David Cameron rejects automatic block on porn to protect children

Campaigners, led by Claire Perry, Tory MP for Devizes, handed a petition of 115,000 names into Downing Street in September demanding an opt-in system for pornography.

However, the Government's consultation response yesterday said it would instead rely on the voluntary co-operation of internet companies to strengthen controls on pornography.

It will now urge the companies to “actively encourage parents, whether they are new or existing customers, to switch on parental controls”. All users should be asked whether they have got children and parents would be guided through a process of installing anti-pornography filters.

Ministers will also ask the big internet service providers to make sure the person setting up controls is over 18.

Companies could face legislation in future if the Government feels they are not making enough of an effort to shield children from adult material.

Child protection campaigners last night reacted with disappointment to the news that the Government is not backing an automatic block. Four in ten parents believe their children have been exposed to adult material on the internet.

Alan Wardle, of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), said the tougher controls are “a step in the right direction” but they should have “gone further”.

“The best option to protect children is for adult content to be automatically blocked by internet service providers,” he said. “Given that half of the parents who took part in the Government consultation wanted this option we are concerned their views have not been heard.

“Hard core pornographic videos are just a few clicks away and a quarter of children have been sent unsolicited sexual material online.”

Helen Goodman, Labour’s shadow media minister, said the lack of an automatic block is “disappointing”.

“It’s a small step forward but I still don’t think they are prioritising child protection,” she said.

She said it is "utterly fallacious" to suggest that parents might be lulled into a false sense of security if pornography is blocked.

“It’s like saying don’t wear a seat belt because then people will drive dangerously,” she said.

Campaigners are now trying to get backing for new laws without the help of the Government.

Baroness Howe, the wife of former Tory Chancellor Geoffrey How, is launching a bid to bring in an “opt-in” system through the House of Lords

Last night, Lady Howe, an independent cross-bench peer, said: “I will be disappointed if this is left entirely to voluntary activity when a simply process like an opt-in system would protect children and help parents who can be less savvy with technology.”

View the original article here

Read More

Judge rejects bid to block Washington state "stoned driving" rules

OLYMPIA, Washington (Reuters) - A judge on Friday rejected a request by a medical marijuana user to block Washington state from enforcing tougher "stoned driving" rules after it became one of the first U.S. states to legalize the recreational use of marijuana.

Washington state voters last month approved marijuana legalization by a margin of 56 percent to 44 percent, making the state, along with Colorado, the first in the country to legalize recreational pot use.

The new rules, which for most marijuana smokers would put them over the legal driving limit for a couple hours after taking two or three hits from a joint, took effect on Thursday.

The legal challenge came from Arthur West, an Olympia-based lawyer and medical marijuana patient who said the ballot initiative's title wrongly left out any mention of the DUI provisions.

He also argued that those provisions will enable police to target medical marijuana users, who typically have higher residual blood levels of THC--the active ingredient in marijuana--for car stops.

"I don't think it's fair that the tens of thousands of patients in the state of Washington have to choose between whether they take their medicine or be subject to arrest for driving under the influence every time they get in their cars," he said.

In rejecting West's request for a preliminary injunction, Judge Lisa Sutton noted that police have long been empowered to pull over drivers they suspect of impaired driving.

"That is the same case today, after the passage of this initiative, as it was before," Sutton said.

Though the hearing Friday dealt primarily with the DUI provisions, West's lawsuit also asserts that the initiative wrongly earmarks tax money raised by regulating marijuana for unrelated services such as primary health and dental care, and that state legislators improperly advocated its passage.

West said he will push ahead with his case, taking it all the way to the state's supreme court if necessary.

Assistant Attorney General Bruce Turcott, who defended the new marijuana law in court, said he was satisfied with the ruling.

"I would have been very surprised" if the judge had ruled differently, Turcott added.

Alison Holcomb, an attorney with the Washington state ACLU who led the legalization campaign, declined to comment on the case.

Previously, Holcomb told Reuters that she included the DUI provisions in the initiative after an internal poll in May showed that 62 percent of 602 likely voters said a pot-impaired driving standard would make them more likely to vote for legalization

(Editing by Dan Whitcomb and Andrew Hay)

View the original article here

Read More