Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Long article against Internet censorship
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Brave New Britain
Nov 13, 2012, 6:57:17 AM11/13/12
to
There's no way to stop children viewing porn in Starbucks
Filtering doesn't work. It also puts power into censorware firms which
help cover up human rights abuse
By Cory Doctorow
The Guardian, UK: 13 November 2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/13/children-porn-starbucks
Last week's debate in the Lords on the proposal to stop opt-out
pornography filters was a perfect parable about the dangers of putting
technically unsophisticated legislators in charge of technology
regulation.
The Lords are contemplating legislation to require internet service
providers and phone companies to censor their internet connections by
default, blocking "adult content," unless an over-18 subscriber opts
out of the scheme.
On its face, this seems like a reasonable plan. When I wrote to my MP,
Meg Hillier, to let her know I objected to the scheme, she wrote back
to say that despite the imperfections in a porn filter, it was better
than nothing because kids would always be more sophisticated than
their parents when it came to internet technology. The last part is
mostly true, but the first part is a nonsense.
In order to filter out adult content on the internet, a company has to
either look at all the pages on the internet and find the bad ones, or
write a piece of software that can examine a page on the wire and
decide, algorithmically, whether it is inappropriate for children.
Neither of these strategies are even remotely feasible. To filter
content automatically and accurately would require software capable of
making human judgments - working artificial intelligence, the province
of science fiction.
As for human filtering: there simply aren't enough people of sound
judgment in all the world to examine all the web pages that have been
created and continue to be created around the clock, and determine
whether they are good pages or bad pages. Even if you could marshal
such a vast army of censors, they would have to attain an inhuman
degree of precision and accuracy, or would be responsible for a system
of censorship on a scale never before seen in the world, because they
would be sitting in judgment on a medium whose scale was beyond any in
human history.
Think, for a moment, of what it means to have a 99% accuracy rate when
it comes to judging a medium that carries billions of publications.
Consider a hypothetical internet of a mere 20bn documents that is
comprised one half "adult" content, and one half "child-safe" content.
A 1% misclassification rate applied to 20bn documents means 200m
documents will be misclassified. That's 100m legitimate documents that
would be blocked by the government because of human error, and 100m
adult documents that the filter does not touch and that any schoolkid
can find.
In practice, the misclassification rate is much, much worse. It's hard
to get a sense of the total scale of misclassification by censorware
because these companies treat their blacklists as trade secrets, so
it's impossible to scrutinise their work and discover whether they're
exercising due care.
What's more, many of the people whose content is misclassified are not
in a position to discover this (because they are operating a website
from outside the country and can't tell if they're being blocked
unless a reader in the UK tells them so), and the readers whose
requested documents are blocked are often children, or technical
naifs, neither of whom are likely to know how to effectively complain
about their blocks.
But it's instructive to look at the literature on overblocking. In
2003, the Electronic Frontier Foundation tested the censorware used by
US schools to see how many of the most highly-ranked documents on
concepts from the national school curriculum were blocked by the
school's own censorware. They discovered that 75-85% of these sites
were incorrectly classified. That percentage went way, way up when it
came to sensitive subjects such as sexuality, reproductive health, and
breast cancer.
That study is a decade old, and dates from a time when the web was
comparatively minuscule. Today's web is thousands of times larger than
the web of 2003. But labour isn't thousands of times cheaper, and good
content has not gotten thousands of times easier to distinguish from
bad content in the interim.
So when Lady Benjamin spoke of wanting to protect "students doing
research for a project", she should have also been thinking of
protecting students' access to the documents necessary to do their
homework. I just returned from a tour with my new young adult novel,
Pirate Cinema, that had me visiting schools in 18 cities in the US and
Canada.
Over and over again, teachers and students described the problems they
had with school censorware. Not only did their networks block the
wrong thing, but what was blocked changed from minute to minute,
making it nearly impossible to integrate the internet into curriculum
and presentations.
Teachers told me that they'd queue up a video to show to their
afternoon class, only to have it incorrectly blocked over the
lunchbreak, leaving their lesson plan in tatters with only minutes to
come up with an alternative. Students who had come to rely on a site
for information related to a project returned to those sites to
confirm something, only to discover that it had been put out of reach
by a distant, unaccountable contractor working for the school board.
But it's not just "good" material that gets misclassified. There is
unquestionably a lot of material on the internet kids shouldn't be
seeing, and it multiplies at a staggering rate. Here, you have inverse
of the overblocking problem. Miss 1% - or 10%, or a quarter - of the
adult stuff, and you allow a titanic amount of racy stuff through.
Students who are actively seeking this material - the modern
equivalent of looking up curse words in the school dictionary - will
surely find it. Students who are innocently clicking from one place to
another will, if they click long enough, land on one of these sites.
The only way to prevent this is to block the internet.
So when Lady Massey complains that Starbucks has failed its civic duty
by allowing unfiltered internet connections in its cafes, she's rather
missing the point. Even a filtered connection would pose little
challenge to someone who wanted to look at pornography in a public
place. Meanwhile, any filter deployed by Starbucks will block all
manner of legitimate material that its customers have every right to
look at.
The only way to stop people from looking at porn - in print or online
- in Starbucks is to ask them to leave if you see them doing it.
So far, I've been writing as though "adult" content can be trivially
distinguished from "family friendly" content. The reality is a lot
muddier. There's plenty of material in a day's newspaper that I
wouldn't want my four-year-old daughter to hear about, from massacres
and rapes in Mali to the tawdry personal stories on the agony aunt
page. Sorting the "adult" internet from the "child" internet is a
complex problem with no right answer.
But you'd never know it, to listen to the censorware vendors. When
Boing Boing, the website I co-own, was blocked by one censorware site,
it was on the grounds that we were a "nudity" site. That was because,
among the tens of thousands of posts we'd made, a few were accompanied
by (non-prurient, strictly anatomical) small images showing some
nudity.
When we argued our case to the vendor's representative, he was
categorical: any nudity, anywhere on the site, makes it into a "nudity
site" for the purposes of blocking. The vendor went so far as to state
that a single image of Michelangelo's David, on one page among
hundreds of thousands on a site, would be sufficient grounds for a
nudity classification.
I suspect that none of the censorship advocates in the Lords
understand that the offshore commercial operators they're proposing to
put in charge of the nation's information access apply this kind of
homeopathic standard to objectionable material.
When Lady Howe compares mandatory, opt-out censorware to a rule that
requires newsagents to rack their pornographic magazines on the top
shelf, I doubt she would stretch her analogy to saying, "If a magazine
comprising a hundred thousand pages has a single picture of
Michelangelo's David anywhere in its pages, it must have a brown paper
cover and be put out of reach of children."
Such an analogy is a nonsense. We don't have magazines with a hundred
thousand pages. We don't have town halls or round-tables with millions
of participants, all speaking at once. We don't have cable or
satellite packages with a billion video channels. Though it is
sometimes useful to draw analogies between the internet and all the
media of yesteryear, it's important not to lose sight of the fact that
these are only analogies, and that the only thing that the internet
can properly compared to is the internet.
But back to censorware, and the vendor who censored my site. That
company and its competitors are pretty unsavoury. The company does
most of its business with Middle Eastern dictatorships, who rely on
its software to stop its citizenry from reading the world's free
press. The whole censorware industry's bread and butter is selling
software that despots use to commit, and cover up, human rights abuse.
These are the firms that we're proposing to put in charge of the
nation's information. What's more, as I've written in the past,
internet censorship cannot be separated from internet surveillance. If
we're these companies are to stop us from seeing the pages they've
blocked (according to their own secret, arbitrary criteria), they have
to be able to look at all the pages we request, in order to decide
which page requests may be passed through and which ones may be
blocked.
What's more, as Hillier was quick to remind me, kids are pretty
technologically sophisticated. Kids whose parents rely on this filter
will discover quickly that their kids have no trouble evading it. As I
discovered on my tour, kids know how to search for open proxies on the
internet and to use them to beat the filters. Unfortunately, by
driving kids to these filters, we put them at risk of surveillance
from another group of unaccountable strangers, as the proxy-operators
have the ability to see (and even to interfere with) the kids'
traffic.
Filtering isn't better than nothing. It blocks unimaginable mountains
of legitimate content. It allows enormous quantities of the most
ghastly pornography through. It gives unaccountable, sleazy censorware
companies the ability to spy on all of our online activity. It doesn't
help parents control their kids' online activities.
Lord Swinfen says this is a plan to "ensure children do not
accidentally stumble on pornography." He says that its opponents
oppose all internet regulation. But really, this proposal isn't about
preventing kids from seeing porn, it's about slightly reducing the
likelihood that they will. Opposing this law isn't about opposing all
internet regulations, just bad ones that do almost no good and
enormous harm.
I don't have a good plan for stopping kids - even my kid - from
seeking out bad stuff on the internet. I sit with her when she uses
the net (something I can do while she's small and doesn't have her own
phone) and help her understand how to navigate the net, and what I
expect from her. I can only hope that this will be sufficient, because
there is no filter, no app, no parental control, that will stop her
from getting access to bad stuff if she really wants to. That's the
reality of things. If the Chinese government - with its titanic
resources and armies of network engineers - can't stop its citizens
from seeing the things it wants to block, what hope do I have?
I know that my position would be stronger if I could offer an
alternative to censorware. But such an alternative would be wishful
thinking. When the government decides that it is its job to stop kids
from accidentally or deliberately seeing adult material on the
internet, it is tantamount to putting out a call for magic beans, and
announcing that the budget for these magic beans is essentially
unlimited. As we've seen before - with NHS IT integration, the
national database, and other expensive and wasteful IT boondoggles -
there is no shortage of unscrupulous sorts in nice suits who'll offer
to sell you as many magic beans as you're buying. That doesn't make
magic beans any better at solving the nation's problems. The fact that
someone will sell you a solution to the great, intractable problems of
the modern age doesn't mean that it will work.
Filtering doesn't work. It also puts power into censorware firms which
help cover up human rights abuse
By Cory Doctorow
The Guardian, UK: 13 November 2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/13/children-porn-starbucks
Last week's debate in the Lords on the proposal to stop opt-out
pornography filters was a perfect parable about the dangers of putting
technically unsophisticated legislators in charge of technology
regulation.
The Lords are contemplating legislation to require internet service
providers and phone companies to censor their internet connections by
default, blocking "adult content," unless an over-18 subscriber opts
out of the scheme.
On its face, this seems like a reasonable plan. When I wrote to my MP,
Meg Hillier, to let her know I objected to the scheme, she wrote back
to say that despite the imperfections in a porn filter, it was better
than nothing because kids would always be more sophisticated than
their parents when it came to internet technology. The last part is
mostly true, but the first part is a nonsense.
In order to filter out adult content on the internet, a company has to
either look at all the pages on the internet and find the bad ones, or
write a piece of software that can examine a page on the wire and
decide, algorithmically, whether it is inappropriate for children.
Neither of these strategies are even remotely feasible. To filter
content automatically and accurately would require software capable of
making human judgments - working artificial intelligence, the province
of science fiction.
As for human filtering: there simply aren't enough people of sound
judgment in all the world to examine all the web pages that have been
created and continue to be created around the clock, and determine
whether they are good pages or bad pages. Even if you could marshal
such a vast army of censors, they would have to attain an inhuman
degree of precision and accuracy, or would be responsible for a system
of censorship on a scale never before seen in the world, because they
would be sitting in judgment on a medium whose scale was beyond any in
human history.
Think, for a moment, of what it means to have a 99% accuracy rate when
it comes to judging a medium that carries billions of publications.
Consider a hypothetical internet of a mere 20bn documents that is
comprised one half "adult" content, and one half "child-safe" content.
A 1% misclassification rate applied to 20bn documents means 200m
documents will be misclassified. That's 100m legitimate documents that
would be blocked by the government because of human error, and 100m
adult documents that the filter does not touch and that any schoolkid
can find.
In practice, the misclassification rate is much, much worse. It's hard
to get a sense of the total scale of misclassification by censorware
because these companies treat their blacklists as trade secrets, so
it's impossible to scrutinise their work and discover whether they're
exercising due care.
What's more, many of the people whose content is misclassified are not
in a position to discover this (because they are operating a website
from outside the country and can't tell if they're being blocked
unless a reader in the UK tells them so), and the readers whose
requested documents are blocked are often children, or technical
naifs, neither of whom are likely to know how to effectively complain
about their blocks.
But it's instructive to look at the literature on overblocking. In
2003, the Electronic Frontier Foundation tested the censorware used by
US schools to see how many of the most highly-ranked documents on
concepts from the national school curriculum were blocked by the
school's own censorware. They discovered that 75-85% of these sites
were incorrectly classified. That percentage went way, way up when it
came to sensitive subjects such as sexuality, reproductive health, and
breast cancer.
That study is a decade old, and dates from a time when the web was
comparatively minuscule. Today's web is thousands of times larger than
the web of 2003. But labour isn't thousands of times cheaper, and good
content has not gotten thousands of times easier to distinguish from
bad content in the interim.
So when Lady Benjamin spoke of wanting to protect "students doing
research for a project", she should have also been thinking of
protecting students' access to the documents necessary to do their
homework. I just returned from a tour with my new young adult novel,
Pirate Cinema, that had me visiting schools in 18 cities in the US and
Canada.
Over and over again, teachers and students described the problems they
had with school censorware. Not only did their networks block the
wrong thing, but what was blocked changed from minute to minute,
making it nearly impossible to integrate the internet into curriculum
and presentations.
Teachers told me that they'd queue up a video to show to their
afternoon class, only to have it incorrectly blocked over the
lunchbreak, leaving their lesson plan in tatters with only minutes to
come up with an alternative. Students who had come to rely on a site
for information related to a project returned to those sites to
confirm something, only to discover that it had been put out of reach
by a distant, unaccountable contractor working for the school board.
But it's not just "good" material that gets misclassified. There is
unquestionably a lot of material on the internet kids shouldn't be
seeing, and it multiplies at a staggering rate. Here, you have inverse
of the overblocking problem. Miss 1% - or 10%, or a quarter - of the
adult stuff, and you allow a titanic amount of racy stuff through.
Students who are actively seeking this material - the modern
equivalent of looking up curse words in the school dictionary - will
surely find it. Students who are innocently clicking from one place to
another will, if they click long enough, land on one of these sites.
The only way to prevent this is to block the internet.
So when Lady Massey complains that Starbucks has failed its civic duty
by allowing unfiltered internet connections in its cafes, she's rather
missing the point. Even a filtered connection would pose little
challenge to someone who wanted to look at pornography in a public
place. Meanwhile, any filter deployed by Starbucks will block all
manner of legitimate material that its customers have every right to
look at.
The only way to stop people from looking at porn - in print or online
- in Starbucks is to ask them to leave if you see them doing it.
So far, I've been writing as though "adult" content can be trivially
distinguished from "family friendly" content. The reality is a lot
muddier. There's plenty of material in a day's newspaper that I
wouldn't want my four-year-old daughter to hear about, from massacres
and rapes in Mali to the tawdry personal stories on the agony aunt
page. Sorting the "adult" internet from the "child" internet is a
complex problem with no right answer.
But you'd never know it, to listen to the censorware vendors. When
Boing Boing, the website I co-own, was blocked by one censorware site,
it was on the grounds that we were a "nudity" site. That was because,
among the tens of thousands of posts we'd made, a few were accompanied
by (non-prurient, strictly anatomical) small images showing some
nudity.
When we argued our case to the vendor's representative, he was
categorical: any nudity, anywhere on the site, makes it into a "nudity
site" for the purposes of blocking. The vendor went so far as to state
that a single image of Michelangelo's David, on one page among
hundreds of thousands on a site, would be sufficient grounds for a
nudity classification.
I suspect that none of the censorship advocates in the Lords
understand that the offshore commercial operators they're proposing to
put in charge of the nation's information access apply this kind of
homeopathic standard to objectionable material.
When Lady Howe compares mandatory, opt-out censorware to a rule that
requires newsagents to rack their pornographic magazines on the top
shelf, I doubt she would stretch her analogy to saying, "If a magazine
comprising a hundred thousand pages has a single picture of
Michelangelo's David anywhere in its pages, it must have a brown paper
cover and be put out of reach of children."
Such an analogy is a nonsense. We don't have magazines with a hundred
thousand pages. We don't have town halls or round-tables with millions
of participants, all speaking at once. We don't have cable or
satellite packages with a billion video channels. Though it is
sometimes useful to draw analogies between the internet and all the
media of yesteryear, it's important not to lose sight of the fact that
these are only analogies, and that the only thing that the internet
can properly compared to is the internet.
But back to censorware, and the vendor who censored my site. That
company and its competitors are pretty unsavoury. The company does
most of its business with Middle Eastern dictatorships, who rely on
its software to stop its citizenry from reading the world's free
press. The whole censorware industry's bread and butter is selling
software that despots use to commit, and cover up, human rights abuse.
These are the firms that we're proposing to put in charge of the
nation's information. What's more, as I've written in the past,
internet censorship cannot be separated from internet surveillance. If
we're these companies are to stop us from seeing the pages they've
blocked (according to their own secret, arbitrary criteria), they have
to be able to look at all the pages we request, in order to decide
which page requests may be passed through and which ones may be
blocked.
What's more, as Hillier was quick to remind me, kids are pretty
technologically sophisticated. Kids whose parents rely on this filter
will discover quickly that their kids have no trouble evading it. As I
discovered on my tour, kids know how to search for open proxies on the
internet and to use them to beat the filters. Unfortunately, by
driving kids to these filters, we put them at risk of surveillance
from another group of unaccountable strangers, as the proxy-operators
have the ability to see (and even to interfere with) the kids'
traffic.
Filtering isn't better than nothing. It blocks unimaginable mountains
of legitimate content. It allows enormous quantities of the most
ghastly pornography through. It gives unaccountable, sleazy censorware
companies the ability to spy on all of our online activity. It doesn't
help parents control their kids' online activities.
Lord Swinfen says this is a plan to "ensure children do not
accidentally stumble on pornography." He says that its opponents
oppose all internet regulation. But really, this proposal isn't about
preventing kids from seeing porn, it's about slightly reducing the
likelihood that they will. Opposing this law isn't about opposing all
internet regulations, just bad ones that do almost no good and
enormous harm.
I don't have a good plan for stopping kids - even my kid - from
seeking out bad stuff on the internet. I sit with her when she uses
the net (something I can do while she's small and doesn't have her own
phone) and help her understand how to navigate the net, and what I
expect from her. I can only hope that this will be sufficient, because
there is no filter, no app, no parental control, that will stop her
from getting access to bad stuff if she really wants to. That's the
reality of things. If the Chinese government - with its titanic
resources and armies of network engineers - can't stop its citizens
from seeing the things it wants to block, what hope do I have?
I know that my position would be stronger if I could offer an
alternative to censorware. But such an alternative would be wishful
thinking. When the government decides that it is its job to stop kids
from accidentally or deliberately seeing adult material on the
internet, it is tantamount to putting out a call for magic beans, and
announcing that the budget for these magic beans is essentially
unlimited. As we've seen before - with NHS IT integration, the
national database, and other expensive and wasteful IT boondoggles -
there is no shortage of unscrupulous sorts in nice suits who'll offer
to sell you as many magic beans as you're buying. That doesn't make
magic beans any better at solving the nation's problems. The fact that
someone will sell you a solution to the great, intractable problems of
the modern age doesn't mean that it will work.
Richard McKenzie
Nov 13, 2012, 8:03:52 AM11/13/12
to
On Nov 13, 11:57 am, Brave New Britain <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> There's no way to stop children viewing porn in Starbucks
>
> Filtering doesn't work. It also puts power into censorware firms which
> help cover up human rights abuse
>
> By Cory Doctorow
>
> The Guardian, UK: 13 November 2012http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/13/children-porn-starbucks
> There's no way to stop children viewing porn in Starbucks
>
> Filtering doesn't work. It also puts power into censorware firms which
> help cover up human rights abuse
>
> By Cory Doctorow
>
>
> read more »
The BBC's click showed a website for parents that they can lock their
web browser on which prevents children from straying
onto non-scrutinised website. This is create for primary children but
i do not see why Mums Net or who wever having
a similar website for teens etc.
Pakistan Cricket Scam
Nov 13, 2012, 3:35:04 PM11/13/12
to
Brave New Britain used his keyboard to write :
and isn't allowed these days?
> There's no way to stop children viewing porn in Starbucks
>
> Filtering doesn't work. It also puts power into censorware firms
> which help cover up human rights abuse
>
> By Cory Doctorow
>
> The Guardian, UK: 13 November 2012
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/13/children-porn-starbucks
>
> Last week's debate in the Lords on the proposal to stop opt-out
> pornography filters was a perfect parable about the dangers of
> putting technically unsophisticated legislators in charge of
> technology regulation.
>
> The Lords are contemplating legislation to require internet service
> providers and phone companies to censor their internet connections by
> default, blocking "adult content," unless an over-18 subscriber opts
> out of the scheme.
Where does the Obscene Publications Act come under all this? What is
>
> Filtering doesn't work. It also puts power into censorware firms
> which help cover up human rights abuse
>
> By Cory Doctorow
>
> The Guardian, UK: 13 November 2012
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/13/children-porn-starbucks
>
> Last week's debate in the Lords on the proposal to stop opt-out
> pornography filters was a perfect parable about the dangers of
> putting technically unsophisticated legislators in charge of
> technology regulation.
>
> The Lords are contemplating legislation to require internet service
> providers and phone companies to censor their internet connections by
> default, blocking "adult content," unless an over-18 subscriber opts
> out of the scheme.
and isn't allowed these days?
Alex Heney
Nov 13, 2012, 5:00:03 PM11/13/12
to
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 20:35:04 GMT, Pakistan Cricket Scam <P...@SIBU.HQ>
wrote:
In most case, it doesn't since most of the relevant "articles" are not
hoisted in the UK.
But even for things which are regarded as published or held in the
UK, mores have changed considerably since 1959, and many of the things
which were covered then would not now be considered "such as to tend
to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all
relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or
embodied in it."
It has been possible for at least the last 20 years (probably longer)
to buy magazines depicting hardcore porn in many normal newsagents,
without any risk of the vice squad raiding them.
>What is
>and isn't allowed these days?
>
In terms of films/videos, whatever the BBFC says is allowed.
Now that they have the R18 certification, that means pretty well
anything sexual which is legal to do and only involves adults is legal
to film and sell - but only in licences sex shops.
And even the standard 18 certificate has now had a few dozen films
passed which show explicit unsimulated sex. That can be given an 18
certificate if the work as a whole is determined not to be a "sex
work" (i.e. the main purpose of the whole thing is not titillation).
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom
wrote:
hoisted in the UK.
But even for things which are regarded as published or held in the
UK, mores have changed considerably since 1959, and many of the things
which were covered then would not now be considered "such as to tend
to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all
relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or
embodied in it."
It has been possible for at least the last 20 years (probably longer)
to buy magazines depicting hardcore porn in many normal newsagents,
without any risk of the vice squad raiding them.
>What is
>and isn't allowed these days?
>
Now that they have the R18 certification, that means pretty well
anything sexual which is legal to do and only involves adults is legal
to film and sell - but only in licences sex shops.
And even the standard 18 certificate has now had a few dozen films
passed which show explicit unsimulated sex. That can be given an 18
certificate if the work as a whole is determined not to be a "sex
work" (i.e. the main purpose of the whole thing is not titillation).
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom
allantracy
Nov 14, 2012, 8:44:53 AM11/14/12
to
I would have thought if you wanted to look at pornography a crowded
Starbucks is the last f**king place on earth most people would want to
go in order to do so.
This surely has to be the most hypothetical debate ever conceived over
the Internet.
In these mobile days, parents should indeed be given the tools to
bring up their kids the way they believe is best.
However placing that burden on ISPs is unworkable and far too
expensive as well as raising civil liberties issues, that could never
be acceptable in a country like the US but it seems highly possible
here in the totalitarian EU.
The easy answer to this is for device manufacturers to ship filtering
software, integrated into their operating systems, then leave it up to
the consumers to decide what they or their kids can watch.
Personally, remembering the bleak frustrations of my formative teenage
years, with only a grubby copy of Fiesta to pass between us, I would
make it a EU Human Right for teenage lads to get their porn.
The trouble is mothers - they all want their sons to be the next John
Boy Walton but we all know, whatever they do, they're going to get an
Inbetweener.
0 new messages