Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government Privacy The Internet Your Rights Online

Porn Ban Being Considered In South Africa 240

Posted by Soulskill
from the have-an-easier-time-blocking-gravity dept.
krou writes "Deputy Minister of Home Affairs Malusi Gigaba has gone to South Africa's Law Reform Commission to see whether the law can be changed to allow a complete ban of digitally distributed pornography. Gigaba has also been in discussion with The Justice Alliance of South Africa, 'a coalition of corporations, individuals, and churches committed to upholding and fighting for justice and the highest moral standards in South African society,' which has written its own draft bill regarding the issue, which covers the banning of pornography on television, mobile phones, and the Web. Using a car analogy, Mr. Gigaba said, 'Cars are already provided with brakes and seatbelts.... There is no reason why the Internet should be provided without the necessary restrictive mechanisms built into it.' Related documents and the JASA's proposed bill can be found online, one of which has the wonderful title 'A reasonable and justifiable limitation on Freedom of Expression and Right to Privacy.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Porn Ban Being Considered In South Africa

Comments Filter:
  • The brakes model (Score:5, Interesting)

    by aapold (753705) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @10:43AM (#32396836) Homepage Journal
    if they use that model, that would be fine.

    Because I can choose to hit the brakes or not as I see fit. If harm comes from my failure to use them, then I suffer the consequences. If not, no problem.

    Thus, I expect them to implement a filter than can be applied or not applied as the user sees fit, and leave it up to them to apply it judiciously.

    I have no problem with this model, if so applied.
    • by biryokumaru (822262) <biryokumaru@gmail.com> on Sunday May 30, 2010 @10:49AM (#32396904)
      But couldn't the people who want the filter just, you know, not look at porn?
      • Re:The brakes model (Score:4, Informative)

        by S.O.B. (136083) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @11:28AM (#32397198)

        While I don't believe that trying to ban porn on the internet is practical neither is telling people to just not look at it. There are popups, browser hijacking and unfortunate search results that could subject people to porn even though they did not actively seek it out. I remember hearing a story a few years ago of a public school teacher showing kids how to use Google and she suggested typing in "Spice Girls" and at the time one of the top results had nude photos of Geri Halliwell.

        If we take the example of how porn is handled in the non-virtual world, porn content is segregated into specialized stores, that dimly lit room at the back of your video rental shop or the top row of the magazine rack.

        The controversial .xxx domain, if it ever gets approved, would allow people and countries that do not want to see porn to have a way to ensure that they will never see it unless they intentionally go to those sites. That is assuming that porn sites agree to migrate. After all, migration would be in their best interests as a way of heading off eventual government regulation that would likely be more restrictive. They likely wouldn't lose any money since porn always sells.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mrsteveman1 (1010381)

          "Subject" people to porn. Right.

          The .xxx domain is not going to lead to freedom of choice, it will lead to censorship.

          The spice girls google example is a lesson, teachers should not randomly type things into google in front of students, if they want kid-safe search results they need to use a kid-safe search engine. That is not just cause for censorship.

          The answer is to stop catering to the moral objections of people who don't want to see things. Being offended by something doesn't actually mean someone else

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by slick7 (1703596)

            That is not just cause for censorship.

            When the religious zealots invoke G-D, it is.

            • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

              by OeLeWaPpErKe (412765)

              Yeah but still, you'd have to admit that if anyone wanted to be on the internet and not "get" to look at a boatload of porn ... that'd be kinda hard.

              Let's be honest here.

              • Re:The brakes model (Score:4, Informative)

                by andymadigan (792996) <amadigan.gmail@com> on Sunday May 30, 2010 @01:53PM (#32398458)
                Use a modern browser with a pop-up blocker and install an ad blocker. I don't see porn when I'm browsing unless I go looking for it.
          • by ultranova (717540) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @01:17PM (#32398148)

            The spice girls google example is a lesson, teachers should not randomly type things into google in front of students, if they want kid-safe search results they need to use a kid-safe search engine. That is not just cause for censorship.

            Even better, understand that kids aren't going to be harmed by seeing naked women, or even people having sex. Those who are too young will simply ignore it, and those who are old enough will get more fuel for their fantasies. That's all.

            Doesn't mean that you should go out of your way to show porn to children, but if they see it, it's not the end of the world, so stop overreacting.

        • by tverbeek (457094)

          Do you honestly believe that creating .xxx would do anything at all to solve the pop-up and hijacking problems you mention in your first paragraph? People who engage in such underhanded tactics are not going to willingly restrict themselves to a porn domain.

          • by S.O.B. (136083)

            I didn't intend to suggest that .xxx would be a silver bullet. It's more of a 90/10 rule. If .xxx would take care of say 90% of the porn then it's easier to deal with the 10% that's left.

            The point I was trying to make is that having a .xxx red light district makes it easier to avoid for people who want to avoid it but at the same time not infringing on the right of those who do want it.

        • by ThinkingInBinary (899485) <thinkinginbinary@noSpam.gmail.com> on Sunday May 30, 2010 @12:22PM (#32397616) Homepage

          The controversial .xxx domain, if it ever gets approved, would allow people and countries that do not want to see porn to have a way to ensure that they will never see it unless they intentionally go to those sites.

          A "country" cannot decide for its people that it "doesn't want to see porn". I can assure you, at least some people (of legal age) in that country probably want to see it, and it's not (morally) up to the country to make that decision.

          • by S.O.B. (136083)

            Absolutely a country has the moral right to decide that it's citizens are not allowed to see porn just like it has the moral right to make any other decision to protect and provide for it's citizens. That's the very definition of government. Just because you disagree with the decision does not make it immoral.

            If there was a .xxx domain I'm sure there are more than a few countries that would consider a nationwide block. I'm not saying I agree with it but it's not immoral for a country to attempt to do it.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Pharmboy (216950)

              Absolutely a country has the moral right to decide that it's citizens are not allowed to see porn just like it has the moral right to make any other decision to protect and provide for it's citizens.

              Here in America, our constitution was designed specifically to NOT allow the government to do those things. While they have whittled at those things for years, some of us believe that it is NOT the governments (any government) job to decide what is moral and what is not. Certain crimes such as murder, rape, b

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by skine (1524819)

                While they have whittled at those things for years, some of us believe that it is NOT the governments (any government) job to decide what is moral and what is not.

                A lot of people don't realize that the purpose of law (and government) is to create a successful society, and not for the protection of the individual (though individuals do benefit from a successful society).

                Murder may be morally wrong, but that's not why it's illegal. It's illegal since a society which allows murder will likely not function very well.
                Seatbelt laws are in place because healthy, living people are much more beneficial to society than those that are injured or dead.

                From some points of view, p

                • Re:The brakes model (Score:4, Interesting)

                  by zuperduperman (1206922) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @07:16PM (#32401278)

                  > the purpose of law (and government) is to create a successful society

                  It may be true at a practical level, but I find this kind of rationalization very scary. You are saying that the needs of the collective universally outweigh those of the individual. Which for example (sorry to Godwin the thread) would mean that if we genuinely come to believe that Jews negatively affect society then it is quite OK to discriminate against them, perhaps even ship them out on trains or enslave them and put them in camps because, hey, making 'society' better is a higher purpose than protecting the rights of individuals.

                  > From some points of view, pornography is immoral. The real questions that should be asked are whether it is detrimental to society

                  I have to disagree. We are not here to serve 'society', 'society' is here to serve us. We are individuals who agree to participate in 'society' because it serves our own interests. If we all choose masturbating to porn as a great thing to do then it is not the business of government to make a judgement that 'society' has been negatively affected. If you want to make this argument then you have to drive it down to how it negatively affects individuals, and then address a solution at the most granular level possible to help those individuals. It is only in the most extreme and rare cases that this should rise to the level that all 'society' has to be controlled.

            • by Golddess (1361003)
              Are you really trying to say that looking at pornography is damaging to the person doing the looking, even when they want to look?

              And no, there really aren't multiple shades of morality. If you take event X, it's morality changes only from other events surrounding and/or leading up to it (for example, the sequence of events leading up to killing someone would have a say in if that killing was moral), not from the geographic location in which it occurred.

              However, I will concede that, for any event X, hu
          • Well, it's like what we hear out of China. "The Chinese people don't want the freedom to look at dissenting political opinions. That's why there needs to be a massive censorship filter and widespread intimidation and oppression to stop any specific Chinese people who disagree." If there were really a consensus, there'd be no need for such a law.
        • by Reziac (43301) *

          Probably would make it easier to find if desired, too -- type in anyrandomshit.xxx and chances are it'll be *some* porn domain. I don't see a downside for the legit porn industry.

          As to finding it unwanted... never in all the time I've been online ('net since '96, BBSs before that) have I tripped over porn by accident. When I have encountered it unasked, I was already in some rather shady corner of the web. I have to wonder how many of the anti-porn types are doing "I typed in 'sexy girls' and there it was!

      • by Jawnn (445279) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @11:55AM (#32397406)

        But couldn't the people who want the filter just, you know, not look at porn?

        Erm..., no. Of course not. They would rather convince themselves that they don't need or want to ever look at porn, and having done that, the cognitive dissonance set up by their envy of those choose not to would be unbearable. So..., everyone must suffer.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by flyneye (84093)

      Give up on wishing for any common sense. South Africa has a rich history of legislating the wills of the ignorant, the misguided and the boneheaded.
      This gentleman is probably to the point where he is able to Google for what he wants, so he obviously knows more about the internet than all the stupid countries out there who just aren't doing anything about the sinful smutty internet. Well, by golly he will and he knows just how to fix it.
      I prefer to sit back and watch this unfold

    • by slick7 (1703596)

      if they use that model, that would be fine. Because I can choose to hit the brakes or not as I see fit. If harm comes from my failure to use them, then I suffer the consequences. If not, no problem. Thus, I expect them to implement a filter than can be applied or not applied as the user sees fit, and leave it up to them to apply it judiciously. I have no problem with this model, if so applied.

      No matter how safe you make a "vehicle", you still have a loose nut behind the wheel. how do you fix that?

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        I would suggest equipping all drivers with rather large wrenches. That might solve the loose nut problem. Either that, or make it so only women and eunuchs can drive.
  • So the cars without seatbelts have to drive in one set of tubes, and the cars with seatbelts drive in different tubes, and some of those tubes aren't allowed to go into SA airspace? Ok, I think I get it.....
  • Who wants to see Winnie Mandela nude?

  • There is no reason why the internet should be provided without the necessary restrictive mechanisms built into it.

    He's exactly right. This is why we print newspapers and books on flash paper, for instance, in case the ideas they contain are found to be dangerous and need to be restricted. The same logic also explains the censors who sit in on university classes to cover students' ears and hum loudly when the professor expresses views which are not in the mainstream.

  • by roman_mir (125474) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @10:49AM (#32396906) Homepage Journal

    So I guess they solved all of the other societal and economic problems in South Africa now, that they are considering this porn ban.

    I don't know of any other single thing that can rile up the masses as much as this nonsense, this including killing of kittens and puppies and eating little babies with some tomato sauce. Well maybe not the masses, but I sure would be quite irritated.

    • by tverbeek (457094)

      So I guess they solved all of the other societal and economic problems in South Africa now, that they are considering this porn ban.

      See, that's just it. Since the dismantling of Apartheid, South Africa has made such progress on human rights and social justice (still far from perfect, but way better than it used to be) that they have to take measures like this to try to fsck the place up again.

      • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @04:23PM (#32399806) Journal

        Since the dismantling of Apartheid, South Africa has made such progress on human rights and social justice (still far from perfect, but way better than it used to be)

        I guess that's why their crime rates have soared since then, and life quality has decreased on average?

        Let's face it: the people who took over the country in post-apartheid era fucked up in a major way, and that is largely due to violent ignorance of the newly found electorate. Not saying that apartheid was a good thing, mind you - it was a travesty, and good riddance! - but for all the good things that its downfall had brought, there were just as many bad ones; and those still keep coming...

  • Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hijacked Public (999535) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @10:52AM (#32396930)

    Once you've climbed the hill past every other questionable component of human behavior, why not ban porn? You're past racism and oppression and outright murder of whatever race isn't the one in power. And starvation. And everyone has enough water. And you can grow all the food you need. And you haven't sold everything under the ground to companies that will burn everything above making room to dig.

    No one is actively raping and pillaging their neighbors. People's homes aren't being burned with government approval. You won't be murdered and your gold teeth pried out if you ride a Kombi outside Johannesburg. Not everyone you meet has aids and does nothing to prevent its spread.

    So yeah why not tackle porn?

  • by that IT girl (864406) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @10:53AM (#32396932) Journal
    ...a mass exodus of the male population of South Africa is beginning to occur.
    • by IANAAC (692242)

      ...a mass exodus of the male population of South Africa is beginning to occur.

      In a few weeks, probably not before.

    • No. They will just leave the Internet cafes, WiFi hotspots and mother's basements.

      I think we should buy stock from makers of alcoholic beverages, condoms, morning-after pills and AIDS drugs. And bolster funds for rape recovery therapy.

      Banning online porn in a country where half the males have HIV. What a brilliant idea.

  • The summary tries to drum up angst about the title of the bill, but when you think about it for a couple seconds, it becomes evident that it's actually just the most honest bill title you'll ever see. I'm not saying anything about whether their "reasonable and justifiable" limitations are reasonable and justifiable in my opinion. Clearly they are in their opinion however, and they have entitled their bill thusly. Here in the USA, if this same bill was attempted, it'd probably have a cryptic title with lots
  • by camg188 (932324) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @11:01AM (#32396994)

    Using a car analogy, Mr. Gigaba said: 'Cars are already provided with brakes and seatbelts... There is no reason why the internet should be provided without the necessary restrictive mechanisms built into it.'

    Cars come with steering wheels that let me go where ever I want, even if it is an off road adventure in some nasty, sticky muck.

    Cars come with radiator caps so if too much pressure builds up, the hot fluids are released into an overflow tank.

    • Cars are where most teenagers experience their first sexual adventures.

      Cars come with radiator caps so if too much pressure builds up, the hot fluids are released into an overflow tank.

      Finbarr Saunders (and his double entendres) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finbarr_Saunders [wikipedia.org]: "Fnarr! Fnarr!", "Warf! Warf!", "Tsssk Tsssk", "Chortle Chortle" and "K-Woo! K-Woo!"

    • by Larryish (1215510)

      You should SOOOO register sexyradiatorcaps.com

    • That's a good point. My cable modem already comes with brakes for the internet. There's this blue bottom on top that puts the modem into standby. If I 'accidentally' run into some porn, I can always hit that to prevent my sensitive eyes from seeing too much. So that's all they need in SA if they want 'brakes for the internet'. Works for the whole house, too. And there's a reason it sits on my desk and not my wife's. ;^)

    • by SamSim (630795)

      Cars come with steering wheels that let me go where ever I want, even if it is an off road adventure in some nasty, sticky muck.

      Cars come with radiator caps so if too much pressure builds up, the hot fluids are released into an overflow tank.

      And children are not allowed to drive them!

  • ... because nothing wrong ever rises from people who are "committed to upholding and fighting for justice and the highest moral standards". They obviously know what is better for everyone, moral value being an objective one. I cant' wait until a representative of my country begins thinking "Hey, they're doing it, why wouldn't we?".
  • Block porn in the most sexually abusive country in the world [wikipedia.org]. What could possibly go wrong?
    • Let me just put forth a hypothesis: What if porn consumption is a significant factor in sexual abuse (i.e., the viewing of porn leads to an increase in sexual abuse)?

      I'm not saying this is the case but it is possible. Anyone have research data either for or against this hypothesis?
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by unkiereamus (1061340)

        I'm not saying this is the case but it is possible. Anyone have research data either for or against this hypothesis?

        Here [hawaii.edu] you go.

        Quite extensive, so I'll just pull a paragraph for you:

        Within Japan itself, the dramatic increase in available pornography and sexually explicit materials is apparent to even a casual observer. This is concomitant with a general liberalization of restrictions on other sexual outlets as well. Also readily apparent from the information presented is that, over this period of change, sex crimes in every category, from rape to public indecency, sexual offenses from both ends of the criminal spectrum, significantly decreased in incidence.

        Now obviously, this discussion is solely of Japan, which has a number of other factors going on that should be considered before trying to extrapolate, but frankly, I don't care about and am too lazy to look for any more data. If you're really interested, this study cites a few other studies which apparently had similar results.

  • While I am sure that these corporations, individuals and churches mean well, the problem comes when one tries to actually write laws that only limit the "wrong" sorts of speech. As Justice Potter Stewart once famously said, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it". If a law is worded strongly enough to limi
    • Their intentions are irrelevant. The government has no business banning porn, period. It is reasonable to limit access of minors to porn, or to ensure porn models are of age and participate voluntarily. And most countries have reasonably effective laws to accomplish that. To use a (bad) car analogy, banning porn to prevent abuse and exploitation is like banning cars to prevent driveby shootings.

      About the morality issue I have two words for political and religious leaders who seek to ban porn or other
    • When it comes to the internet, the architecture arguably matters even more than the law. Any internet censorship apparatus is either an utter joke or a fairly comprehensive re-working of the structure of the internet in that jurisdiction. Once such a thing is in place, it can block just about anything as easily as it can block porn(which is to say, it won't be perfectly effective; but an imperfectly effective filter for some flavor of dissent will differ only in a few lists and regexes from the one for porn
    • by ultranova (717540)

      But I know it when I see it". If a law is worded strongly enough to limit "pornography" then it can probably be used to limit other types of speech as well; speech which the original authors perhaps didn't intend to limit, but have silenced all the same.

      I assert that the kind of people who want to censor pornography also want to censor anything else they don't agree with. Therefore, this ambiguity is not accidental but entirely intentional: it allows them to stop anything they dislike by simply claiming it

  • It's not like SAF has more pressing concerns ....

    Like AIDS, crime, or even keeping the fucking lights on.

  • They'll need it!
  • by Iyonesco (1482555) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @11:30AM (#32397216)

    South Africa is the rape capital of the world:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#South_Africa [wikipedia.org]

    Why are the more worried about porn than actual crimes? Any logical person can see that banning porn would likely make the rape situation even worse. I'm glad to see they've got their priorities straight.

    The whole world seems to be in a state of insanity regarding porn at the moment. We've got the Australia's small breast ban and cartoon laws, Canada's Cartoon laws, the UK's Extreme Pornography laws, the US's Obscenity Laws and Agnes Chan leading the lunacy in Japan. Could I ask these moral crusaders to kindly fuck off.

    • by ultranova (717540) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @01:59PM (#32398494)

      Why are the more worried about porn than actual crimes?

      Because implementing a filter is easier than stopping actual crimes.

      Any logical person can see that banning porn would likely make the rape situation even worse.

      Any logical person would see than banning porn is completely pointless, since there's no way to stop people from getting what they want. For reference, see: any attempt to ban alcohol ever, any attempt to ban drugs ever, MAFIAA.

      Laws only work when most people agree with them. Legislation does not define morality, morality defines legistalition.

      I'm glad to see they've got their priorities straight.

      The cynic in me says that the priority is for various morality groups make it seem like they're doing something, possibly to themselves.

    • by Macrat (638047)
      If it is on wikipedia, it must be true.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Phroggy (441)

      Any logical person can see that banning porn would likely make the rape situation even worse.

      Not necessarily. You're assuming rape is about sex. It's often about power. Porn isn't a substitute for that.

  • by Simonetta (207550) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @11:31AM (#32397226)

    Sure, apartheid was evil and cruel. Yeah, we all cheered when Nelson Mandela was elected President. They had our hopes, investments, and prayers. We all waved our plastic lighters when Paul Simon brought all those beautiful black Zulu singers on stage in the Graceland tour. We all believed.

        Then we woke up. We found that South Africa has become the rape capital of the world. We found that most people there are superstitious and ignorant, and violent. Where most people still believe that drinking the blood of 13-year-old virgin cures AIDS. (It doesn't, guys, just in case you were wondering) Where the few remaining whites running productive farms in the countryside are hunted down, tortured, and murdered by the new South African police that just look the other way and call it justice. Where most international investments are skimmed by corrupt and incompetent government officials. Where no blacks outside of the government are better off than they were under apartheid. Where the whites have reestablished semi-segregated quasi-homelands with their own police and self-defense forces that mirror apartheid. Where nobody in their right mind is going to spend thousands of dollars to fly to this dangerous and remote part of the world just to watch a soccer game.

        Africa is a giant mess. A half-assed collection of 'daylight democracies' and nighttime tribal savageries. South Africa is no different. And how do they deal with their problems.

        Banning internet porn. Fucking buffoons. Bring back the Boers.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 30, 2010 @11:53AM (#32397374)

      The Boers are still here, simply trying to survive. We also drank the cool-aid, believed, were and are fucked. Hard.

      The whites (and blacks, mind you) that can afford it live behind electric fencing or gated communities. These are not apartheid mirrors, as you imply, they are simply frightened white communities trying to fucking survive, not be murdered, raped, tortured, robbed, abused by blacks.

      You know what's ironic? These are the same whites who voted Yes in the referendum to change the country's future, free Mandela, and try and start again.

      I voted Yes. I now have children who's future is uncertain. I decided a long time ago not to emigrate like so many of my peers, but I now *must* for my children.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        My dad worked in Botswana for a couple of years and they sometimes had to go into SA for supplies. He's a pretty hard left democrat who was forced out of the Navy after 10 years) because he stuck up for a guy who he believed was bing railroaded because he was black. So he is about as far from racist as you can get, and he said there are intersections in SA where whites don't have to stop. Being confused, I asked why, thinking it was some sort of racial law. He informed me because if you stop, you will be ki

    • by couchslug (175151)

      DON"T bring back the Boers. It would just be an excuse to blame White Folks for the choices locals make.

      There is no utilitarian reason for one not South African to care what happens to the place. It bears relentless reminding that the locals don't give a shit what foreigners think nor have they reason to.

      South Africa belongs to SOUTH AFRICANS, not me, not you (unless you ARE one), not Slashdot. If they wreck it, that's their choice. All cultures are equal, so the PC thing to do is cheer.

  • Shouldn't they be dealing with their crime problem instead? That would actually be useful and not ab attempt to ram "morality standards" down the throats of their citizens. This whole thing reeks of a diversion attempt to cover up their own incompetence when it comes to solving true problems.

  • by Andy Smith (55346)

    Why are they only talking about _digital_ porn? If it's an ethical issue, does the delivery method really matter?

    But I would guess that a lot of the money from digital porn never gets within the taxman's grasp. Porn sold through the usual distribution channels can be more easily taxed.

    So maybe the thinking is: Ban digital porn and porn will go back "above ground", where the taxman can get his hands on it.

  • Merge a Sun "blackbox" with a support trailer and then figure out a way to transport it to some deep area in South Africa. rig the trailer as a datacenter/ sat com link and then tell like everybody that you have FREE PORN (donations accepted of course)

  • 'Cars are already provided with brakes and seatbelts... There is no reason why the internet should be provided without the necessary restrictive mechanisms built into it.'

    There is no line of thinking that would make a reasonable person make this direct comparison. Cars are dangerous tools. They can physically injure or kill you. Porn will not. Despite what some people may believe, porn is not dangerous. People are dangerous. People who seriously make this kind of comparison are dangerous.

  • Yes, online porn is clearly the biggest problem in South Africa. I hear it kills a lot of people down there and steals their cars at unwatched intersections...
  • by Hermanas (1665329) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @02:10PM (#32398616)
    I live in South Africa, and I know for a fact that at most 20% of the population have semi-regular access to the Internet, as can be seen from this handy graph on Google http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=it_net_user&idim=country:ZAF&dl=en&hl=en&q=internet+users+in+south+africa [google.com] (it estimates 4.187 million internet users, where we have a population of between 40 and 50 million). This is a country where the absolute maximum internet speed is 4Mbps (on average most users have 384kbps), and it is literally cheaper to go buy a dvd in the shop than it is to download the 4GB illegally. This is just to bring the internet situation into perspective. I know that you do not need an internet connection to have porn, it could be a video, dvd or even just copied from someone else, but this is just an indication of the kind access we have here. A recent study found that as many as 50% of high school boys in SA have watched at least one porn movie. I don't know, but the only shocking thing about that is that so many people have had access to it (we only have 4 public TV channels, and only one of them shows porn after 12 on Saturday nights). This is just some background information. A ban on porn would be just another ill-directed attempt to improve the morals of a society where politicians (the role models of the people) routinely threaten other races with death, partake in tender fraud and tax evasion, are charged with rape and watch porn during congress. On second thought, maybe it will at least help the politicians concentrate on what's really going on in the country.
  • require all porn in Africa to have attached front and back end and commercials within, information on the prevention of unwanted children and aids.

    They really need to learn about this stuff.

How many NASA managers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? "That's a known problem... don't worry about it."

Working...