Finnish Minister Wants To Expand Pornography Censorship 270
Posted
by
timothy
from the nose-under-tent dept.
from the nose-under-tent dept.
New submitter jdela writes "Finnish Minister for Justice Anna-Maja Henriksson backs expanding FInland's child pornography blocklist to also include websites with animal porn and largely-undefined 'violent pornography.' Her proposal does not have the unanimous backing of the Finnish government, with Minister of Interior Päivi Räsänen doubting the need to expand pornography blocks. Under current law, adopted in 2006, the Finnish NBI maintains a blocklist of foreign sites linked to child pornography. This blocklist is enforced on Finnish Internet users."
and so it begins... (Score:4, Insightful)
the way to hell is paved with good intentions
Re:and so it begins... (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly.
I really, REALLY hate these cases, because you can't really oppose them without being labelled as a pervert, this is why lawmakers love to bundle their censorship laws with provisions like these.
Outlaw and block child porn. No one in their right mind can find fault in that.
Protect the children, implements blocks to do that.
Outlaw animal porn, it is after all filthy, right?
Outlaw porn altogether.
Outlaw writings about porn.
Outlaw religious satire
Outlaw religious criticism
Outlaw criticism
Outlaw free speech.
All of these have been seen before in various countries, It is a slope lawmakers won't admit, but it is invariably the end result.
Re:and so it begins... (Score:5, Insightful)
I could easily find a fault in outlaw child porn.
For starters, the abuse that comes from it, like people that lose their job and whole their social life because somebody planted child porn on their pcs, which isn't really common, but its not unheard off.
Secondary, children themselves that send pics of them naked to their boyfriend/girlfriend. At the age of 16 or even 14 in many countries they can fuck, but if they send a picture of themselves naked, they are distributing child porn. Its not so much a fault with blocking child porn as their is a fault with the rules made. If you allow sex at 16 but down allow naked pictures of 16 year olds... I mean, legally I could go fuck a 16 year old but I would be a pedophile if I recorded it.
Oh, and lets bring in our friends the RIAA and MPAA, the free distribution of movies devaluates movies and costs the industry several times the BNP of the world each year. Thus if we allow free distribution of child porn, not for profit, we are effectively devaluating the child porn industry, likely bringing them debts of trillions per year, destroying the whole business. At least, that is if the MPAA and RIAA are correct in their analysis, but aint nobody that doubts that.
Re: (Score:2)
I could easily find a fault in outlaw child porn.
For starters, the abuse that comes from it, like people that lose their job and whole their social life because somebody planted child porn on their pcs, which isn't really common, but its not unheard off.
Secondary, children themselves that send pics of them naked to their boyfriend/girlfriend. At the age of 16 or even 14 in many countries they can fuck, but if they send a picture of themselves naked, they are distributing child porn. Its not so much a fault with blocking child porn as their is a fault with the rules made. If you allow sex at 16 but down allow naked pictures of 16 year olds... I mean, legally I could go fuck a 16 year old but I would be a pedophile if I recorded it.
Oh, and lets bring in our friends the RIAA and MPAA, the free distribution of movies devaluates movies and costs the industry several times the BNP of the world each year. Thus if we allow free distribution of child porn, not for profit, we are effectively devaluating the child porn industry, likely bringing them debts of trillions per year, destroying the whole business. At least, that is if the MPAA and RIAA are correct in their analysis, but aint nobody that doubts that.
So tighten up the law that currently allows screwing 14 year old kids. Problem solved, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's one way. The real problem is the inconsistency.
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem is the inconsistency.
That, and hormones.
Re: (Score:3)
That said if also opens up some benefits of research. There is no way you can now research if giving a paedophile child porn will reduce or encourage the chance he does something to children.
That is like saying that we should make murder legal so that we can study the fascinating psychology of serial killers more easily. Some things are just wrong, and if people choose to do them they should be punished. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter why someone wants to torture and murder people, they just need to be stopped from doing so if possible.
By making it legal, and especially legal only when its completely without being for profit, you can ensure the profit for making child porn is very low or none.
People who make and distribute child sexual abuse imagery do not do so primarily for financial reasons. It is (quite rightly in my opinion) a
Re:and so it begins... (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed.
Only cowards use censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
I really, REALLY hate these cases, because you can't really oppose them without being labelled as a pervert, this is why lawmakers love to bundle their censorship laws with provisions like these.
Outlaw and block child porn. No one in their right mind can find fault in that. Protect the children, implements blocks to do that. Outlaw animal porn, it is after all filthy, right? Outlaw porn altogether. Outlaw writings about porn. Outlaw religious satire Outlaw religious criticism Outlaw criticism Outlaw free speech.
All of these have been seen before in various countries, It is a slope lawmakers won't admit, but it is invariably the end result.
This is one of the benefits of having a written constitution: There is a clear bright line where the censorship stops:
Outlaw animal porn, it is after all filthy, right?
Outlaw porn altogether.
Outlaw writings about porn.
Outlaw religious satire
Outlaw religious criticism
Outlaw criticism
Outlaw free speech.
America's First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press - both of which are word media, the significance of which is that word media is necessary to communicate ideas and rat
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
I really, REALLY hate these cases, because you can't really oppose them without being labelled as a pervert
I feel your pain on this. I think a business owner ought to be able to hire and fire based on whatever stupid reasons she wants without the government dictating those reasons, But of course you can't oppose the government interference without being called a racist.
I think the owner of an apartment building or a hotel ought be allowed to decide who she is willing to rent her rooms to but I can't really opposed laws restriction such freedoms without being labelled a homophobe.
I think a anyone ought to b
Re: (Score:3)
But "wrong" and "illegal" are not and should not be synonyms.
The economy wouldn't support the situation you describe. There would be people opening hotels to serve people who otherwise couldn't find a place. There would be money in it after all. And I strongly suspect the segregation that occurred in the American south would not be readily repeat
Re: (Score:3)
The economy wouldn't support the situation you describe. There would be people opening hotels to serve people who otherwise couldn't find a place.
You realy believe that? Check out how many bars/restaurants did the economy open for black people in the past when it was legal and common to ban them from such premises.
Re: (Score:3)
McDonald's should be free to choose who they will and will not serve (although the requirement to give free water should still apply regardless of race).
An airline should be free to refuse carry black passengers.
A private hospital may be a necessity so they should be required to serve anyone up to the point they are required to
Re: (Score:3)
To quote Jefferson on another subject of freedom, "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
Was he talking about slavery I wonder?
No. He was talking about a freedom
Re: (Score:2)
I'm bad with analogies and metaphors. My point is that greed, ACTA, big content, that will infringe on your rights much more substantially and more rapidly than this will. Fight both of course, but I hate that saying basically. Seems like many people on the internet view hypocrisy as the worst thing ever, that people on moral crusades like this are the worst of the worst, and the saying fits into that. I al
Article 34 (Score:5, Funny)
animal porn
Watch out, Finnish bronies.
Päivi Räsänen
Ok, now that's just umlaut abuse.
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, now that's just ümläüt abuse.
Please, allow me to abuse yours...
Re: (Score:3)
(okay now Slashdot broke completely normal letters so I have to use weird typing hacks. Thanks for sucking ¥$¥[{, Slashcode!)
Actually it's just vowel harmony, with a handy explanation including a Venn diagram available here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vowel_harmony#Finnish [wikipedia.org]
The vowels y, a:, o: can't be used together with a, o, u in the same non-compound word.
Also those dots aren't diacritics: a: and o: are considered letters like any other.
This post broug
Animal porn? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I think animals should be able to watch whatever they wish...
Especially pandas and hippos ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In my freedom loving country, animals are even allowed to do it with humans.
This is bull#%& (Score:2)
That is a page that analyzes and critizises the blocklist itself. It's now removed from the blocklist, but only after an arduous court battle. There is also some info in english.
Just a moment. (Score:3)
Of course this makes sense! (Score:2)
Think of the animals!
Remember when ... (Score:4, Insightful)
... Finland was seen as the world leader in free and open internet communication? This would be bad news anywhere, but coming from .fi it's particularly sad.
Well (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given the worldwide slave trade, and the large number of those slaves forced to work in the sex industry, are you really entirely sure that the violent and/or animal sex you're watching is completely consensual?
Censorship sucks donkeys but personally I don't download, watch or buy pornographic films or images. Provenance is just not possible and I'm very much against slavery.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
She quite possibly wasn't making that distinction.
My point is that unless I'm present at the filming I can't make that distinction either, so I'm erring on the side of caution.
Enforced only by larget ISPs (Score:4, Informative)
The child porn blocking is enforced only on DNS servers. It is not mandatory, so ISP may opt not to block traffic. And of course you can run your own name servers (provided your ISP does not block port 53) even if your ISP blocks child porn.
I would assume in "circles" it is known how to circumvent this blocking. And I guess many will use TOR or some VPN to hide their tracks. DNS-level blocking just makes it more difficult to police to pick the "easy ones" who would not use any hiding techniques if everything would just work by default.
And DNSSEC breaks with DNS blocking, as designed.
Obviously ... (Score:2)
Any law like this, no matter how well intentioned, becomes used for something else and gets expanded.
Who wouldn't object to child porn being blocked? Who wouldn't object to violent porn being blocked? Who wouldn't object to animal porn being blocked? Who wouldn't object to gay porn being blocked? Who wouldn't object to all porn being blocked?
These things seem to pretty much always go through scope creep in the worst possible way.
It becomes the morality clause.
Movie ratings (Score:2)
In older times, movies were subject to censorship.
The history is long and involved [pictureshowman.com], a struggle between powerful parties, but the long-and-short of it was that many state and local "censorship boards" would cut movie scenes which were below the community moral standards.
Predictably, this led to inconsistent views applied across wide geographic areas - censors bragging about how they had cut "the kiss" from "Gone With The Wind", and so on. ("You should be kissed and often, and by someone who knows how.")
The e
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll just leave this here. [paheal.net]
Pray I don't make you rate more.
Acted in one (Score:2)
May be she has acted in one of them and doesn't want the others to see it.
Forget about the blocklist. (Score:3)
This blocklist does not make this problem of illegal child porn go away. Something needs to be done about it directly (taking the web sites in question down is a good start). The blocklist just makes it hidden. They do nothing to solve this criminal activity or prevent it. Something of that nature needs to be done. Current "solutions" are no solutions at all.
What she is suggesting does in fact not solve anything and never has solved anything.
Why do we need protection? (Score:2)
Re:What are we going to miss out on? (Score:5, Insightful)
Says who? It's sexual freedom at the very least which is a form of free speech. Having undefined "violent" pornography one could easily find consensual BDSM, rough sex, rape play, homosexuality and other sexual acts which are very normal.
Already illegal, just not blocked (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Science time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of us want our kids to grow up in a world where only healthy behaviors exist.
Indeed. And I find your willingness to arbitrarily define things as "not speech" to be deeply unhealthy. For my children's sake, please go offline immediately.
Re:Science time. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've seen suppression and repression backfire over and over again, including with regard to my own parents' handling of me. When you make something as basic and integral as human sexuality a secret, taboo thing, it drives anybody with initiative and intelligence straight into it. I took it as a personal insult that fundamental knowledge was being hidden from me, so around the age of 10 I started a clandestine campaign to learn everything I could on sexuality. I was reading sexual self-help books in public libraries (this was before the internet was common) before puberty, riding my bike to convenience stores to scope out the smut mags, etc. Not because of peers, or "the sexualized media" or any of the bullshit moralists decry, but because of my parents' own apparent disrespect for me. I wouldn't stand for it, and, as an adult and parent now, I can realize that it was an unhealthy way for me to have explored human sexuality, alone and indignant.
If a child is old enough to ask an honest question, they are old enough for an honest answer. That has been the lesson I learned from my parents' mistakes, and the philosophy I've lived by as a parent myself. The goal of parenthood is to make children as responsible as possible as quickly as they are up to the task. Children must know in order to understand, and understanding is the only way they can build a framework to live in the real world responsibly and safely. Prohibition and proscription DO NOT WORK. Each person, and children *are* people, must develop in themselves informed reasons as to why certain behaviors are not healthy for them. They cannot be made proxies for the mores and tastes of others by rote indoctrination, at least, not for long. Doing that sort of thing is like coiling a spring, and as soon as they break out on their own, all of that is very likely to explode, and some don't actually survive the experience.
Re:You're confusing two things here. (Score:5, Insightful)
What I am doing as a parent is nothing like having 'no standards'. The primary difference is that I refuse, under any circumstances, to suppress information when asked a direct and specific question. From there, I certainly am not going to say to a child 'go do whatever'. I routinely proscribe activities I feel my daughter is incapable of doing based on my assessment of her maturity and competence. However, I not only have no illusions that those proscriptions on action are temporary, but as soon as I feel she's up to acting I tell her so. (In fact at such points I usually *mandate* that she start acting.)
Proscription cannot be treated as some kind of fire-and-forget solution to parenting, and I've seen that done both personally and to 3rd parties, frequently to great detriment (but that's the kids' fault, according to you). It further seems to be your attitude, since your hangups and repressions seem to range far afield to all manner of *adult* interactions.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of us want our kids to grow up in a world where only healthy behaviors exist.
Yes, no unhealthy behaviours like homosexuals, mixed races, ugly people, fat people.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not arbitrary. (Score:2)
What a trivial and obvious "point," which defaults to an argument that health standards are arbitrary.
I contend they are not, especially in the case of obesity.
Even rudimentary data collection, do
Re: (Score:2)
Fine then, remove obesity from the list. Now we're down to homosexuality, ugliness, and mixed-race.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you have any science for your definition of "healthy behaviours"? I know that God killed many kittens for my behavior, but my behavior isn't unhealthy: God's reaction is.
Re: (Score:2)
And you've made a political decision by saying it's up to you to decide what should be accepted.
Some of us don't give a crap about your kids -- we don't wish them harm, but the existence of your children should not be a short cut to abridging the rest of our rights. Raise your children however you like, but
Re: (Score:2)
And how do you define 'healthy'? Wanting to exile everyone different from you seems pretty unhealthy to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have some science for that?
No, but enough anecdotes to be confident of the outcome of any study that would look into this. The exception would be homosexuality, which has been widely studied and found to be very normal - both in external behavior, as well as frequency across time, religions, social structures, genders and even species.
It seems like you've made a political decision here, which is that every behavior should be accepted.
No, the decision here is that behavior which has no visible impact on society at large should be accepted, and not be subject to random moral and religious whims.
Some of us want our kids to grow up in a world where only healthy behaviors exist.
Define healthy. Now compare and contrast
Re: (Score:2)
Some of us want our kids to grow up in a world where only healthy behaviors exist.
If I may quote you: Do you have some science for that? Do you have science to show that homosexuality isn't a healthy behavior? Or that rough sex isn't? Or anything else on that list isn't? Because we have had a lot of research over the last decades to show that so called "deviancy" isn't unhealthy. It doesn't lead to social ills.
I think you protest too much...
Re: (Score:2)
> Some of us want our kids to grow up in a world where only healthy behaviors exist.
What's unhealthy about homosexuality or BDSM? And why do you get to define what "healthy" and "unhealthy" are when it comes to sexual expression? Maybe I think your prudishness is more a threat to my children's well being than seeing a man have sex with another man, should I be able to censor your views?
Hypocrite. (Score:2, Troll)
Isn't that what you're doing to me?
"Accept animal sex, or you're a fascist!"
You're joking, right? or are you 13?
Re:Hypocrite. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never quite understood how you can say "Allowing (x) to happen imposes your viewpoint on me". If you have a viewpoint, that's your viewpoint. You're free to judge people who do (x). You don't have to do (x). Meanwhile, you're perfectly willing to see a law stating "You cannot do (x). (x) is now illegal." All the people who want to do (x) must now conform to your viewpoint or be criminals.
How is "You may do this, or may not, depending on your choice," more imposing than "You may not do this"? How in the world is freedom more imposing than restriction?
Re: (Score:2)
I see this argument a lot in gay marriage debates, and it's always baffled me. It's about the definition of "impose".
I've never quite understood how you can say "Allowing (x) to happen imposes your viewpoint on me". If you have a viewpoint, that's your viewpoint. You're free to judge people who do (x). You don't have to do (x). Meanwhile, you're perfectly willing to see a law stating "You cannot do (x). (x) is now illegal." All the people who want to do (x) must now conform to your viewpoint or be criminals.
How is "You may do this, or may not, depending on your choice," more imposing than "You may not do this"? How in the world is freedom more imposing than restriction?
+1, Insightful
Restricting others from doing things you don't approve of, actively anti-freedom.
Allowing others to do things you don't want to do yourself, do not accept as moral/proper/right, is being a passive advocate for freedom.
Fighting for the rights of others to do things you don't approve of is being an active advocate for freedom. < People that do this deserve extra kudos!
It's anti-Soviet to think as I do. (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you really think the world is this simple?
Allow everything then; now you've got maximal freedom and all our problems go away.
Right?
Oh -- that's not so. How could that be? It turns out that societies are defined by their values, not by allowing everyone to do everything (having no values).
The current dogma approved by your government, media and social group is that allowing any behavior is good, and restricting any behavior is bad.
But life isn't that simple, unless you're talking about a loyalty test to an authoritarian regime.
Re: (Score:3)
False dichotomy and reductio ad absurdium in one post.
We can draw lines near where activities harm others. All the kinky porn in the world won't harm anyone (unless they were harmed in the filming...and didn't want that).
Re: (Score:3)
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." comes to mind!
Re: (Score:2)
First, your society is signaling to its own member that (x) is not just accepted behavior, but thus is recommended behavior. If we legalize eating raw octopus, we have said nothing is wrong with it; that puts it, in the binary of behaviors described by government, in the "approved" category by not being in the "disapproved category."
Whoa there. That's a big leap you made there. Allowed/Illegal is not the same as Recommended/Illegal. Pickup trucks are perfectly legal; does that make them government-recommended? No - they're just another option that's out there. Talking about your kids and dope: I'm pretty darn sure there are no laws against bad oral hygiene. Yet you still teach your kids to brush their teeth, no? Do government laws/lack of laws really have that much influence on what values you impart to your kids?
Second, that means more people are going to do it
This may or ma
Re: (Score:3)
The point of a free society is that you're not compelled to do things against your values. That doesn't mean there are no rules or standards. If anything, you've shown why our society has become "un-free" with the adoption of forced pluralism.
I was sort of with you up to this point. But you're wrong here.
Pluralism doesn't say "as a minority Muslim/Jew you have to eat pork because the majority of people here enjoy bacon." It says "as a minority Muslim/Jew, you're free to choose not to eat pork despite the fact that the majority of people here enjoy bacon".
Now, if your views are that (say) homosexuality is appalling and should be illegal, tough, it's been decided by society that it's not. But no one's forcing you to have gay sex.
Re: (Score:2)
Your #4 sounds much like the bigot's call for tolerant people to tolerate their intolerance.
And in your #3, do the social consequences suddenly pop into being when X is legalized? Usually X creates more problems when illegal and the problems can be addressed through legalization , as in the case of alcohol and pot.
Your 1 and 2 aren't well-supported either. Most parents tell their kids not to do all kinds of things that are legal, personally I had no idea that legality ever factored into it. Religious parent
Argument by appearance. (Score:2)
Argument by appearance: found nowhere where the intelligent gather.
Again with the arbitrary argument. (Score:2)
Because it's not arbitrary. Some things work better than others. A society of obese people is going to have health problems.
Further, you could argue that we need to break up into sub-societies for people to have their own standards. But that sounds awful like the states' rights argument the Confederates were advancing.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh look, a straw man. Couldn't find something to argue against, so had to make something up.
In case you're lost, please point to where your quote comes from. Secondly, please coordinate your responses with respect to the generally defended standard of acts between consenting adults in a private room.
Re: (Score:2)
"If you want to have no unhealthy behaviour you actually need to extingush all unhealthy behaviour or what you define it as.
And when it comes to death penalty, most pro-lifers become very con-life."
its very simple
1 Existing is not a Capital Crime
2 And Shepherds We Shall Be: for some things you do you do not need to continue existing
(see The BoonDock Saints Courtroom speech for a discussion on this matter)
Re: (Score:2)
well the problem is what happens if you decide to make a semipolitical comic blog featuring a family of Vulpine Anthromorphs??
Would you land up on the block list if a comic featured a pool scene (with the young daughter in the pool) and the Father had a shovel/rake/bat in his hand??
but anywho
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_amendment [wikipedia.org]
the text in question is
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
Re:What are we going to miss out on? (Score:5, Informative)
This Slashdot submission is about Finland. It's a different country. Different countries have different consitutions. The First Amendment to the US Constitution does not have any legal force in Finland.
Re: (Score:2)
This Slashdot submission is about Finland. It's a different country. Different countries have different consitutions. The First Amendment to the US Constitution does not have any legal force in Finland.
This comes as a shock! Time for US to invade Finland?
Re: (Score:2)
mind giving us the Chapter and Verse for the Finnish version??
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of speech in the Finnish constitution (Score:5, Informative)
Everyone has the freedom of expression. Freedom of expression entails the right to express, disseminate and receive information, opinions and other communications without prior prevention by anyone. More detailed provisions on the exercise of the freedom of expression are laid down by an Act. Provisions on restrictions relating to pictorial programmes that are necessary for the protection of children may be laid down by an Act.
Documents and recordings in the possession of the authorities are public, unless their publication has for compelling reasons been specifically restricted by an Act. Everyone has the right of access to public documents and recordings.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not much different than the 1st Amendment. (Score:2)
In substance, not much different than the original 1st amendment:
Basically, you can express any idea you want, no matter how unpopular.
It has never had any bearing on pornography, which isn't an idea. It's just entertainment.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet most of the european countries, even if they dont say it outright or exactly as we do, have similar legal precedent and culturally accepted mores of similar individual freedoms. Many of those countries apply and their citizens expect rights very similiar if not identical to those Americans do, even if not explicitly spelled out. Our own constitution almost didnt spell them out, but then some folks decided they didnt trust anyone in power to not abuse something not explicitly stated.
Oh, and, here....
Back to commons ense (Score:2)
This is a drawn comic, right? Like in the Mike Diana case?
I think the point is that filmed pornography and written/drawn content are quite different and merit different rules.
I always wondered about the sanity of the jurists who convicted Mike Diana, since his comics were obviously very fringe and not purely for prurient gratification. Same way with the court cases for Ulysses and Na
Re: (Score:2)
So where do you stand with traditional animation? CGI animation? Combination live action and CGI? How about books on tape?
Use the traditional test. (Score:2)
Use the traditional test: is it only for prurient interest (titillation) or does it offer some other content?
Re: (Score:2)
Why make the distinction at all? Why is state censorship of pornography more acceptable than some non-titillating content? There are already laws in place to prevent the display of obscene material in public or to minors, why is state censorship necessary? Is the ability for those who seek it to access it too much for you to tolerate?
Re: (Score:2)
So you can't get animal porn and violent porn. Are you missing anything important?
I don't need animal porn on the Internet, I can just observe my cats and dogs in the privacy of my home. As for "violent", well, they bite sometimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Define pornography then. It's easy to slide from repulsive stuff to weird stuff to kinky stuff to vanilla stuff to any sex stuff to nudity to romance to clothing and social situations.
IMHO, if it is between consenting adults, it should be allowed to happen, and to be filmed. That does rule out child porn, and I'm not sure about animals (I'm not a fan of that kind of porn, but then, animals probably prefer doing that to going to the slaughterhouse). As for violent porn, what I've seen was very obviously fake
Re: (Score:2)
So you can't get animal porn and violent porn. Are you missing anything important?
If anything, this act is pure sanity by defining "free speech" not as any speech, but as political speech, which was most likely the original intent.
Pornography isn't speech.
If the girl is wearing US flag stud earrings, it's political speech. Hell, if she's even thinking about her tax return while blowing the guy, it's political speech.
Otherwise, who gets to define what is politica,l protected speech and what is not?
Re:What are we going to miss out on? (Score:5, Informative)
The law actually says the list is supposed to be used against sites outside Finland. Not sites residing in Finland. And even then this particular site has no child porn on it. And why would you block a local site ineffectively when you can just go and take the server out?
Remember the censorship and blacklist has been in use for years. Matti Nikki found out that many of the sites are totally within laws and has been compiling a list of them. Curiously, many of the false positives contained gay porn.
This story is about expanding the censorship, but it's already being used to block other than child porn sites. I'm not quite sure about the situation nowadays but originally there was no way for you to file a complaint about ending up on the list. If I recall correctly, Matti Nikki found out that apparently the police compiling a list does not constitute an official ruling, so there's no way to complain about it.
You know the major ISPs in Finland already block The Pirate Bay? It's painful for me to say, but the good thing in TPB block is that at least it got done by a court order. One way or another, sites like lapsiporno.info and TPB are going to get blocked. Then there are the online casinos, "extremists" and you know, all the Bad guys(tm)...
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably animal porn and violent porn are important to people who access them since they do so. Simply disagreeing on the importance of particular material is not justification to deny others access to it, nor is finding it personally distasteful.
Since we have a politician pus
What no one answered. (Score:2)
I think it's interesting no one posted all the good things that were going to come of this. What you posted were fears (OMFG fascism) and somewhat circular reasoning about permissiveness.
No one mentioned anything good.
Re: (Score:2)
I can sort of get banning animal porn as the animal is not able to consent, but I would be interested in hearing why is it ok to kill them but not ok to fuck them? As for "violent" sex, please define it and we can talk. If all the the actors involved are consenting adults then why would you ban it?
This is false "speech" (Score:2)
I agree in that.
However, pornography isn't speech. It's an entertainment product.
If someone were writing books about how we should be able to violently love animals, that would be speech and should be protected.
That's different from a bunch of people wanting their deviant porn, approval of which would suggest approval of deviancy and thus marginalize those of non-deviant lifestyles.
Re: (Score:2)
That word "marginalize", I don't think it means what you think it means.
The core question is whose rights are being violated by the existence of animal porn, that supposedly gives you the right to initiate force against those who view animal porn. Your rights do not get violated by the mere existence of the stuff, and to claim as such is an extraordinary stretch - how are your rights violated - are you unable to go out in public because there are posters of animal porn everywhere? Are you unable to go to w
Marginalization. (Score:2)
I realize you're probably just typing in a meme by reflex action, but here's the definition:
Now let's look at the rest of what you typed:
Re: (Score:2)
Careful, that arbitrary Crayola is a bitch to get out of clothing.
Shame that a book can also be an 'entertainment product'. But we don't need to defend those, do we?
Re: (Score:2)
An erotic fictional novel about interspecies intercourse you have said is speech.
Add illustrations. Not photographs, but graphic artists' renderings of actions described in the novel.
Reformat it into a comic book ('graphic novel' for all those pretending to be more dignified than consumers of comic books) such that all action is illustrated and all dialogue is still text.
Use the comic book as a storyboard for an animated mov
It's fallacy day on /.! (Score:2)
You said:
In reference to my statement:
I'm going to just leave this here to show how radically different the two are.
Your entire argument rests on that misreading. I am sorry to inform you of this, but your argument just died.
You're stupid. (Score:2)
I summarized your statement in the title, and turn it around on you:
You're telling me I have to live around animal porn in a society that demands it be normal. Who gives you that right?
See: you're stupid.
Re:What are we going to miss out on? (Score:4, Funny)
Define animal porn.
Female human, Muppet drummer.
Re:What are we going to miss out on? (Score:5, Insightful)
Define animal porn.
Humans are animals. To disagree would mean you don't grasp basic concepts like Plant vs Animal Kingdoms. Do you FUCK? Well, then you're an animal, and a video of humans practice-mating is thus animal porn. Bestiality is interspecies porn... They could have said interspecies porn. Oh, but white folks have Neanderthal DNA, so what then we outlaw the interracial porn too, eh?
Will Animal Planet be banned?
Who gives a fuck? You think banning anything actually keeps people from seeing it? Censorship laws are disgusting and ineffectual. They're simply the tools of a police state. The more stuff like this is illegal the more chance they'll find some excuse to throw you in jail if they don't have a legitimate reason, other than wanting you in jail.
To the folks who don't care if "Child Porn" or "Violent Porn", or "Animal Porn" is criminalized: Any web site you visit the world over could have a 1x1 pixel iframe that points to barnyard or kiddie porn, and your browser will happily download that smut without you ever even knowing it. This shit isn't hypothetical, this is what script kiddies do for fun when they get a XSS or SQL Injection exploit to work -- You don't even have to be going to anywhere in particular to get illegal 1's and 0's on your hard drives now. Why would they do this? Simple: Point out how Fucking Stupid Censorship Laws are to regular folks. Joe Sixpack won't fight back until they feel the boot of oppression at their own throats. Cleaned this crap off a client's Wordpress install just last week, wiped it out of few phpBB install a month before that. They had CP, and Snuff sites in the URLs. I don't condone or participate in such malicious behavior, but I can sure as hell understand their motives.
Now, go clean your web cache, you donkey molesting, murder masturbating, pedophiles. Don't forget to forensically shred the empty space on your drives to make sure it's really gone -- Got SSD? Bah, you better have already been running with whole drive encryption then. Oh your not a "pervert"? Are you sure that's what your Internet cache will always say? You trust the security of everywhere you go online? Oh sure, it was an "accident", you had no idea how that sort of illegal content got on your system. Then why do the logs show you regularly visited those perverse sites, at times when we know you were the only one at home to do so... Pray the site owners will back you up -- If you can even determine which ones they were in order to contact the sysadmins.
Re: (Score:2)
Comparisons to various dictatorial ideologies are perfectly valid in a discussion about censorship. After all, controlling what is and is not allowed to be discussed is what allowed totalitarian ideologies to wield sufficient power to perform their atrocities, and the justifications to
Still an ad hominem. (Score:2)
The form of ad hominem:
"My opponent is an x, so his argument cannot be valid."
Here's your statement:
Totalitarian ideologies also prohibit murder; should we legalize murder then to avoid being totalitarian?
Your argu
Re: (Score:2)