Is There Any Good Reason Why This...
News1 min ago
Are you in favour of banning porn on the internet?
I see on BBC News site, that the government is finally addressing one of the huge problems of these troubled times, internet porn.
Yes, I know it is prefixed with 'violent', but as the actual definition of what is banned is up the government (or the courts) you can see where this is going, can't you? By way of example of how 'moderate' becomes 'extreme', you can have porn mags you can buy in WH Smith confiscated by the C&E if you attempt to import them into the UK.
(BTW, I'm not a fan of any of it myself, I rarely view the stuff, but I'm just sick of endless government nannying)
Yes, I know it is prefixed with 'violent', but as the actual definition of what is banned is up the government (or the courts) you can see where this is going, can't you? By way of example of how 'moderate' becomes 'extreme', you can have porn mags you can buy in WH Smith confiscated by the C&E if you attempt to import them into the UK.
(BTW, I'm not a fan of any of it myself, I rarely view the stuff, but I'm just sick of endless government nannying)
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Catso. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Well, I think it is inevitable that at some point the government will start heavily regulating the internet. But right now the world wide web is as close as you can get to representing actual freedom of speech. I think we are very lucky to be able to use the internet at it's infancy. I feel the internet in the future will be very different . So, no I am not in favor of banning porn on the internet. That would mean I would have to find a new hobby LOL.
China have done a pretty good job of censoring the internet, apparently. As have other similar regimes.
It's only a matter of time before it happens over here.
Particularly when considering the increasing thirst for control over it's populous this government has - speed cameras and number plate recognition, CCTV cameras with facial recognition, the ID card, satellite tracking for the proposed pay as you drive road tax, RFID tags on your wheely bins etc etc.
It's only a matter of time before it happens over here.
Particularly when considering the increasing thirst for control over it's populous this government has - speed cameras and number plate recognition, CCTV cameras with facial recognition, the ID card, satellite tracking for the proposed pay as you drive road tax, RFID tags on your wheely bins etc etc.
I have no doubt western governments will take a leaf out of China's book and begin to censure many things we receive on the Internet. Initially, they will target elements that many people agree upon; things like the violent rape sites from Russia and child pornography from the USA.
However, recent experience in Britain and the USA heralds the continuing and increasing intrusion of government into our lives and I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear MI6 or the CIA declare that porno on the web funds international terrorism and needs to be clamped down upon.
Unfortunately, for governments, the porn industry in the USA is wealthier than Hollywood and will no doubt fight any attempts at censorship and they'll probably do it naked so they can sell the DVD version online.
However, recent experience in Britain and the USA heralds the continuing and increasing intrusion of government into our lives and I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear MI6 or the CIA declare that porno on the web funds international terrorism and needs to be clamped down upon.
Unfortunately, for governments, the porn industry in the USA is wealthier than Hollywood and will no doubt fight any attempts at censorship and they'll probably do it naked so they can sell the DVD version online.
Interestingly, all the technological developments in the use (and misue!) of the Internet are driven by the adult entertainment industry.
Experience has shown that, with the exception of the Washington Post, no-one has successfuly managed to launch and sustain a fee-paying website except for adult entertainment sites.
If the Government does try to censor access by its citizens, they will simply circumvent the restrictions - and you can be sure that the adult industry can, and will invest many more times the time, money and expertise than the government in ensuring that its customers have free access to its goods and services.
If the government wants to score political points and votes (the only reason for doing anything censorship-wise) - it would do well to star with terrestrial television. The scenes of a woman being beaten, and losing a tooth (however inacurately displayed) in a soap opera broadcast by the BBC at 7.30 in tne evening were allowed, and registered barely a whimper. The new Channel 4 show "Whatever" plubs even deeper mines of bordom, and unpleasant aspects of life - but again, it is allowed.
I'm not especially an advocate of censorship per se, but if the government wants to make a difference, it should start by addressing issues closer to home, which are within its remit to alter, rather than trying its swinging "We'lll stop all this ..." attitude which it has probably learned from President Bush's equally ineffectual policies.
Experience has shown that, with the exception of the Washington Post, no-one has successfuly managed to launch and sustain a fee-paying website except for adult entertainment sites.
If the Government does try to censor access by its citizens, they will simply circumvent the restrictions - and you can be sure that the adult industry can, and will invest many more times the time, money and expertise than the government in ensuring that its customers have free access to its goods and services.
If the government wants to score political points and votes (the only reason for doing anything censorship-wise) - it would do well to star with terrestrial television. The scenes of a woman being beaten, and losing a tooth (however inacurately displayed) in a soap opera broadcast by the BBC at 7.30 in tne evening were allowed, and registered barely a whimper. The new Channel 4 show "Whatever" plubs even deeper mines of bordom, and unpleasant aspects of life - but again, it is allowed.
I'm not especially an advocate of censorship per se, but if the government wants to make a difference, it should start by addressing issues closer to home, which are within its remit to alter, rather than trying its swinging "We'lll stop all this ..." attitude which it has probably learned from President Bush's equally ineffectual policies.
I agree with all your answers.
Whilst personally very little affected, I feel this is just the thin end of the wedge, and once the precedent is accepted by 'the public', I think we can expect more and more to be prohibited (or just mysteriously disappear from Google).
In many ways, the internet is just the antithesis of everything UK government stands for and believes in. This particular government, especially.
Still, it will be amusing to hear the UK government criticising China's and some islamic nation's attitude to the internet. ;-)
Whilst personally very little affected, I feel this is just the thin end of the wedge, and once the precedent is accepted by 'the public', I think we can expect more and more to be prohibited (or just mysteriously disappear from Google).
In many ways, the internet is just the antithesis of everything UK government stands for and believes in. This particular government, especially.
Still, it will be amusing to hear the UK government criticising China's and some islamic nation's attitude to the internet. ;-)
There is an opposition to this Bill in the face of the Backlash organisation (http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/), there might be more but this is the one I am familiar with.
I don't see how the government can address the issue of 'violent' porn until they recognise the issue of adult consent.
The definition of 'violent' puts consensual S/M activity in the same mould as the paedophilia and bestiality. If I am not mistaken in the UK fetishism and S/M still fall under the psychiatric diagnoses in ICD (WHO). That in itself is a fundamental flaw. The government is trying to address an issue, which is too big for generalisation and lacks any definition. It is irresponsible and crazy and a direct violation of human rights.
I don't see how the government can address the issue of 'violent' porn until they recognise the issue of adult consent.
The definition of 'violent' puts consensual S/M activity in the same mould as the paedophilia and bestiality. If I am not mistaken in the UK fetishism and S/M still fall under the psychiatric diagnoses in ICD (WHO). That in itself is a fundamental flaw. The government is trying to address an issue, which is too big for generalisation and lacks any definition. It is irresponsible and crazy and a direct violation of human rights.
Oh, and just an example of how silly this is... The proposal was published last year ( I think) and the government encouraged people's opinions on this subject in the form of e-mails, the address was provided. The only problem since the subject of the poll was of the sexual nature and the e-mails contaned words like sex, BDSM, S/M, fetish etc, most of them were stopped by the Firewalls.
Yet another foolish piece of legislation by a Govt hell bent on telling us what we may or may not do.The whole elemnt of consent has been ignored and it's going to open up a real minefield with people who are into the SM scene.
For some reason people seem to think that dysfunctional psychos who copy things they see on these sites in real life with unwilling victims will be rendered harmless if they aren't allowed to look at sites like this. That's just not true, they'll obtain their "inspiration" for their crimes elsewhere, like many mainsream horror films and simply overlay their own sexual perversions over the top. It won't cure anything, it'll just turn a lot of consenting SM people into criminals as
JustSia so excellently pointed out.
For some reason people seem to think that dysfunctional psychos who copy things they see on these sites in real life with unwilling victims will be rendered harmless if they aren't allowed to look at sites like this. That's just not true, they'll obtain their "inspiration" for their crimes elsewhere, like many mainsream horror films and simply overlay their own sexual perversions over the top. It won't cure anything, it'll just turn a lot of consenting SM people into criminals as
JustSia so excellently pointed out.
Actually that's not strictly speaking true Catso.
Imagine I liked hitting my wife and she liked being hit during sex, just because she consents to the assault, doesn't mean I could not be charged with it. In practice I doubt that ever happens very often, but I do know that some years ago some gay men were sent to prison for assaulting each other consentually, so it happens occasionally. The whole thing is ridiculous and needs overhauling sensibly.
Imagine I liked hitting my wife and she liked being hit during sex, just because she consents to the assault, doesn't mean I could not be charged with it. In practice I doubt that ever happens very often, but I do know that some years ago some gay men were sent to prison for assaulting each other consentually, so it happens occasionally. The whole thing is ridiculous and needs overhauling sensibly.
Noxlumos, I believe you are referring to the Spanner case.
Yes, some degree of soft S/M is ok otherwise they would not be selling whips at Ann Summers but even then they sell them as novelties. You can be charged with ABH or GBH if your activity leaves lasting marks in the form of bruises, scars, hand prints, redness oh and guess what love bites fall into that category also so by all rights should be illegal. Your other half's consent wouldn't mean a thing if the complaint was made by say your neighbour or someone else who had witnessed it. Obviously prosecutions are rare, but that doesn't stop other forms of discrimination and fear of arrest, complaints, social services involvement, etc etc.
Yes, some degree of soft S/M is ok otherwise they would not be selling whips at Ann Summers but even then they sell them as novelties. You can be charged with ABH or GBH if your activity leaves lasting marks in the form of bruises, scars, hand prints, redness oh and guess what love bites fall into that category also so by all rights should be illegal. Your other half's consent wouldn't mean a thing if the complaint was made by say your neighbour or someone else who had witnessed it. Obviously prosecutions are rare, but that doesn't stop other forms of discrimination and fear of arrest, complaints, social services involvement, etc etc.
Also if that goes ahead why not ban some of Bernini�s statues like say, oh, The Rape of Proserpine, or The Ecstasy of St Teresa, how about the children�s theme A Faun Teased by Children; or Giambologna�s Rape of a Sabine and half of Dali�s erotic paintings and most recently the one with the naked woman and the pig in bed. And why stop there, why not out-law all violent images, starting with the crucifix?
Catso, I thought photography was art;)
In any case I was only thinking it would be hypocritical not to. How can you say the photo of a reproduced rape scene is any more violent in its content than the above mentioned sculptures? In any case you would find that cartoons are actually much more explicit and violent than the photos, just check out hentai anime.
In any case I was only thinking it would be hypocritical not to. How can you say the photo of a reproduced rape scene is any more violent in its content than the above mentioned sculptures? In any case you would find that cartoons are actually much more explicit and violent than the photos, just check out hentai anime.
Just reading up more on it, it seems there is no real distinction on what should be banned...
Have a look at this
http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/qcopinion.html
Have a look at this
http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/qcopinion.html
Latest Posts
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Crime Cases Still Using Cassettes
Technology7 mins ago
Religion & Spirituality - What...
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Tory Donor Lord Bamford Funds The Reform...
News13 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.