|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The government, porn and censorship
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
How about the concerned mothers take responsibility for alleviating their own worries? There are plenty of easily available commercial (and, probably, free) filters for porn and other adult content. Install one of those on your own computer, don't let your eight year old have a smart phone, actually talk about sex with your kids, and accept that little Isaiah seeing the odd naked breast isn't going to screw him up for life.
It seems to me that the very people who are happy to cry "Nanny State" when it suits them are asking for exactly that kind of legislation now.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Silly IF. The government is only interfering when stopping me from doing what I want.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
So, let me get this straight. Censorship is being outsourced to certain private companies. And the way in which these companies handle this censorship will be monitored by who? And these companies are compliant with UK law? Are they UK companies?
We also have to remember that Cameron got in deep trouble over tobacco and packaging - but, hello, two things come to his rescue - porn (think of the children); and of course, the baby! Cameron is home free.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
How about the concerned mothers take responsibility for alleviating their own worries? There are plenty of easily available commercial (and, probably, free) filters for porn and other adult content. Install one of those on your own computer, don't let your eight year old have a smart phone, actually talk about sex with your kids, and accept that little Isaiah seeing the odd naked breast isn't going to screw him up for life.
It seems to me that the very people who are happy to cry "Nanny State" when it suits them are asking for exactly that kind of legislation now.
Sigh. We live in a divided society. It's unsurprising that the indigenous population is failing to reproduce itself. 'It takes a village to raise a child' - what a quaint, old-fashioned idea.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So, let me get this straight. Censorship is being outsourced to certain private companies. And the way in which these companies handle this censorship will be monitored by who? And these companies are compliant with UK law? Are they UK companies?
Sorry, quetzalcoatl, is that comment directed at my last post?
If it is, then I don't think installing a porn filter on your own computer is censorship. Censorship is something that an authority (like the government) does to you, not something that you do to yourself. And as for monitoring the companies, isn't this the quintessential free market paradigm? If users don't like one company's product, they move to a different one. I would've thought that this, added to the small government nature of my solution would be a Conservative wet dream.
Alternatively, if your comment wasn't directed at my last post, I apologize for answering as if it was. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
No, it wasn't at all. I was just musing about how these companies will deal with it.
Anyway, we are now being deluged with royal baby fever, so porn and tobacco will take a back seat for a while.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
<snip>
I do wonder if this topic is divided by gender, and especially, as I said above, by parental status. I feel disinclined to criticise mothers, Tory or not, for being concerned about their children. I understand men's fears about the loss of freedom (a particularly male fear, I read somewhere. Ref needed?), but whose concerns should take priority?
Nope, female and a mother here. But I have worked with too many teenage boys to be at all convinced that any blocks like this will work. I've been shown far too much porn by immature boys trying to shock a female member of staff. My reaction is more likely to check the url. The response of "Oh, steak and cheese* is still going, must make sure it's blocked" tends to get them to show me a few more addresses to block too. But because they were innocuous looking addresses we had to find them / get shown them to manually block them on the system, the safety filter didn't pick these sites up.
* steakandcheesedotcom was the site I was failing to remember earlier - it's still going and very definitely not work safe.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I have been reading a few techies on the internet, and basically they are doubled up laughing at this, as they reckon that in most schools, proxy servers (which enable you to access the internet from an intermediary which is anonymous, based anywhere in the world), will become as common as smartphones.
Famous example, PirateBay was blocked, and its traffic increased! Google piratebay proxy to see why.
Incidentally, on rape sites, there some which cater for women, offering Mills & Boon type rape fantasies in frilly frocks. Wait for the first prosecution!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
'It takes a village to raise a child' - what a quaint, old-fashioned idea.
Fine, I'll come and install your web filter for you. Is that village-like enough?
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
'It takes a village to raise a child' - what a quaint, old-fashioned idea.
Fine, I'll come and install your web filter for you. Is that village-like enough?
Nah, it's okay - I don't have any kids. If you lose your porn it won't be my family's fault!
Let's be honest, though; it's not going to happen.
[ 22. July 2013, 22:31: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211
|
Posted
I am with Mudfrog on this one. I think that it is good thing that the Prime Minister is doing something about it, whatever his motives may be.
I can't think why people who call themselves Christian should seek to defend the right to watch pornography.
The Bible tells us not to let our eyes look at any vile thing.
If it takes censorship so be it. There was much more censorship in my early years in the 30s 40s and 50s and we were better for it.
--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
If it takes censorship so be it. There was much more censorship in my early years in the 30s 40s and 50s and we were better for it.
No. No you weren't.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
I am with Mudfrog on this one. I think that it is good thing that the Prime Minister is doing something about it, whatever his motives may be.
I can't think why people who call themselves Christian should seek to defend the right to watch pornography.
And you never will understand why as long as you equate the result of a free moral choice with the result of having that choice taken away--the end justifies the means, since all that's really important is the result. Perfect neo-conservative thinking.
Besides which, it won't work--as many on this thread have already pointed out.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
If it takes censorship so be it. There was much more censorship in my early years in the 30s 40s and 50s and we were better for it.
No. No you weren't.
Oh yes we were. I was there at the time were you?
--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
If it takes censorship so be it. There was much more censorship in my early years in the 30s 40s and 50s and we were better for it.
No. No you weren't.
Oh yes we were. I was there at the time were you?
No. And this is exactly the point.
Back in the 30s, 40s and 50s, you were told not what you needed to know to make informed decisions, but you were told what other people thought you should know so that when you made a decision, you would do what they told you to do and think you did it from your own free will.
That is not better. That's worse. Historians looking back at the 20th century can now discover all those things that you weren't told at the time because you had to be kept quiescent at all costs.
[ 22. July 2013, 23:27: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
I can't think why people who call themselves Christian should seek to defend the right to watch pornography.
The Bible tells us not to let our eyes look at any vile thing.
If it takes censorship so be it.
Why can't I disapprove of porn, and disapprove of censorship?
There's plenty that the Bible tells me to do, or not do, that I don't want enforce in law. I don't want other religions to be banned, for example. Legal coercion isn't the way to build a Christian society. Christianity is a call to personal transformation, not enforced conformity. If you think that someone who is not watching porn only because their computer blocks it is thereby living the gospel, then you haven't understood the gospel. It doesn't work like that. We don't get a Christian society by enforcing Christian laws - we get it only by people choosing to follow Jesus. Choosing.
If I read the Bible as telling me to avoid porn (and I do) then I ought not to look at porn - it doesn't follow that I have to stop you or anyone else looking at porn. That's a choice you make for yourself. I'm pleased if you don't, of course, but I'm not responsible for denying you the choice.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, I was born in the 40s and grew up in the 50s, and the censorship and restrictions were absolutely asphyxiating. I remember the 60s with great pleasure, as things opened up, one could say things more openly, gays were no longer imprisoned, new kinds of literature and music were around. Don't want to go back to all that philistinism and sheer drabness.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Here's a comforting thought - if China can censor the internet, so can we!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
I can't think why people who call themselves Christian should seek to defend the right to watch pornography.
Christians don't have to watch pornography if they don't want to. But quite why you feel that anybody else should abide by those rules is simply beyond me.
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
The Bible tells us not to let our eyes look at any vile thing.
And where in the bible does it say "Thou shalt force the whole of society to conform to your own morals"? Yeah, thought not.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
And how do you inadvertently turn safe search off, when it's on by default?
You have to turn it off because some other thing you wanted to search for (I forget now what) wouldn't bring up ANYTHING with it on, even though what you were searching for wasn't pornographic. (I admit this was Bing and it might have worked better on Google; I don't know.)
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Presumably, there will eventually be a database of people who 'opt-in', that is, who don't want censorship on their laptop or phone or whatever. What will happen to this database? Who will have access to it?
Chevron.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Then you get the absurd position by some Christians - well, it's all disgusting, so let's ban it.
Yep. Then next week they'll think Islam is disgusting. Then Atheists. Then Democrats.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I understand men's fears about the loss of freedom (a particularly male fear, I read somewhere. Ref needed?)
Ask women in Texas.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
Great. Let's fight for our liberty - but what about the slavery of those used in the making of porn?
It's a bit me , me, me isn't it?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
It's not so much a fight for liberty as a fight against idiotic ideas that won't work, won't do anything to diminish the porn that's out there, and ultimately will be counterproductive.
The whole announcement is just political posturing at its most cynical.
Far better (but harder) to address the culture where e.g. the Daily Mail can support such a pointless policy whilst displaying a sidebar that's all tits'n'ass, and carry articles sexualising young teens whilst howling in outrage with the next breath.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Great. Let's fight for our liberty - but what about the slavery of those used in the making of porn?
It's a bit me , me, me isn't it?
The measure will do bugger all to stop any porn being made or viewed. I'll back measures to stop exploitation, but this one doesn't even try.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
wishandaprayer
Shipmate
# 17673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Great. Let's fight for our liberty - but what about the slavery of those used in the making of porn?
It's a bit me , me, me isn't it?
Legalizing it (not to say it's not already legal!) and regulating it will do much more for the slavery of those in the making of porn, than outlawing it will ever do. That's a fact.
[ 23. July 2013, 08:16: Message edited by: wishandaprayer ]
Posts: 94 | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
In fact, some people are arguing that it could make things worse, by making porn more of a backstreet operation. Think Prohibition.
At the moment, the big porn companies cooperate with the police, and you don't want small underground companies springing up, putting stuff on the 'dark web'.
I remembered last night, that I did try one of the full-on filters, and I had to get rid of it, as half the web-sites I go on were blocked - not porn! It was ridiculously over-sensitive to any dodgy word such as 'cock' or 'tit'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
It leaves an awkward sense that porn may provide a safety valve for the majority of the population, but potentiate a small minority to go on to worse things.
A bit like alcohol, then?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
The big porn companies who use paid, consenting adults are the ones who are more likely to suffer from this because they are the ones who play by the rules, including registering their sites as porn sites and being quite clear about what's on there. They'll be filtered out. The really nasty stuff won't be.
As for people worried about their own children - if that's the case install your own parental controls.
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
And what about Scunthorpe United? Will the entire British population be default-barred from checking the scores in League Two?
The horror, the horror!
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
And what about Scunthorpe United? Will the entire British population be default-barred from checking the scores in League Two?
The horror, the horror!
Premiership scores may be inaccessible too, as "Arsenal" will probably set the default web bowdlerizer to stun.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Apparently, Cameron said that stuff like '50 shades of grey' won't be affected. What a relief for all those Tory-voting mums, who like a bit of 'his hot hand caressed her cool thigh', before their tea.
Tory Porn-users Я us!
And this is more than just annoying. This "50 Shades" is fine attitude is basically the attitude that female sexuality is safe, unthreatening and basically can acceptably be aroused on public transport or in your sitting room. No harm done.
Meanwhile male sexuality is unsafe, threatening and ought not to be aroused at all. We can't have men - beasts that they are - reading Razzle on the tube, or Shaven Haven in Starbucks. No sir.
Both of these cliches serve to dehumanise sexuality, keeping us at a distance from true intimacy. And both of them are inaccurate.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Does this include simulated rape on the telly and in the "legitimate" cinema?
I haven't been following The White Queen (costume drama on the BBC), but I happened to flick through channels and catch part of it. it was a rape scene: young Lord Somebody-or-other brutally raped his even younger virgin bride.
Porn or not porn?
And now how about if I say I found it a turn-on? Porn or not porn? Lock me up or let me go?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
[Sally Bercow 'innocent face']Shaven Haven? I wasn't even aware there was such a publication! How does one get one's hands on such an organ? [/Sally Bercow 'innocent face']
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I see Cameron is also saying that topless photos in newspapers are OK.
Hang on a minute - Cameron has now declared that tits 'n'ass is OK, and that '50 Shades' is OK. But why is he now the arbiter of erotic acceptability? Is this a job that anyone can apply for?
It shows how relativistic this becomes, and in a sense, arbitrary.
I suppose the thinking is that boobs won't harm little Johnny, genital shots may well harm him, and pictures of a couple making love are very corrupting.
Is it me, or is Cameron in a kind of moral vortex, where nothing makes any sense at all?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
The big porn companies who use paid, consenting adults are the ones who are more likely to suffer from this because they are the ones who play by the rules, including registering their sites as porn sites and being quite clear about what's on there. They'll be filtered out. The really nasty stuff won't be.
As for people worried about their own children - if that's the case install your own parental controls.
Yes, that's what I find weird. Some people seem to feel grateful to Cameron for making up for their parental deficit. It's not really rocket science to install controls, insist that computers are used in a shared space, and put controls on phones. Also, tell your kids that if they start accessing porn, you will confiscate all the gadgets. Oh no, I can't do that, I will hope Mr Cameron will do it for me, as I prefer a nanny state.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I see Cameron is also saying that topless photos in newspapers are OK.
That's just ridiculous. If porn is wrong, so is page 3. End of story.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Ah, but the Sun supports the Tories. Therefore not porn!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
And what about Scunthorpe United? Will the entire British population be default-barred from checking the scores in League Two?
The horror, the horror!
What about Hamlet, where the prince makes a deliberate pun on 'country matters' to Ophelia, and most actors today pronounce it 'cunt - (long pause) - ry matters', to get a laugh from the stalls?
Also found in Marvell, 'And your quaint honour turn to dust', where 'quaint' is an ancient pun on cunt.
English lit is disgusting! Ban it!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
That's the whole point. Who gets to define porn? Or any other banned speech. In practice the rich and the powerful (cos that's part of what "powerful" means).
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
quetzalcoatl: What about Hamlet, where the prince makes a deliberate pun on 'country matters' to Ophelia, and most actors today pronounce it 'cunt - (long pause) - ry matters', to get a laugh from the stalls?
Put them in the dungeon I'd say!
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
That's the whole point. Who gets to define porn? Or any other banned speech. In practice the rich and the powerful (cos that's part of what "powerful" means).
And if the arguments over tax tell us anything, it's that the government is crap at definitions. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
I'm a bit sick of the argument that everyone should be free to do whatever they want. Not everything should be an unregulated free market economy. In fact free choice is actively harmful in many ways. Arguing that everyone should be free to judge for themselves what is right has historically been the direct cause of some serious exploitation and harm.
Free choice led to slavery. It was only the strict removal of the choice from businessmen about what 'goods' they chose to trade in that eradicated it.
Free choice leads to appalling worker conditions and exploitation even today.
Some things are intrinsically harmful and exploitative to the worker and should be heavily regulated or banned entirely to reduce the harm as much as possible, to prevent vulnerable people being exploited by powerful or wealthy people for profit. Sex work is definitely one of these things IMO.
And the idea that censorship is the start of an inevitable slide to an Orwellian dystopia that has been propogated by some posters here is equally ridiculous. Its as though once someone starts censoring something they can't stop themselves. The BBFC has been censoring our films in the UK since 1913 and mostly they've done a pretty good job at restraining themselves from sending thoughtcrime brigades goosestepping down our streets.
I think it is perfectly possible for intelligent societies to draw a line of judgement about what is acceptable and what is not, and stick to that line without an inevitable expansion and oppression of censorship.
Many have said that internet filters are stupid, and either too sensitive or not sensitive enough. Perhaps many are but the best ones are very good indeed. The one I use is K9 Bluecoat. I just tested it on steakandcheese and it correctly blocked it. I would recommend it as the best one I've found.
Whether a particularly computer-literate child can hack a computer to get round the filters is of course beside the point. Most kids wouldn't do this. You can't build a perfect lock, but you can try and do the best you can, to put off most opportunists.
Many claim that pornography isn't degrading and harmful to women, both directly for those working in the industry, or indirectly for those affected by the slowly, subtly changing attitudes it causes in society as a whole. I think this is a rosy, blinkered view, too bothered with supporting the totems of free-choice and liberalism to see the harm being caused under the glamorous surface. The tales of ex-performers and performers alike are shocking when you read them. It is an appalling industry dedicated to the degradation of women for ever-increasing profit. The only reason it shouldn't be banned outright is because it would only continue underground in worse (though smaller) ways. But it certainly should be curtailed. Some people may believe the marketing of the big porn companies that say all their girls are happy and excited and loving every minute of it and modern regulations prevent any abuse or exploitation. But anyone who's ever heard of the practices of the best-selling films of Max Hardcore for instance will know how much BS that is.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Great. Let's fight for our liberty - but what about the slavery of those used in the making of porn?
It's a bit me , me, me isn't it?
The measure will do bugger all to stop any porn being made or viewed. I'll back measures to stop exploitation, but this one doesn't even try.
Perhaps it is toothless and won't change anything. But it is at least the start of a conversation. If the conversation meets with massive opposition it will die and the porn industry will continue to expand, make money, and find new and more degrading things to convince young girls to do which men want to pay for.
If the conversation is met by a chorus of 'good, but what's next', then the results could be different.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
That's the whole point. Who gets to define porn? Or any other banned speech. In practice the rich and the powerful (cos that's part of what "powerful" means).
Or it's farmed out to a little committee of experts, which is far more likely.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Hawk wrote:
quote:
Free choice led to slavery. It was only the strict removal of the choice from businessmen about what 'goods' they chose to trade in that eradicated it.
Well no, because the slaves were enchained against their will, thus rendering the whole system one of involuntary labour. In the case of pornography, assuming a willing performer and a willing customer, neither party is comparable to the position of a physically coerced slave.
A better example you could use of free-choice rum amok:
Under a strict free-market regime, there would be nothing to limit the right of a person to sell one of his kidneys for a profit. And yet most people, even those who advocate maximum free choice in other areas, would balk at the idea of allowing that, regardless of the individual wishes of the buyers and the sellers.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Hawk: Or it's farmed out to a little committee of experts, which is far more likely.
"Alright, we are now opening our committee meeting. Mr. Jones, show us the PowerPoint of the images you got from the internet this week. All committee members, raise your hand if you're excited yet."
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Hwak wrote:
quote:
If the conversation meets with massive opposition it will die and the porn industry will continue to expand, make money, and find new and more degrading things to convince young girls to do which men want to pay for.
Regardless of where one stands on pornography, I think it's good to be consistent with our nomenclature. If you're going to call the customers "men", then call the performers "women".
You can certainly argue that their is economic(and perhaps other) pressure on women to enter the pornography industry, and that this presents an ethical problem. However, the use of infantilizing terminology as a stand-in for such an argument is not valid.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I don't see the argument as 'everyone should be free do do what they want'. Rather, I'm against censorship. I grew up in the 50s, when censorship was very heavy - for example, one of the great English novelist's novels was tried for obscenity (Lady Chatterley), the Lord Chamberlain decided what should be on stage, gays were routinely imprisoned, and so on.
This degree of censorship was thankfully reduced. But we have to very careful about any reimpositions.
I don't think it's melodramatic to be wary of new powers of censorship - think PRISM.
[ 23. July 2013, 15:21: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
And the idea that censorship is the start of an inevitable slide to an Orwellian dystopia that has been propogated by some posters here is equally ridiculous. Its as though once someone starts censoring something they can't stop themselves. The BBFC has been censoring our films in the UK since 1913 and mostly they've done a pretty good job at restraining themselves from sending thoughtcrime brigades goosestepping down our streets.
The BBFC is not the government. They don't also control the police and armed forces, and they have no jurisdiction over anything other than movies. To compare the two is ludicrous.
And by the way, they don't censor films, they merely give them a rating that says which age group is allowed to watch. Of course, most studios want the lowest possible rating in order to get bums on seats so they will voluntarily cut bits out in order to achieve that.
quote:
I think it is perfectly possible for intelligent societies to draw a line of judgement about what is acceptable and what is not, and stick to that line without an inevitable expansion and oppression of censorship.
Intelligent societies, maybe. Governments? No. Have we already forgotten how the previous UK government used the freaking Terrorism Act to eject an 80-year-old heckler from their party conference in 2005?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I don't think organ sales from the living are an example of free will either actually. I'd be surprised if even 5% of those wanting to sell their kidneys were not experiencing extreme deprivation. If the sellers had their basic needs covered and those of their loved ones, would they still sell their kidneys would they want to still do so? Very very rarely, I suspect.
Well I would say it's an example of extreme economic pressure, maybe sometimes of a life-or-death nature.
That said, I'd still see a difference between someone selling their organs to cover basic needs, and someone being dragged against his will into a room somewhere and having his organs forcibly taken out, while he begs for it not to happen. Because the latter I would see as directly comparable to slavery.
And my original point was that something doesn't have to be directly equivalent to slavery in order to be morally problematic. Organ sales being my example.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Hawk: Or it's farmed out to a little committee of experts, which is far more likely.
"Alright, we are now opening our committee meeting. Mr. Jones, show us the PowerPoint of the images you got from the internet this week. All committee members, raise your hand if you're excited yet."
Hand?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Hawk: Or it's farmed out to a little committee of experts, which is far more likely.
"Alright, we are now opening our committee meeting. Mr. Jones, show us the PowerPoint of the images you got from the internet this week. All committee members, raise your hand if you're excited yet."
This was notorious in the 80s and 90s, when there were big anti-porn movements in the US; and periodically, they would hold conferences and meetings, to decide future policy. Part of these was the screening of various porn films and other stuff, in order to check out what the state of the market was.
So of course, many jokes went around about this. Some of the anti's became very knowledgeable about women's genitals, and various stages of erection. I suppose it could be useful knowledge.
[ 23. July 2013, 15:26: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
