[3838]

the cost and the possibility of prosecution for supplying illegal material are two obvious downsides to this - keep in mind that uk law makes bestiality porn highly illegal for instance, whereas it's legal or easily available in other parts of the world - and also something that people are sometimes curious about

[belorn]

This UK filter is explicitly not about blocking illegal material, but to block legal website which are deemed by the government as inappropriate for watching. Its an requirement put on ISP by the government, and covers porn, music videos, magazines and newspapers. For now, the focus seems to be on the first item, but the Bailey Review want much much more.

Illegal material has been blocked since 2004 and onward by most UK ISP's, mostly under the umbrella argument of stopping child pornography. The Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Uni... can provide much more details, like the desire to block content ranging from Fashion sites to those describing Alcohol.

[pbhjpbhj]

>This UK filter is explicitly not about blocking illegal material, but to block legal website which are deemed by the government as inappropriate for watching. //

It's not about blocking legal websites it's about filtering content for general users and allowing continued unfiltered access for those who wish to have it. It's like putting plastic wrap on pornography magazines in Newsagents - it doesn't stop you getting it it just stops it being seen by those who don't want to [or can't] purchase it.

You may say that's semantics but if you can still access the material legally I don't think you can call it blocked.

There are blocked sites too but they've been legally judged to be contributing to illegal/unlawful activity in the UK - eg ThePirateBay.

[3838]

the problem i'm describing is that some sites are legal overseas but not here - if this proxy also bypasses cleanfeed there could be problems - well i imagine what would happen is that it'd get added to the list of banned urls