Because obviously no kid has access to any adults ID to swipe the number. Idea: if it takes less than 2 seconds to think of a way around a law, it doesnt become law.

Wishful thinking, I know.

What MomOf4 said. But I expect things will be much sillier. Just look up an ID online. There will be at least one or two that should pop up in a search engine. Then everyone can be Bob Smith with ID#123-45-6789. Man that guy gets around and watches way too much porn.

...requiring people accessing adult websites to either enter a credit card number or the identifier from some government-issued ID

And what constitutes an "adult website?"

Wasn't it a US Supreme Court justice who lamented the difficulty between legally defining pornography and socially defining it - i.e., you know it when you see it?

Is the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue pornographic, or merely racy? Are the Sun's Page 3 girls, pornographic, or just titillating? Is Cosmopolitan, with its covers displaying cleavage and teasers for articles about "giving him the best oral sex he's ever had," a women's magazine or pornography? If a news site displays the latest Kate Middleton wardrobe malfunction, will it at that point require government oversight?

And, more importantly, who gets to answer these questions?

At what point in the display of photographed, filmed, painted, or otherwise-depicted nude human flesh does the government need to get involved? And why? Absent keeping the XXX theatre or strip club from going up next to an elementary school, what useful role does the government actually play in this?

And what, pray tell, does the government intend to do with the data collected? 'cause you know the service providers are going to track you viewing habits. That tracking capability is why, on your favorite advice columnist's blog, you get a pop up or sidebar ad for the product you viewed a few minutes ago on Amazon.

As others have pointed out, the ability to steal (or borrow) the ID number of an older sibling, parent, relative, or friend will render this "Big Brother" monitoring pointless - that is, until the government collects biometrics on every citizen.

That's probably what this is leading up to, by the way. Once the scourge of pornography is identified and scaled with this monitoring, the hysteria about protecting the children with even better monitoring can begin.

I have no idea how they expect to enforce this. Porn sites have no interest in becoming record keepers for UK authorities, and few of them will be under UK legal jurisdiction.

So what happens when someone in the UK visits a site that hasn't implemented a special filter to catch UK visitors to force them to enter their personal information?

How will the government even know? - are they snooping on everyone's internet activity to see who is visiting porn sites?

Porn kills
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4278524/amp/Man-dies-six-ton-pile-porn-magazines.html

But we already have a mechanism for deciding what kids can and can't do. It's called 'parents'. Sadly the idea that parents might actually take responsibility for their children is fast dying out.

Why the passive voice? It's not the "death of an idea," it's goddamn parents not doing their goddamn jobs.

How will the government even know? - are they snooping on everyone's internet activity to see who is visiting porn sites?

The GCHQ says 'hi'.

If you're not using a VPN, someone is watching what you're doing.

Leaving aside all the legal debates, where exactly IS the support system for few parents who are smart enough to understand that, just because THEIR parents let them have a gallon of ice cream every day and four hours or more of screen time - i.e., way too much instant gratification for anyone's health - that doesn't mean that it's OK for today's kids, with or without the temptations of porn?

From a syndicated columnist, in 1991:

"...Mothers and fathers are expected to screen virtually every aspect of their children's lives. To check the ratings on the movies, to read the labels on the CDs, to find out if there's MTV in the house next door. All the while keeping in touch with school and in their free time, earning a living...

"...It isn't that they can't say no. It's that there's so much more to say no to. Without wallowing in false nostalgia, there has been a fundamental shift. Americans once expected parents to raise their children in accordance with the dominant cultural messages. Today they are expected to raise their children in opposition."

Why should anyone have to put up with that extra burden - or join the Amish or move to another country to escape it?

Leaving aside all the legal debates, where exactly IS the support system for few parents who are smart enough to understand that, just because THEIR parents let them have a gallon of ice cream every day and four hours or more of screen time - i.e., way too much instant gratification for anyone's health - that doesn't mean that it's OK for today's kids, with or without the temptations of porn?

Lenona, why should a parent need a "support system" for the basics of parenting?

An invalid, an Alzheimer's patient, a person with MS — they all require (and deserve) "support systems.' Telling your brat "no" when appropriate, and repeating it when appropriate, requires a spine, not a "support system."

And here I'm seeing Ashley Madison's ads on your page. Adultery is >>>>>>>>>> than porn in my book of bad things. A true, home-wrecking offense against God.

What I mean is (and I thought it was obvious), where do truly good parents find whole COMMUNITIES of parents who aren't afraid to say no to their kids, who don't let kids wallow in instant, passive gratification every day, and who don't attack old-fashioned parents for being too "strict" or "demanding" or "insensitive"? Or communities where at least 3/4 of the parents are good parents, in that sense? Can you imagine how hard and misery-inducing it is when you're trying to do the right thing but you're getting no sympathy from the other parents? (Sort of like when Lenore Skenazy let her 9-year-old son ride the subway in the name of teaching him independence and got clobbered for it?)

Example: One of my favorite columnists suggested (15 years ago?) that the parents in every community should get together and buy a vacant lot for kids to get together and play sports in - NOT organized sports, mind you - and, for safety's sake, two or more parents could sit on the sideline but not coach or interfere, so the kids would be free to be kids, make their own rules if they want, and learn to deal with kid problems on their own.

Nice idea, of course. Trouble is, what if your kids are the only ones who show up because the other kids prefer to play video games and their wimpy parents keep buying them the games - AND they pay for the kids to be in organized sports, to make sure they get exercise? The columnist's idea is all too likely to fail.

To put it another way, there's a good reason you don't see Amish families trying to raise their kids that way outside of Amish communities. It would be a great way to make the kids unpopular in school - and/or the targets of bullies.

Here's something I said years ago:

I’ll say that I didn’t have kids for the same reason I didn’t become a surgeon or a ditch-digger – I just didn’t want to. However, I can think of a few other compelling reasons to think twice:

1. I wouldn’t want to be the only parent in the neighborhood who actually pushes kids to be independent and to take responsibility for their own behavior.

2. I wouldn’t want to be the only parent who understands that when you say “no” to a five year old and he cries for an hour, it does NOT mean that you did anything horribly wrong or harmful – it only means that he needs to hear “no” more often.

3. I would not want my kids to grow up surrounded by classmates who are otherwise smart and friendly but who still put down reading and readers. I can only imagine how much less of a reader I would have been if I’d known ANY kids like that in the 1970s or 1980s. Anyone who talked like that would have been recognized as stupid. Nowadays, what’s considered stupid and nerdy, by kids, is almost anything that kids CHOOSE to do (outside of family time) that doesn’t overlap with video games or Facebook. Or sports. If it isn’t fast-paced or screen-related, what’s the point?

You are digging a dry hole Lenona. Kevin doesn't get your point because he doesn't want it. Look back over his other comments if you want proof.

I prefer to have more faith in the childfree population than that. CF people are not two-dimensional and they don't all vote for the same politicians, either. (For one thing, they know all too well that they can't necessarily count on their younger relatives to look after them when they get old - those nieces and nephews have their own parents to support, after all. So they do take responsibility for themselves - but they still might need government assistance in addition to their savings.)

Bang! Crash!

"Porn Police! Drop the penis and move back from the monitor!".

*But it's MY penis!!*

"Tell it to the Judge, pervert. I'm sure she'll be very understanding. Book him, Dan-O!".

What I mean is (and I thought it was obvious), where do truly good parents find whole COMMUNITIES of parents who aren't afraid to say no to their kids, who don't let kids wallow in instant, passive gratification every day, and who don't attack old-fashioned parents for being too "strict" or "demanding" or "insensitive"?

I don't know. Oz?

More to the point: Why should other people's parenting influence an individual's parenting? If you live in a place where other people's parents condone drug dealing, stealing, or whatever, why should that influence you doing the right thing?

You are digging a dry hole Lenona. Kevin doesn't get your point because he doesn't want it. Look back over his other comments if you want proof.

I get her point. I just disagree with it. Raise your own damn kids responsibly. (Not Lenona; I'm aware she's childfree.)

My kids are still little enough but I am dreading the day when all their friends have smartphones. So I get it.

And I'm gonna hold off as long as I can but you know what? Some TEACHERS are insisting the kids have them.

To answer your question though, Lenora, you find a couple friends who think like you.

For example, I have one friend, we bring our kids to the woods. There's this loop, about 15 minutes around. We drop our kids (with snacks) in the middle of the loop, and we walk around it four or five times, checking in with our kids every 15 minutes or so. They play around, building forts or playing explorer, we get a walk. That way they get free unsupervised time in the woods, we get a walk and some adult time, but we're still checking in every 15 minutes if there is a problem. We've been doing this a couple years now, our kids are aged 4-8.

I don't allow screens when the kids have friends over. The whole POINT of having friends over is to play with them. This requires not minding messes, especially if they play outside and come in, or decide to do some sewing or crafts or something.

As they get older, I will start letting them just go to the forest (not the one with the loop) that is a 10 minute walk through the fields from our house. Then they can play a bit more, and maybe next summer I'll let the older one go down to the stream.

But you're right, if I lived in one of those places where you get arrested for letting your kid walk to school, it would be harder.

The thing is Kevin, while we as individuals like to think of ourselves as responsible, there are a lot of borderline people out there who will be responsible when it is easy enough but not when it is hard. And the rest of society has to deal with them. And the more of one type of parent there is the harder it is to be another type, Lenora is not wrong.

But you find other moms, you pass around parenting books and links to blogs, you post free range kids links on FB... you find your people.

The UK is just preceding us by a generation.

It is already a criminal offense there to have pictures of a minor not your own in "suggestive poses" - even when nominally fully clothed.

Being two-faced has never interfered with the ruling class's grasping for power.

More to the point: Why should other people's parenting influence an individual's parenting?

Kevin at January 13, 2019 10:11 PM
_______________________________

Don't play dumb. You know I didn't mean that. I'm talking about how likely it is that proper parental upbringing will FAIL when the kid is surrounded by other parents in the neighborhood who might even tell the kid, in so many words, that the kid's parents are wrong in everything. (Never mind what the kid's PEERS are likely to say...)
_________________________________________

My kids are still little enough but I am dreading the day when all their friends have smartphones. So I get it.

And I'm gonna hold off as long as I can but you know what? Some TEACHERS are insisting the kids have them.

NicoleK at January 14, 2019 1:45 AM
______________________________________

Teachers? Doesn't surprise me much.
______________________________________

I don't allow screens when the kids have friends over. The whole POINT of having friends over is to play with them. This requires not minding messes, especially if they play outside and come in, or decide to do some sewing or crafts or something.
______________________________________

Good for you! Miss Manners had a good column on that. Search on "Stick to her guns? Miss Manners would bring out the heavy artillery."
_______________________________________

The thing is Kevin, while we as individuals like to think of ourselves as responsible, there are a lot of borderline people out there who will be responsible when it is easy enough but not when it is hard. And the rest of society has to deal with them. And the more of one type of parent there is the harder it is to be another type, Lenora is not wrong.

NicoleK at January 14, 2019 1:55 AM
_________________________________________

Thanks again.

Btw, if anyone wants to read that column on sports, it's here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1990/07/11/if-you-ask-me/3ca0ddac-2519-461e-b266-40584957be11/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d17b34254183

Quote:

Today, you find children in baseball leagues organized by adults. There is no tossing of the bat, therefore, the teams are always the same and intense rivalries develop. Because the teams don't change, a child is either on a winning team or a losing team.

Adults coach, umpire, determine who will play and who will not, who will play what position, and what the rules shall be. Adults resolve conflicts that arise in the course of the game. Adults maintain the fields, provide equipment, give the teams names and design the uniforms.

Adults hand out the trophies at the end of the season. And the audience to this game consists of a bleacher-full of adults who are yelling -- at the coaches, the umpires, the kids and one another.

This isn't play. This is performance and this is pressure and we have no business doing this to children and no excuse can justify it...

...I'm simply suggesting that we give our children back their games. They don't belong to us and the best of intentions do not justify our interference.

Last January's issue of Fortune carried an article advising corporate parents on ways they can maximize quality time with their children. One example given was that of a northeastern executive who goes to work at dawn so he can come home early enough to coach his son's soccer team.

I wasn't impressed. Now, if this same fellow went to work at dawn so he could spend more time with his wife, then I'd have been impressed.

(end)

Oh, and here's another reason I can't imagine having kids: When I was a teen in the 1980s, I was somewhat lucky to be surrounded by peers who more or less respected the right of a significant other not to TALK about sex, even, if they didn't want to. Nowadays, even in an informal single-sex gathering, you're likely to get branded a prude if you refuse to do that. What's wrong with subtlety and modesty?

I got kicked off. My last line was going to be: A world where you can't insist on subtlety - and moving slowly - in a relationship without destroying it, or one in which you can at least save sex until you've moved out of your parents' home for good, is a world with no real romance in it, IMO. Why should any old-fashioned, romantic teen have to put up with that?

Correction - that should be "can't," not "can," of course.

Oh, and regarding this -

"Parents can arrange to have sites blocked from their kids' phones and computers already. They can talk to their kids not just about sex, but also about smoking and drinking and everything else. They don't need the government to get involved. And if they do - it's because they're not fulfilling their role properly in the first place"

- that last sentence is wrong. it is absolutely NOT fair to assume that when kids do unhealthful things (not necessarily illegal), the parents are automatically to blame. Some things are just too easy to get away with, and since it's hard enough to hammer ideas like Do Not Steal into kids' heads when they're desperately lonely and/or under peer pressure, imagine how hard it often is to teach them not to do things that don't involve, as the late Peter McWilliams (1949-2000) would say, physically harming the person or property of a non-consenting other. (Of course, he was referring to adults.)

Even when conservatives don't advocate government control, THEY don't necessarily blame the parents, either. See here (yes, same columnist, in 2013):

https://www.ohio.com/akron/lifestyle/john-rosemond-so-many-temptations-for-today-s-kids

I often hear real-life parenting stories that evoke two equally strong feelings: on the one hand, sorrow; on the other, gratefulness. I am saddened to hear these stories, always told to me by loving parents who have conscientiously tried to always do the right thing, but they also cause me to be glad beyond measure that I am not raising children today. I got out of the game just in time, it seems.

Willie and I did not have to deal with hundreds of cable channels, video games, cellphones or the Internet with its various temptations, including social media, pornography that a 5-year-old can access (Click Here if You’re 18 or Older!), chat rooms, online gaming, and shopping carts. When my kids were growing up, we had a television (sometimes), period.

In 1980, I wrote a column in which I speculated that video games were addictive (which we now know is true), and the president of Nintendo USA sent me a state-of-the-art video-game system to share with my poor, tech-deprived children so I could see for myself how wrong-headed I was. It sat, unopened, in my attic until several years ago when I gave it away.

In short, Willie and I had it easy. The worst thing either of our kids did was sneak out at night after we were asleep. That would be the son, of course.

One such heartbreaking story was told to me recently. It’s been told to me hundreds of times, actually, and every time my heart is broken. It begins with good, decent, responsible parents discovering that their young adolescent boy has accessed pornography of the worst sort on the Internet. They confront him. His father talks to him about how pornography disrespects women. The parents make sure he can no longer access the Internet at home without supervision. The boy figures out how to get around the blocks, how to disarm the tracking software. The parents find him sitting at the computer, mesmerized, at 3 o’clock in the morning.

Then his best friend’s parents call to complain that he has introduced their son to Internet pornography. The word gets around. No one will let their children associate with the boy, and the parents figure out that they’ve become untouchable as well. The boy just keeps figuring out how to beat the system.

As the parents tell the story, they’re fighting back tears. So am I. What should we do? I tell them it sounds to me that they’ve done all they can. “But it’s not working!” they say, in despair. I ask, “Can you accept that you’re not going to be able to completely solve this problem? Can you accept that the river’s going to find a way around your sandbags, but that you should keep putting out sandbags anyway?”

Then I say something like: “Are you willing to accept not only that this isn’t your fault, that it has absolutely nothing to do with anything you did or failed to do, but also that you are not the appointed agents of change concerning this issue in your child’s life?”

In other words, I tell them, do your best, but don’t expect much in return. Pray for your son.

Above all else, keep the demons of guilt at bay. Guilt is the enemy.

And then I feel guilty for being so grateful.

(end)

Again, if nothing gets better in THAT family, is it fair to say the parents aren't doing their job? No. Teens have free will - and you can't keep them locked up unless you're going to take them out of school and post a guard on them.

Gov hysteria and intrusiveness can always be turned up to 11. Radwaste noted that in UK you can get in trouble for children "posed suggestively". It is worse than that. Men cannot "hand around" or take any pictures on a playground. They can't even take pictures of their own kid on a playground. The presumption of child porn has taken over their minds.
Given how internet mobs can ruin someone for a single tweet and how gov databases are subject to leaking and being leaked on purpose, just imagine how easily your life could be ruined by the gov knowing your porn viewing habits.

Or, as Shakespeare put it (via Miranda, in The Tempest, when she spoke of her wicked uncle):

"I should sin
To think but nobly of my grandmother.
Good wombs have borne bad sons."

"Given how internet mobs can ruin someone for a single tweet and how gov databases are subject to leaking and being leaked on purpose, just imagine how easily your life could be ruined by the gov knowing your porn viewing habits."

August Ames, porn star, tweeted that she was worried that being cast with a bisexual man could expose her to higher risk of contracting AIDS - which is true and has been documented in the industry.

Twits pile on, calling her every nasty name in the book and threatening her (so much for a woman's right to choose, huh?).

She killed herself.

So it's not the government alone that should worry you.

{This is also an indication that a Twitter account doesn't make you smart.}