|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The government, porn and censorship
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Curiosity
There are other reasons for banning porn, apart from pearl clutching, and 'oh, only think of the children', aren't there? For example, to protect the porn actors; because porn is immoral; because public sex is icky; because gays have infiltrated it, and gays are icky; because it disgusts me; because it might get a few votes; because secretly, it excites me, which is awful, etc.
[ 28. July 2013, 13:35: 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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
In theory, this isn't about banning porn, but banning violent porn portraying illegal acts, specifically child pornography and rape, isn't it? Because we need to think of the children.
I guess it's a knee-jerk reaction from the Government following a couple of recent high profile cases, the murders of Tia Sharp and April Jones, where the perpetrators, Stuart Hazell and Mark Bridger, are known to have accessed violent porn before committing the murders. Which is being extended to all porn because of the above reasons.
The problem that the feminists are highlighting, the objectification of women, particularly by tabloid newspapers and advertising isn't going to be touched by this ban.
It's awfully reminiscent of the Dangerous Dogs Act.
(How about that for a better analogy ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Not bad.
One thing I've noticed about opponents of porn is their talent for goal-post-moving.
Only think of the children! (Pearl-clutching).
But it's disgusting also.
But think of the poor porn actors!
It degrades women.
I secretly like it.
It's full of gays and lesbians, who are icky.
It will make God angry, and then there will be more earthquakes.
Etc.
--------------------
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
So what are the issues that need to be tackled?
The ISPs pledged last month to block the harmful images and CEOP will become part of the NCA from October, which is being plugged as progress, although the figures of 50,000 known abusers and 192 arrests that have been bandied about in the last few days have concerned many.
Parents inability to set up their household computers to prevent their children accessing any sites on the internet?
I'm working with a family with a teenager who spends 18 hours a day unsupervised and unchecked on the internet. We have seriously suggested that the computer be moved to a family room and an administrator account set up, with the teenager only having a supervised sub-account. This would allow parental controls on internet access and time spent on the internet. However, the parents don't have the knowledge to set this up, and I suspect would hand the administrator password over to the teenager the minute there was a problem. Which would give him even more control over the situation than he has currently.
So perhaps what needs to be in place is support for parents to help them take control of computers and access to the internet of their children?
Smart phones being put into the hands of children without any controls in place?
So maybe what needs to be in place is a discussion as to whether children need smart phones and/or the ability to control accounts of children on smart phones - by limiting what can be accessed by the parents who pay for the accounts.
Support for people who are sex trafficked or in poverty so that they don't get forced into working for the porn industry? Not sure how you're going to tackle that poverty issue in the UK currently. Porn you're not going to ban, not when there's so much home-made free stuff on the internet and the evidence to prove the harm of porn is difficult to find.
An unworkable internet ban seems to be going the wrong way about dealing with this
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Surely that all requires too much hard thinking for many politicians? They are after quick sound-bites, which will get them a big headline in the tabloids, and hopefully a few votes.
Maybe not even that, since Labour will probably come scuttling after the Tories. In fact, I'm amazed Blair didn't try this, it's classic nanny state politics.
I suppose it's also a consequence of the surveillance state, since it seems that the big internet companies already monitor the web-sites we use, as maybe GCHQ and PRISM do. Violence - bad; terrorism - bad; porn - bad; eating disorders - bad; evading computer blocks - bad; esoteric - bad; gays - bad; lesbians - bad. Have a nice day.
[ 28. July 2013, 15:28: 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
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
In theory, this isn't about banning porn, but banning violent porn portraying illegal acts, specifically child pornography and rape, isn't it? Because we need to think of the children.
Which are already illegal.
So what in effect the government are saying is that they are going to make it illegal to access things on your computer which are already illegal to access on your computer.
Which is a pointless exercise,
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Quetzlcoatl(referring to the opinions of porn opponents) wrote...
quote:
I secretly like it.
I did once read a critique of porn from a conservative Christian, who wrote something to the effect of "Look, I'm not saying I'm morally better than anyone else, in fact, one of the reasons I'm against this stuff is because I recognize my own capacity for sin."
Which, I suppose, is pretty much in line with what a Christian SHOULD be saying, going by Christ's numerous injunctions against self-righteousness. However, it also opens you up to the retort: "See? The only reason you want to censor porn is because you can't control yourself, and expect the government to do it for you."
quote:
But think of the poor porn actors!
That for me is the most compelling argument against porn: the direct effect on the people who are involved in making it. If my sister or daugher were doing porn, I'd probably consider it a bad thing. And a unionized industry and safety standards probably wouldn't make much difference to me.
But I admit my reasoning there has a tinge of sexism about it, since(as I suggested earlier about porn opponents in general) I don't think I'd be nearly as upset if it were a male relative doing it.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
... So perhaps what needs to be in place is support for parents to help them take control of computers and access to the internet of their children? ...
There is. It's called "customer support". The less polite or more frustrated use RTFM.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Stetson wrote:
That for me is the most compelling argument against porn: the direct effect on the people who are involved in making it. If my sister or daugher were doing porn, I'd probably consider it a bad thing. And a unionized industry and safety standards probably wouldn't make much difference to me. But I admit my reasoning there has a tinge of sexism about it, since(as I suggested earlier about porn opponents in general) I don't think I'd be nearly as upset if it were a male relative doing it.
But the argument is whether we should ban bad things, isn't it?
It's a very slippery pig argument, I suppose. We do ban bad things, e.g. heroin (that works really well); murder; slavery; and so on.
When you come to sexuality, it all becomes very relativistic, I suppose. Sodomy used to be a capital offence in the UK, and probably other countries. Menstruation used to be considered scandalous; ditto masturbation. Lady Chatterley's Lover was prosecuted at the Old Bailey for obscenity - can you believe it? Mary Whitehouse complained about Pinky and Perky.
I guess it's just really hard to draw boundaries, but do we really need the government to do it for us?
--------------------
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
Soror Magna, The problem with that is that too many people lack in confidence with computers and would not be spending their leisure time debating on an internet bulletin board.
Current teenagers can often get away with a lot on computers because their parents are scared of the internet and don't know how to handle it, don't know what to block, or how to override the net nanny when it's too draconian, so end up doing without, wouldn't know how to check for browsing history, hate having to use computers in work and only cope with the minimum.
RTFM assumes a certain amount of base knowledge.
edited to refer to the poster I was answering
[ 28. July 2013, 16:10: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
I guess it's just really hard to draw boundaries, but do we really need the government to do it for us?
Yeah, I guess I was thinking of my own personal porn consumpation, which is pretty much non-existent now, since I live in a place where any films or magazines above softcore are illegal, and I do all my internet stuff at cafes.
But if I were in a more liberal jurisdiction, I might look at more porn, but always with the nagging feeling that such consuption violates the Golden Rule.
And I agree. "I wouldn't want my sister doing that!" is a pretty weak agrument for government regulation.
(Editted for a typo)
[ 28. July 2013, 16:30: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
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
Roger Scruton has an interesting take on it:
To free oneself from moral norms is to surrender to the state. For only the state can manage the ensuing disaster.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
To free oneself from moral norms is to surrender to the state. For only the state can manage the ensuing disaster.
So, basically, personal self-restraint is the toll we pay for avoiding state tyranny.
Kinda like a prinicipal who tells the students that they can do anything they want during break, but if too many of them end up going to the local mall to play pinball instead of studying in the library, he'll make studying mandatory.
Not sure what to think about that. I guess liberals imply a similar idea with their "marketplace of ideas" argument, ie. if all forms of expression are permitted, there's no need to worry about the really bad ones gaining traction, since they'll be easily rebutted by the good ones.
I guess the difference is that the liberal thinks the bad stuff will just die a natural death, whereas conservatives like Scruton think people need to be goaded into rejecting it, via the threat of state intervention.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
OK, so the problem is that young Master Fred might watch porn using the Internet service Fred's parents paid for, on the iPad Fred's parents bought for him, in the house Fred's parents own, because Fred's parents haven't a clue and won't be getting one any time soon.
Why is that my problem (and if government gets involved, everyone's problem) and not Fred's parents' problem? Would Fred's parents be happy if we all decided that there were other disturbing things Fred shouldn't be exposed to, such as the Old Testament or Toddlers and Tiaras?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Why is that my problem (and if government gets involved, everyone's problem) and not Fred's parents' problem?
An analogy might be the 9pm "watershed" for British broadcast television. Before 9pm, one is supposed to be able to be sure that the TV will not contain graphic violence, explicit sex or particularly offensive language, as the assumption is that children might be in the audience.
The proponents of the filter-by-default approach would like to be able to consider "the internet," by which they mean the web, as a child-friendly zone, so they don't have to sit beside their kids when they're online, just as they feel safe leaving their children watching TV while they cook dinner in another room, or how they feel comfortable sending their children to the library without worrying that they will find bound volumes of back issues of Playboy.
I think there's a fairly fundamental technical flaw with this wish, but that doesn't make the desire itself evil - just a bit futile.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
To free oneself from moral norms is to surrender to the state. For only the state can manage the ensuing disaster.
So, basically, personal self-restraint is the toll we pay for avoiding state tyranny.
Kinda like a prinicipal who tells the students that they can do anything they want during break, but if too many of them end up going to the local mall to play pinball instead of studying in the library, he'll make studying mandatory.
Not sure what to think about that. I guess liberals imply a similar idea with their "marketplace of ideas" argument, ie. if all forms of expression are permitted, there's no need to worry about the really bad ones gaining traction, since they'll be easily rebutted by the good ones.
I guess the difference is that the liberal thinks the bad stuff will just die a natural death, whereas conservatives like Scruton think people need to be goaded into rejecting it, via the threat of state intervention.
I think the flaw in Scruton's sentence is that morality is not dying, it's just changing. So to say that we are becoming 'free of moral norms' is just his interpretation. Of course, there are still moral norms, they are just not the ones he likes.
--------------------
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
The 9 oclock watershed doesn't generate a list of people who choose to watch TV after 9. The opt-out filter would.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
But they don't have to sit with their kids, when they're online; they switch on the extant filters.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
I think the flaw in Scruton's sentence is that morality is not dying, it's just changing. So to say that we are becoming 'free of moral norms' is just his interpretation. Of course, there are still moral norms, they are just not the ones he likes.
Well, if we are inclned to help Scruton out, we could perhaps re-work his formulation to "radically changing moral norms" as opposed to "becoming free of moral norms".
Because I think for most people, there are certain moral norms that they feel such a strong attachment to that they would consider changing them to be as disastrous as abandoning morality altogether.
Most of us on the Ship are probably happy that it's now considered unacceptable for politicians to make openly racist comments. If that taboo were to disappear, I don't think it would be much consolation for us to think "Oh well, at least people still believe in other forms of morality."
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
OK, so the problem is that young Master Fred might watch porn using the Internet service Fred's parents paid for, on the iPad Fred's parents bought for him, in the house Fred's parents own, because Fred's parents haven't a clue and won't be getting one any time soon.
Why is that my problem (and if government gets involved, everyone's problem) and not Fred's parents' problem? Would Fred's parents be happy if we all decided that there were other disturbing things Fred shouldn't be exposed to, such as the Old Testament or Toddlers and Tiaras?
That's the whole point of many of our objections. There is a problem with children being able to access porn on the internet. There are problems with what is available on the internet, that is being tackled by an agreement with the ISPs to filter illegal content - the current situation. But letting the Government filter "adult content" is not the solution.
It goes alongside the computerisation of many services in this country and the insistence that everyone has to be on-line and connected. We must think of our children and provide them with the access to the internet for their homework ... ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
but you have to be a geek to know to put an admin account on to a computer or laptop or iPad or iPhone and to set up parental controls ... and willing to google to find out how to, and not give said equipment to minors until such protections are put in place.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I don't think you have to be a geek to put filters on. Every time I get a bill or an email from TalkTalk, there is a clickable box saying 'online security'. When you click on that, you get a big box, saying 'Activate HomeSafe now'. So if you click on that, you are shown how to activate it.
You can also phone TalkTalk (for free), and I'm sure they would guide you through it. Are some parents just too lazy?
Of course, HomeSafe is completely hopeless, as it blocks all and sundry, and is run by a Chinese company, plenty of experience then.
--------------------
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
You don't think you have to be a geek, and nor do I. But we're debating on an internet forum, which puts us into a far more computer literate group than most of the parents and teenagers I work with, and, to be honest, a significant number of my fellow education colleagues.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I suppose there are parents who don't care about online security for their kids - well, fair enough. I don't have a problem with that really.
Then there are parents who do care, and don't understand computer stuff, I suppose. Does this mean that they don't understand email, and so if they get an email from their internet company, they don't know how to open it? And don't know how to click on something that says 'click here for online security?'
I suppose there are such people, but you would think, that if they do care about it, they would make a little bit of effort. For example, with TalkTalk, it might involve making one phone call, and listening to the guy on the other end. Wow, really hard.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
There is the additional aspect that the original letter sent to the ISPs seems to acknowledge that the whole thing is a bit of PR posturing anyway:
"Without changing what you will be offering (ie active-choice +), the prime minister would like to be able to refer to your solutions as 'default-on',"
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I actually bought a Kindle tablet recently, and after switching on, almost the first message on the screen is: do you want parental controls on? And you just click to OK it. Is this really hard?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Do we give kids the car keys before they are taught how to to drive? Nope. Do all parents know how all the component parts of their vehicle work? Not usually. And yet, somehow, their kids learn to drive. My parents taught me to drive, some of my friends took driver ed in high school, and others took private courses. Even though most parents are neither auto mechanics nor NASCAR drivers, their kids learn to drive.
How is it that such inexpert parents can do this? (I would hope) It's not just because the government insists we have drivers' licenses, it's because they want their kids to be safe.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I know it's easy. But I also know a lot of adults who have to ask the teenager in the house to sort out the technology because they get brain freeze and panic when faced with computers. So said teenager gets to set up the Kindle or whatever. A bit like all those people on the Ship and elsewhere asking for suggestions for easy to use kit for their parents and setting it up for them. Is every teenager setting up the household technology going to turn on the parental controls when asked?
It's a generational thing that will go away when the current teenagers become parents and put all the controls in place, remembering what they got up to, not wanting their children to do the same and knowing their way around the technology. But until that happens we're stuck with this position where "something needs to be done" which means Cameron can make noises about being helpful while putting universal censorship in place.
A bit like the twitter button.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
It's not just in the home. Any IT techie will tell you that even in business you will have directors who have to be told "click on start - that's the button in the bottom left with "start" on it - no, single click..."
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
How is it that such inexpert parents can do this? (I would hope) It's not just because the government insists we have drivers' licenses, it's because they want their kids to be safe.
Its actually because the technology of cars is over a hundred years old. Parents were well trained in how to drive when they were young, and their parents before them. When cars were first invented young people raced around the roads at 'dangerous' speeds and their parents had no idea how to make them safer.
--------------------
“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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
You don't think you have to be a geek, and nor do I. But we're debating on an internet forum, which puts us into a far more computer literate group than most of the parents and teenagers I work with, and, to be honest, a significant number of my fellow education colleagues.
Yeah, but in the absolutely WORST CASE what the parent has to do is ring up the IT Tech Support and get them to turn a filter on. Seriously, this is no less complicated than ordering your connection to start with.
Also, EVEN with these filters there is no suggestion that the internet will suddenly become pre-watershed. Absent porn, there is still loads of stuff on the internet that young children shouldn't see.
[ 30. July 2013, 12:10: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, that puzzles me. How on earth do these technophobe parents set up broadband? I suppose they get their 8 year old children to do 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
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's not just in the home. Any IT techie will tell you that even in business you will have directors who have to be told "click on start - that's the button in the bottom left with "start" on it - no, single click..."
That's just pulling rank. Being a "techie" is a low-status function for the accountants or lawyers or marketing people who run large companies. They're probably perfectly competent at home. Having people round them to do menial jobs boosts their status in their own eyes.
Also its not cool to be clever. Or not to be seen being clever in public anyway.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Antisocial Alto
Shipmate
# 13810
|
Posted
People who think filters on individual devices actually work are dreaming. I used to work at a public library and even in the mid-2000s it was pathetically easy for our non-techie patrons (homeless people and inner-city teenagers, for the most part) to get around our filters and view porn.
With social media it's even easier. Filters are generally set up to block specific sites. If people e-mail pictures or videos to each other or share on social media, there's nothing the filter can do about it because the site just comes up as Gmail or Facebook or whatever.
Claiming that porn is an issue of individual parents' responsibility isn't going to work. We are going to have to re-make the habits of our whole society, considering that two-thirds of children have a TV in their own rooms and half of all teenagers own a smartphone. How easy is it for you as an individual parent to keep your child completely isolated from something that half of their classmates own, and can easily bring to school?
I honestly think that changing children's media usage, porn included, is going to take a huge public education campaign like the anti-smoking or anti-drunk driving movements (which after almost fifty years of effort are still struggling). Too many parents either believe that technology is beneficial, or are hooked on the virtual babysitting.
Posts: 601 | From: United States | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
But many feminists would argue that porn is the tip of an ice-berg, whereby patriarchal society systematically regulates and degrades female sexuality, female bodies, and female identity.
It's a bit like pulling at a thread in a sweater - the whole thing starts to unravel.
That's one reason that censorship worries me, as you would have to censor books, newspapers, TV, cinema, as well as the internet.
Who is going to do that? And how? I don't see it as a practicable thing. Or if it was, it would become a new puritanism.
The alternative of course is re-education, and 'contestation', that is, an articulate opposition to prevailing attitudes.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, that puzzles me. How on earth do these technophobe parents set up broadband? I suppose they get their 8 year old children to do it.
Setting up our wireless router was as difficult as plugging it in, putting a CD into the computer, and giving it a name for the network and a password when it asked for one.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, that puzzles me. How on earth do these technophobe parents set up broadband? I suppose they get their 8 year old children to do it.
Setting up our wireless router was as difficult as plugging it in, putting a CD into the computer, and giving it a name for the network and a password when it asked for one.
Sure - and setting up parental filters is as easy as making a single call to ISP support and asking them to turn it on.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Everyone here on the ship is relatively tech savvy or they wouldn't be here in the first place... they know how to operate a computer, they know what to do with a mouse and a keyboard, etc. But there are people out there who are not and who can't even figure the first thing out by themselves. I have taught computer classes to such people and the level of ignorance and, to be honest, lack of intelligence, are appalling. These are people who not only wouldn't be able to get around a filter, they wouldn't understand how one worked in the first place.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, that puzzles me. How on earth do these technophobe parents set up broadband? I suppose they get their 8 year old children to do it
Pay for a company set up service
Ask a friend
Ask a neighbour
Use the 8 year old's older teenager brother
Surprising how many home computer setup services there were when I googled. Rather suggestive that a market exists.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
The problem is that ISP authentication servers only have the router's ID and password. For granular access control to be provided - the filter belongs BEYOND THE CUSTOMER'S ROUTER.
I envisage the following solution..
ISP ----- Wired router at user's home
Wired router in home ----- Content filter,
Content filter ---- baby hub
baby hub ---- RADIUS server, wireless access point, Ethernet port.
User accounts can be set up for each person - meaning that filtering can be set up appropriately per person.
The non-techies in Govt runnign with this have forgotten that unlike back in the 90s (when the Web was more of a wild west), people no longer dial in and authenticate individually for a session. Instead, the ISP can ID your CONNECTION - the login and password your router may send - but they will NOT know you individually, except for an application session (such as your IMAP account). Connections are no longer set up and torn down per person as in the old Prestel/AOL/dialup days.
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Stetson: quote:
But think of the poor porn actors!
That for me is the most compelling argument against porn: the direct effect on the people who are involved in making it.
To me too.
--------------------
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
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
But think of the poor porn actors!
That for me is the most compelling argument against porn: the direct effect on the people who are involved in making it. If my sister or daugher were doing porn, I'd probably consider it a bad thing. And a unionized industry and safety standards probably wouldn't make much difference to me.
But I admit my reasoning there has a tinge of sexism about it, since(as I suggested earlier about porn opponents in general) I don't think I'd be nearly as upset if it were a male relative doing it.
For me, if a male relative were doing it I'd be even more appalled. He wouldn't just be working in a degrading industry, he'd be actively degrading others through his actions. A far more actively culpable position IMO, and worthy of greater social censure.
This may seem sexist, to portray women as vulnerable victims and men as the perpetrators, but much of the porn world is overtly sexist, enjoying the promotion of such portrayals since it sells more. The porn industry mainly plays to the worst impulses of humanity after all. Why else would one of its most popular genres be the overtly racist black men on white women pair ups. A genre far more popular in America than anywhere else - for obvious and depressing reasons.
--------------------
“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
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
The porn industry mainly plays to the worst impulses of humanity after all. Why else would one of its most popular genres be the overtly racist black men on white women pair ups. A genre far more popular in America than anywhere else - for obvious and depressing reasons.
OK, I've got to know - where does one go to find statistics on porn genre popularity, broken down by consumer nationality?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Prestel
Now, there's a word I haven't heard in a while...
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Why is that my problem (and if government gets involved, everyone's problem) and not Fred's parents' problem?
An analogy might be the 9pm "watershed" for British broadcast television. Before 9pm, one is supposed to be able to be sure that the TV will not contain graphic violence, explicit sex or particularly offensive language, as the assumption is that children might be in the audience.
The equivalent would be a default opt-in filter that automatically switched off at 9 o'clock. The fact this is not on offer suggests to me that "think of the children" is merely a fig-leaf for the real reason that some people find porn icky.
The only arguments for banning or restricting porn which really resonate for me are Christian ones. None of the others - exploitation, objectification of women, corruption of minors - really wash. Where is the proposal to ban or restrict clothing imports from Bangladesh? Nope, not there. Where is the proposal to ban or restrict non-pornographic media that objectifies women, e.g. fashion magazines? Nope, not there. Where are the plans to restrict the constant barrage of advertising aimed at children? No, not there either.
Exploitation, objectification and corruption of children are genuine problems, but there are far more obvious targets than porn. I genuinely doubt that workers in the porn industry, desirable as it is, are treated worse than workers in south Asia for example, or are more likely to suffer work-related injuries. I doubt that porn harms women more than the fashion industry or those evil gossip mags, and I doubt that potential exposure of children to upsetting material on the Internet poses a greater risk than the actual exposure to endless advertising.
What I suspect is really happening is that certain groups - chiefly concerned parents and feminists - have formed a group vocal enough to force politicians (and business) to respond. As (I imagine) the average member of this group will be a heterosexual woman, it is not suprising that porn has an extra 'ick' factor which does not get applied to Fifty Shades of Gray, for example. It has created the latest moral panic - before that it was obesity, before that; asylum seekers; before that, violent video games; before that, television; before that, rock music; and before that, uncovered piano legs I suppose.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Good post, Cod. Since the whole of culture is sexist, where do you draw the line? As you say, either where loud voices indicate, or where politicians might see votes.
I also cite the ever-present role of violence on TV and in the cinema, video games, and so on. Do we ban this?
Then the counter-argument of free speech seems very powerful to me.
Should we ban 'Lady Chatterley' again because it has its sex scenes, and its f****s and c****s?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
Lady Chatterley won't get banned. It doesn't have pictures of naked women in it.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Just another form of English puritanism, isn't it? Naked bodies are bad; bodies doing sex are badder; and gay naked bodies doing sex, especially men, are baddest.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Our culture is soaked in sexually suggestive images - not just porn, but advertising, art and entertainment. We can't really determine how many people are watching porn, but advertisers know exactly how many people are watching a beer commercial, for example.
An internet porn opt-in system won't do anything about all this garbage.
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Just another form of English puritanism, isn't it?
Some of us are indeed beginning get the feeling that a secular form of puritanism is creeping in through the back door, disguised as political correctness , aided and abetted by vocal minorities.
Or is it just us fellows mourning the passing of a male dominant society where the women folk were there simply to be protected, patronised or drooled over on the quiet ?
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
I think talk of secular puritanism is perhaps a bit broad. There is no talk at all of restricting access to written porn, e.g. slash. My observation is that the ire is directed at porn that involves naked people, perhaps having sex, particularly when the naked people are female, as that perpetuates the patriarchy or / and causes body issues in girls (the boys aren't such an object of concern).
What about gay (visual) porn? ISTM that porn / ponographic images produced for heterosexual men are an easier target, but await correction.
[ 03. August 2013, 18:24: Message edited by: Cod ]
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
