd Marcus from America.
    Why are leftists thrilled by abortion?

    And a slight deviation is this regarding Brazil from Catallaxyfiles.com
    #2908835, posted on January 16, 2019 at 2:16 pm

    Subtitled so no need for sound.

    And just to lighten it up(!?) a tad I would like to recommend this. I met some Mongolians once.

    love their musical instruments.


  7. Blackswan says:

    As for parents restricting phone or computer access for their minor children? Good luck with that.

    Under the 1990 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child …

    Article 13.1 – The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child’s choice.

    Article 15.1 –  States Parties recognize the rights of the child to freedom of association and to freedom of peaceful assembly.

    Article 16 – 1. No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.
    2. The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

    That’s why a father trying to retrieve his 13 year old daughter from a grooming gang’s house-of-horrors gets arrested by police. Parents’ rights were snatched from under our noses by United Nations diktat and nobody uttered a peep.

    Considering that in Australia, a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child for 30 years, the ‘age of consent’ is generally 16 years (and 17 in some states), so no concerned parent has a legal right to restrict anything. Our rights have been steadily whittled away for decades.

    Even 10 year olds having sex isn’t illegal if the person doing the shagging is only 12. Parliamentarians actually voted on it and made it lawful. That’s why we have pregnant 11 and 12 year olds and nobody goes to jail, not even the parents who allowed the intimate relationships under their own roof.

    This was all done in plain sight and on our watch, the UN Treaties and local laws that complied with them sitting quietly on our statute books as ‘sleepers’ until the time was right and the shit hit the fan.

    Well, the ‘stuff’ is certainly flying now.

    Barbarians were at our gates 40 years ago, sneaked in while we were asleep at the wheel, and laid IEDs on our doorsteps.

    Might be a tad late to call the Bomb Squad.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Julie87 says:

    Taking away their phone or computer privileges at home certainly works with my kids when we have to discipline them. I’m not bothered what the UN thinks of that..


    • Blackswan says:

      Withdrawing privileges from recalcitrant children is a really effective disciplinary measure in most households … until it isn’t.

      Thirty years ago, realising changes in Govt school policy was not a matter for classroom teachers but of parliamentary legislation, I formed a lobby group to address these issues and involve parents in the process.

      Within weeks we were inundated by stories from distraught parents about the horrors they’d encountered in dealing with the Establishment when it came to their children. We’d had no idea what was going on because the MSM never ran accounts of the parents’ experiences, or asked any relevant questions of anyone in Authority.

      That wake-up call gave me a Big Picture perspective on what was being legislated behind-closed-doors that would ultimately change everything we thought we knew about our society, and the direction in which we were headed.

      But the UN is about ‘foreign policy’ isn’t it? Nothing to do with me and my family and our ordinary suburban lives … is it?

      Try cutting down a huge tree in your own backyard that’s too close to your house. Your local council will take legal action against you and levy heavy fines if you did the job without their permission. Your house, your tree – but you have no rights to dispose if it without the written approval of your council. Why? Councils, far exceeding their legislative authority, have adopted the UN’s Agenda 21 and corrupt IPCC findings on environmental sustainability and that overrides any say you have in the matter of your own property.

      Your teenager, that delightful child you held to your bosom, now full of rampant hormones, and peer-driven angst decides to test the waters by giving you a mouthful of cheek. Things escalate as each tries to assert their authority or independence (whatever the case may be) and you suddenly discover that Junior, in bitching to the school “counsellor” about “unreasonable” parents, is given a copy of the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child. The fun has only just begun.

      If only the UN and its bureaucrats had stayed safely ensconced in their iconic building overlooking New York’s East River, satisfied to filch billions from our Treasuries … but no … the bastards have infiltrated every facet of our lives, right down to cutting down a tree, or educating our children on their legal “entitlements”.

      Most people are “not bothered what the UN thinks” of them, and that’s why the UN does what it pleases … with OUR money. And why they get away with it.

      Politicians (local, State or Federal) are mere lickspittles, subservient to UN authority and always hopeful of currying enough brownie points to make a grab for a lucrative post-politics UN post for themselves.

      Perhaps it’s time a few more of us ARE bothered by it.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: