Iceland Considers Internet Porn Ban 684
Onymous Hero writes "With the printing and distribution of pornography already banned in Iceland, further measures to stop internet porn are being considered by Iceland's Interior Minister Ogmundur Jonasson. From the article: "Iceland is taking a very progressive approach that no other democratic country has tried," said Professor Gail Dines, an expert on pornography and speaker at a recent conference at Reykjavik University. "It is looking a pornography from a new position — from the perspective of the harm it does to the women who appear in it and as a violation of their civil rights.""
fuck you iceland. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is dumb, as a woman who's various parts are all over the internet I think this is bullshit.
Re:fuck you iceland. (Score:4, Funny)
LOL ... pics or it didn't happen is the appropriate meme here.
I'm sure lots of people would be interested in your, um, various parts. ;-)
OK, I'm a bad person, I know it.
Re:fuck you iceland. (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, Marcello, you make a good point. Pornography really hasn't served to make us open-minded about sexuality.
In fact, if you look at the states in the US that consume the most pornography, they are among the most repressed and repressive areas. Areas where sex education is anathema and teenagers are taught "abstinence" but have the highest rates of out-of-wedlock teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. Places where a teacher aren't allowed to say the word "gay" or "vagina" but where gay kids commit suicide and women are forced to undergo invasive vaginal ultrasounds if they want an abortion.
Places where clergymen preach against the evils of pornography, and there is educational outreach about the "dangers of porn addiction" but the rate of pornography consumption is highest.
Re: (Score:3)
The Bible Belt is the best place (worst?) to find strip clubs and brothels. Jesus wants him sum hookers, apparently.
The harder you squeeze down on human sexuality, the worse the twisted mentalities the prohibition spawns. Victorian England invented bondage and whipping because, not in spite of, its incessant antisexuality. Lock human sexuality in the dark, and watch the monsters come out.
Let's try this: stop trying to control people. Let women pose nude if they want to. Let men pay to look if they like. Let
Re:fuck you iceland. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seconded... A friend does porn and thinks it's one of the greatest career choices she's ever made. She would consider these new laws a violation of her civil rights.
Re:fuck you iceland. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is freedom of choice what to do with yourself not a civil right? What about that?
Re: (Score:3)
That's the way it works for some of them, yes...
Others? Not so much.
Re:fuck you iceland. (Score:5, Insightful)
For the women who didn't make the career choice to go into the adult industry, ie, those who have been kidnapped/trafficked and forced to appear in films, they have bigger issues than the harm to their "civil rights" stemming from the film. Kidnapping and rape are, I assume, already illegal in Iceland. Filming it is then just creating documented evidence of that crime. Making ALL porn illegal because SOME porn is documentation of a REAL crime makes about as much sense as making guns illegal because criminal commit crimes with guns. Of course, Iceland's probably already done that too.
Re:fuck you iceland. (Score:5, Interesting)
There are instances of women doing these things because they cannot find anything else legal, that can give them the money they need to survive. Those women make up a grey area.
That being said, do you protect those women (and remove an option that they did at least chose) by removing the option for the women who think it's a great choice?
And as you say, if they aren't there by choice, there are other, much worse crimes being commuted. Why not add 'force pornography' penalties to the list instead?
Re:fuck you iceland. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are instances of women doing these things because they cannot find anything else legal, that can give them the money they need to survive. Those women make up a grey area.
The same holds for me when I'm cleaning toilets as a day job. Does that make it a grey area too?
Re: (Score:3)
I have to admit my conservative side and
Re:fuck you iceland. (Score:4, Insightful)
A big difference between porn and cleaning toilets is the lasting efffects. I know of porn stars who later committed suicide
Ah yes, because we all know, people that clean toilets never commit suicide, and certainly not because they regretted the choices they made in life that led them to cleaning toilets.
If we, as a culture (yes I'm talking about the repressed conservative US citizens) did not view human sexuality as shameful, maybe there would be a lot less issue with suicide among adult film stars. What is it they say here on slashdot? Correlation does not equal causation.
I like the idea someone suggested above. Don't enforce copyright on porn. If people want to do it as a hobby then fine, but remove the profit motive.
Can we do this for everything that some sub culture finds objectionable, like Rock Music, Scientific Research, Harry Potter, etc.? Seriously just because you don't like it does not mean that it should be treated any different than any other form of art you don't personally like. Though I would bet that you only want it to be free so you can stop paying for it.
Re:fuck you iceland. (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. There are plenty of people who find the idea of cleaning up someone else's shit an unthinkable career choice, whereas being naked or having public sex isn't as big a deal to them as it appears to be to you. That said, lets assume that it's easier to make money by gettin' nekkid for the camera than it is to get a janitorial job. You've now implied that they took this option because all the "good" jobs like maid or McDonald's fry-o-lator operator are out of reach for them, so if you take away this job option, what are the people who rely on doing it going to do instead? Or is it a case of letting them die before letting them "dishonor" themselves?
Re:fuck you iceland. (Score:5, Insightful)
Your are assuming that your values are everyone else's values. You should stop doing that. You should in particular not act on that.
Some of us consider sex to be neither need be private, or in any way shameful in such a circumstance. We don't force this idea on you -- if you aren't comfortable with it, then do not participate either in the making or the consumption of any public performance. It's entirely your choice.
Your opinion, everyone else's liberties (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no expectation that the public space (or anyone else's private space) will be tailored to my liking. The only place I expect things to go my way is inside my home, and to a much more limited extent, within the borders of land I own. If someone wants to make a lot of noise, paint their house like a Dr. Suess story, board up all their windows, or swim butt-ugly naked in the town center fountain, I wish them well. Men can wear skirts and women can wear pants, anyone can marry anyone else or not, and the "acceptable" number of tattoos and piercings, no matter how unlikely or crude, shall be unlimited. I don't agree that it is legitimate that people have the right to regulate anyone else's actions in the public space, unless those actions actually cause direct physical harm or direct financial injury to a non-consenting party.
No. When in doubt, it's best to do nothing and let individuals decide for themselves.
I absolutely can tell you it would lead to a better world. The arguments are many and extremely well founded, from reduction in harm done by evil legislation (such as huge jail sentences, ruined families, lost opportunities), to tax revenues, to personal liberty issues, to healthcare issues such as appetite enhancement, to elimination of it as a viable income source for gangs and cartels, to replacement for alcohol as a much, much safer intoxicant.
You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to my opinion.
You know nothing of the sort. You have an opinion you want to inflict on everyone else. For my part, I absolutely support your choice to not engage with porn on any or all levels. But that's where your liberties end and the liberties of others begin.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, given the choice, I'd rather appear naked and everyone else would rather I cleaned the toilet.
Re:fuck you iceland. (Score:5, Interesting)
How exactly is banning porn "protecting" the women that went to porn as a last resort? Isn't it presumably the least-bad option they had available to them? In the extreme case, if they truly need the money to survive and have no other way to get it, then by removing porn you've sentenced them to death. Or more likely they turn to prositution, which is considerably more dangerous than porn on a lot of different fronts.
Innate resources have legit values (Score:5, Interesting)
This is entirely disingenuous. There are innumerable jobs that depend on the resources you were born with, from sports to modeling to soldiering to becoming an astronaut or a scientist. You're trying to make some kind of exception if the sport is sexual, and it doesn't hold up.
These roles in society are not corrupt; they are based upon perfectly natural and reasonable preferences that we have for one another. Would you prefer an ugly, smelly, stupid companion, or a beautiful, naturally pleasant, brilliant one?
Would sports fans prefer an "athelete" who had a poor physique and could not win? Would the actresses in Hollywood be of such great interest to everyone if they were ugly? Would a stupid person make a good scientist? We are what we are, and if someone else were lucky enough to be gifted with some physical resource that they can market, who are you to say this is a bad thing?
It is ridiculous to attempt to make the case that only earned skills and knowledge have value, or, conversely, that those things we are lucky enough to find innate, do not.
Re:fuck you iceland. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are instances of women doing these things because they cannot find anything else legal, that can give them the money they need to survive. Those women make up a grey area.
And I am certain it is much better to let them starve instead of allowing they to do what they can to survive, right?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not saying the logic is rational, but many would say yes, or that it would force them to find a better option. People make weird decisions when emotions come into play. Do not take my ability to understand opinions and views that are not my own, as me having said opinions and views.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't buy the premise that any women can't go out and find legal work to make money to pay the bills.
It won't be easy, but there are ALWAYS opportunities...you may have to work a couple of jobs flipping burgers, but there are always alternatives to pr0n jobs. Now...if you are talking convenience, and making a LOT of money...sure,
Re:fuck you iceland. (Score:4, Insightful)
There are jobs out there...just maybe some that people think are beneath them.
If no jobs in your area, perhaps move to a new area?
Sorry, I don't buy it...things are tough, sure, but there ARE always legal ways to make money. Hell, I see hordes of Mexicans standing in front of the Lowe's or Home Depot and get picked up for manual labor. I'm sure there are other tough jobs that will earn money for someone with poor to little education. Heck, get on with a crew that mows lawns all day, etc.
It has nothing to do with conservative/progressive. All anyone needs is the willingness to work and tough it for awhile, but you can work and earn in ways that don't require you to take your clothes off.
I'm not saying pr0n or stripping isn't a viable method of income, but the OP was that this was a last resort and that often nothing else could be found.
And I do see people out there working 2x jobs if one doesn't pay the rent fully.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The "grey area" is that there are not enough decent jobs. Paging the Ayn Randites and the Free Traders: you've made a mess. No more factories, no more office jobs, outsourced, centralized, only cheap youth wanted, and low wages with no insurance. Victory.
Also, women can fail to find work because they've been convicted of, say, marijuana possession and no longer can get student loans, or get a job because they are former felons. Hell, you can't even enter Canada if you've been convicted of a pot crime. We've
Re:fuck you iceland. (Score:5, Interesting)
Same applies for a professional athlete -- only it can be more lucrative.
I've known several strippers who had their houses paid off, and had banked a shit load of money. They then use that money for their stuff after the career dancing. More than a few do it while they're still going to school.
I mean, I've heard that some strippers do that.
Re: (Score:3)
And this is different from every other job on the planet how?
News flash, people who spend all of their money can end up broke.
Re:fuck you iceland. (Score:4, Insightful)
I've known people with PhDs who have declared bankruptcy -- the amount of intelligence required to do your job and your financial acumen are not directly correlated.
Yeah? How many of those people who had .com era salaries find themselves in the same boat?
Seriously, what are you arguing for? We should outlaw porn because some people will make money in the industry, spend it all, and then not have any? As I said, that is true for every other job on the planet, and it isn't unique to porn.
Re:fuck you iceland. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fair enough, but you can have a much longer career as an engineer than as a stripper.
Considering a girl I used to date back in the early 2000's was clearing upwards of $4500 to 6800/week? I don't think that's a problem. She hasn't worked in 3 years now, and it living off the investments she had done when she was younger. Retiring at 32 must have been a poor career move for her.
Re:fuck you iceland. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is basically the same argument I'd make for making prostitution and recreational drugs legal. No government has any business legislating personal morality: we should, instead, regulate these things to help moderate the harm to others these practices cause.
Re:fuck you iceland. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah! Or like making all nuclear bombs illegal even though not everyone would blow up cities with them.
My point: it's a balance. We decide issues based on the amount of harm, and the use of the tool. Nuclear bombs are a trite but obvious example of a tool where even the minority use of the tool warrants its universal ban. Guns are somewhere in the middle. Poisons are somewhere in the middle, different for different poisons.
Porn, on the other hand, is nowhere near the balancing point: to me it is totally obvious that porn is overwhelmingly good in almost every way, with only a tiny amount of harm. There is no reasonable argument for banning porn because the bad does not come anywhere close to outweighing the good.
But, to say that any modicum of positive use for a tool means the tool should not be banned, is the kind of childish black-and-white thinking that would put nuclear bombs into the hands of prison inmates (after all, what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand, right?) Use subtle thought and moderation. They will take you far.
Re:fuck you iceland. (Score:5, Funny)
It isn't like anyone is holding a gun to any of these women to disrobe, or have sex on screen (they have to sign papers about age and all this anyway)...how could it possibly be in any way, an imposition on their civil rights??!!?
Is freedom of choice what to do with yourself not a civil right? What about that?
The comedian Doug Stanhope I think summed it up best:
"If God had intended women to prostitute themselves, he would have given them free will and a vagina."
Re:fuck you iceland. (Score:5, Funny)
Which is just an extension of an older idea expressed best by Oscar Wilde: "If we were meant to be naked, we would've been born that way."
Re: (Score:3)
Free will caused you to write that post.
God frowned upon it.
Re:fuck you iceland. (Score:4, Insightful)
So something forced you to post those words? Fate, karma, predestination?
The laws of physics. There's no free will term in f=ma.
That whole "there is no free will" philosophy was dreamed up by people who refuse to be responsible for their own actions.
What makes you think I'm claiming I'm not responsible for my own actions? Holding people accountable when they hurt others has an observable positive effect on society. Whether we have free will or not is entirely irrelevant.
Re:fuck you iceland. (Score:4, Informative)
Which is precisely why f=ma says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of free will. Free will is a concept in philosophy, and a pretty vague one even there; trying to contrast it with the physical concept of determinism leads to absurd results because they simply have nothing to do with each other.
Besides, it's questionable whether the whole concept of determinism even makes sense. No system can ever occur truly deterministic to you, because observing its initial stage requires interaction which makes you part of the system, at which point your internal model of the system is also part of the system and must thus sacrifice detail to fit inside just a part of the system (you), which in turn leads to inaccuracies. So if it's logically impossible to observe a fully deterministic systems even in principle, doesn't that make the whole concept of determinism itself self-contradictory?
Re: (Score:3)
You aren't allowed to sell a particular product, big deal. You can't sell unpasteurized milk, ...
By definition, this also means that you cannot buy unpasteurized milk... So in actuality, a ban on unpasteurized milk violates everyones freedom and not just the milk producers freedom.
It doesnt just ban the act of selling the product. It eliminates the market for the product.
Would you also consider a government ban on uncapped bandwidth no big deal? How about a government ban on birth control? A government ban on hard drives larger than 20 megabytes?
Here is an idea.. you should never ever ever have
Re: (Score:3)
If you want to drink milk straight from a cow, you can still buy a cow.
Gee thanks. Now please explain what that has to do with what i said? It has nothing to do with it.. you are just pretending that it does.
Its like saying "well you still have the freedom to make your own car" after they take away your freedom to buy one and another persons freedom to sell one. Its a bullshit argument and you know it. It doesnt even pass simple scrutiny.
Liberty includes the freedom to voluntarily trade labor between consenting people. You don't get to redefine it.
Get with the program! (Score:2)
The article says this is a "very progressive approach".........which means it can only be for your own good.
Re:Get with the program! (Score:5, Informative)
The article says this is a "very progressive approach".........which means it can only be for your own good.
It's a rather strange statement, because it is not progressive at all. The people I know who are most opposed to porn and would like it to go away, might shoot someone if they were called progressive.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever heard of the concept that the left-right spectrum is shaped like a horseshoe? That is, the further left a person goes the more he begins to look like an ultra-right-wing lunatic, and vice versa? I think that's what's going on here. The progressive attempt to give women equal rights under the law has mutated into the desire to protect them from everyone including themselves.
Rob
Re:Get with the program! (Score:4, Informative)
Gail Dines was on Q&A last night and the first thing she said was just plain wrong. She repeated the tired complaint that the fad of the Brazilian wax was due to pornography. [novelactivist.com]
Why Iceland is consulting this insane woman about sexual media is beyond me.
Re:fuck you iceland. (Score:5, Funny)
as a woman who's various parts are all over the internet
What, a female distributed AI? Cool!
This will be a terrific boost... (Score:5, Insightful)
...to the internet proxy industry :-)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
For more try your search engine... Pro tip: EU troll forum <then hit enter>
oohhh... now I get it... you work for the EU
"It is looking a pornography from a new position.. (Score:3, Funny)
"It is looking a pornography from a new position..."
Meh. I've seen all the positions (and done most of them).
Re:"It is looking a pornography from a new positio (Score:5, Funny)
except for the ones involving more than one person.
Their will being? (Score:3, Insightful)
The women who work in porn are there of the own free will and many of them make a decent living from it. Same with strippers. The only victims in a strip club are the guys blowing their paychecks to see a naked woman.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe in an American state with a high percentage of trailer trash, yes.
Down in Mexico (for example), not so much...
Obligatory XK,, err, Dilbert (Score:5, Funny)
Dilbert is coding protection software to keep minors from viewing porn. [dilbert.com]
Dogbert: So, you're pitting your intellect against the collective sex drives of every teenager on the planet?
Dilbert: Yes.
Dogbert: Did you know that if you put a little hat on it a snowball can last a long time in hell?
Moral panic (Score:4, Insightful)
Just another idiotic moral panic [wikipedia.org]. Where's the actual evidence of harm to either porn consumers or producers?
Re:Moral panic (Score:5, Insightful)
Just another idiotic moral panic [wikipedia.org]. Where's the actual evidence of harm to either porn consumers or producers?
In a democratic nation, evidence of harm is not necessary. "Because we don't fucking like it, we're the majority, and if you don't stop we'll thump you, that's why" is a perfectly acceptable reason.
Re:Moral panic (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what we call Tyranny of the Majority. It might be legal, but it's never acceptable. It's nothing more than sheer thuggery.
Re:Moral panic (Score:5, Insightful)
You believe there are conditions where the minority should rule over the majority? Then you don't believe in democracy. End of story.
I guess you're right. After all, 9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape.
Re: (Score:3)
You believe there are conditions where the minority should rule over the majority? Then you don't believe in democracy. End of story.
To be fair, pure democracies are indeed understood to be a horrible idea, and I doubt there are many people who believe in them.
The US, for example, which many people like to call a democracy, was designed with very specific checks to prevent the majority from simply dictating the rules. It's the reason why the Senate was not a body that was directly elected until the 17th amendement, and why the electoral college exists. The idea behind a representative democracy is that the people's interest are to be r
Re:Porn is harmful (Score:5, Insightful)
Assuming and anti-internet-porn law would be legal and in practical terms enforceable, it's the government's job to weigh the harm being done by the status quo against the harm done by increased regulations, and to take into account the will of the people in the process. Not an easy job.
It's a very easy job. There is no evidence of harm being done by the status quo.
Re:Moral panic (Score:5, Insightful)
To play at Devil's Advocate here: some women may be in porn against their will, "forced" into it either through unlawful restraint, or "economic difficulty", and therefore need to be "protected" from such a fate.
Now, if unlawfully restrained, clearly a crime has been comitted, and should be prosecuted. I can't see prohibition of pornography as having much effect on such crimes, sadly, as a black market will always exist, and indeed, increase the profit motive for such criminals. Arguably, it would make things worse.
The "economic difficulty" argument is hardly "force", and while it may be sad that a woman might have to resort to pornography, or prostitution, to support herself, clearly it speaks more to the failure of a social safety net, than any "economic force" used "against" her. Personally, I have more respect for prostitutes, porn actresses, and strippers, than those on the welfare dole: the former earn a quite difficult living (often abused in places where these activities are illegal).
All that said, I've known a number of women who stripped their way through college, to wind up with a decent education, and successfull careers. (Granted, a large percentage had serious drug habits, but that should not reflect on those that didn't and saw an easy way to separate men from their money for their benefit.)
The bottom line is this: just because some may be criminally or economically forced into activites they'd rather not do, this does not justify prohibiting those who willingly chose to engage in them from doing so.
Re:Moral panic (Score:5, Insightful)
To play at Devil's Advocate here: some women may be in porn against their will, "forced" into it either through unlawful restraint, or "economic difficulty", and therefore need to be "protected" from such a fate.
How is that any different fro men being "forced" to be a coal miner out of "economic difficulty"? By that argument shouldn't Iceland ban any potentially dangerous or unpleasant job?
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're confusing playing Devil's Advocate, which can be a useful intellectual exercise, or merely fun,with Reductio ad absurdam, a proof technique, and constructing straw men, an informal fallacy.
The Vatican no longer requires the services of the devil's advocate, whose role was to argue that the beatified should not be canonized.. Apparently, the more saints, the better.
Re:Moral panic (Score:5, Insightful)
In my home country, we've legalized weed. And for many years, there were fewer junkies and drug-related crimes in the Netherlands than in surrounding countries. Then we introduced a measure that wouldn't even make it illegal, it's more like a membership required to smoke dope. That spurred crime alright... Within no-time we had street sellers occupying the corners of every street in towns that previously didn't have this issue.
So they reverted to the old system. And the peace returned.
The same goes for prostitution. In Sweden, they're on a moral high horse about prostitution, but there you get Eastern European and Russian girls that are forcibly kept in dodgy apartments as a default, while only a percentage of prostitutes in the Netherlands are actually forced into the business.
My point is that bad stuff will always happen to good people, but draconian measures, prohibition and even harsh punishment have all been proven to exacerbate whatever problem they're aimed at. Time and time again.
As a result I would argue that a ban on porn is just plain obtuse. It is a limitation on the right to free speech and congregation for those that are consenting afficionado's of filmed exhibitionism, it derives all manner of people of a way to release sexual tension and it's just not effective.
I do wonder what would happen to the rape and violent crime statistisc in a society if they went overboard in sexual conservativism.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
That is not progressive, it is regressive (Score:5, Insightful)
Performing in porn is free expression, and banning that expression is an infringement on the civil rights of the participants. The only "harm" resulting from porn is not from the porn itself, but from a society that is reactionary and overly judgmental. This is total bullshit to call this "progressive".
Statists (Score:5, Insightful)
In the name of health and safety, children, civil rights and stuff.
Not 'christians', fundies, conservatives or anyone else you've been trained to hate.
The ruling class deciding how you'll live with no help from the church at all.
I'm doubtful of that so called expert... (Score:5, Insightful)
Professor Gail Dines, an expert on pornography and speaker at a recent conference at Reykjavik University.
How exactly did this gentleman become an expert on pornography?
It is looking a pornography from a new position â" from the perspective of the harm it does to the women who appear in it and as a violation of their civil rights."
What if they unconsciously want to appear in it? Isn't democracy the right to choose your destiny, good or bad?
Re:I'm doubtful of that so called expert... (Score:5, Informative)
How exactly did this gentleman become an expert on pornography?
Prof. Gail Dines is actually a she, but her credentials on pornography are suspect at best. Do a Google search for "Gail Dines" "Penn and Teller Bullshit."
Re: (Score:2)
"Professor Gail Dines, an expert on pornography and speaker at a recent conference at Reykjavik University."
"How exactly did this gentleman become an expert on pornography?"
First, Gail Dines is a gal. And she got a PhD in Sociology according to wikipedia. You know what they say about PhD in Sociology, it is just like an exercise in masturbation. So I guess that's where the expertise come from.
Re: (Score:2)
"This is like arguing suicide should be illegal."
Actually in France, suicide is illegal. Though I don't think anybody ever got charged for attempting to commit suicide...
Not all porn contains women for a start. (Score:4, Insightful)
Never mind the fact that at least some of the participants of either sex many not be being exploited any more than the would if flipping burgers for minimum wage while their PhD is being reviewed.
Rgds
Damon
Isn't that like... (Score:4, Funny)
Really odd this is from Iceland (Score:5, Insightful)
A place that has a Phallic museum should not be trying harder than Al-Quida to ban naked women.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe what they are really afraid of is declining birth rates.
With more guys satisfying themselves with porn, there's less chance of pregnancy.
Not that I agree with a ban, at all. I'm simply pointing out reasoning that might not have made it to the public statements. We've heard arguments like this about pron before.
BTW, whatever happened to autopr0n? He used to have nice little site there.
Expert? (Score:2)
I'm sure there are quite a few other "experts" out there who will take a counter position. Or two.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure there are quite a few other "experts" out there who will take a counter position. Or two.
I see what you did there ...
And you're right. Stoya [twitter.com], in particular, has nothing nice to say about Dines.
I can't keep up with the new definitions (Score:5, Insightful)
It's 2013 people.
"Progressive" now means that we'll tell you how to think and what to think.
It's great, I mean - look at all the burden that's taken off the individual!
(On a serious note relevant to the OP: (http://newsroom.unl.edu/blog/?p=1202) "The research, published in the European Journal of Social Psychology, found in a series of experiments that participants processed images of men and women in very different ways. When presented with images of men, perceivers tended to rely more on "global" cognitive processing, the mental method in which a person is perceived as a whole. Meanwhile, images of women were more often the subject of "local" cognitive processing, or the objectifying perception of something as an assemblage of its various parts." This was happening with both male and female survey subjects.
Who determines what is art? (Score:5, Insightful)
Women as victims (Score:5, Insightful)
Paternalistic, sexist bullshit. I don't see them whining about the civil rights of men in porn. No, it's only women who need protection.
Only a complete fool would buy this as anything other than a bald faced lie.
Just tax it? (Score:2)
Conservatist solution : rename it progressive (Score:2)
Fine by me (Score:5, Interesting)
Iceland? (Score:3)
Violent is the key word here, not porn (Score:5, Informative)
Just a quick FYI, people:
This ban is aimed at violent porn, not porn (as in naked people having sex). So, just to be clear, images depicting naked people having sex will be a-ok, whereas images depicting, say, women being raped or abused would not. It's the consenting adults principle, if you will.
How do I know this? Well, first of all, it's in the article: " "We have to be able to discuss a ban on violent pornography, which we all agree has a very harmful effects on young people and can have a clear link to incidences of violent crime," he said. " The "he" here is Ögmundur Jónasson, the Interior Minister. Also, he's discussed this on his homepage (which is in Icelandic, but here's the link: http://www.ogmundur.is/fra-lesendum/nr/6571/ [ogmundur.is]) where he specified that his concern is violent porn, NOT porn itself.
That said, I'm pretty skeptical about this being possible in practice, but I'd love to hear Slashdot's opinion about if people here think it is.
Not a new battle, and not clear-cut feminism (Score:4, Informative)
Even among feminists, there's significant disagreement about whether porn is inherently exploitative of women, or whether it's fine if all the performers have consented to participate (if they haven't then it's sexual assault at least). And this debate has been going on for several decades at least, with some (e.g. Andrea Dworkin and Gloria Steinem) taking the anti-porn side, while others (e.g. Ellen Willis and Susie Bright) taking the view that women should be able to express their sexuality on film if they want. The key problem: There's no scientific data to support any position on the subject, so it's come down to gut feelings with various rationalizations on both sides.
My own take: I'm not going to support passing laws to deal with purely theoretical problems. If the anti-porn side can demonstrate some actual documented harm, then I'll change my mind.
I can predict the future... (Score:3)
I see a possible future where the entirety of Iceland's international internet traffic is easily handled by a single 56kbps dialup modem.
Ban porn. LOL. Try banning the air that you breath. You cannot legislate a person's morals no matter how much you wish to. At best, these efforts will slightly inconvenience people who want porn. Have they not heard of SSH tunneling?
The most gainful activity that a government official can engage in is composting another government official.
Re:well... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think Icelanders are any more or less sexually moral than any one else. There are indeed abuses of women in porn, and the sex worker trafficing problem is huge.
However, this is a moralist in disguise. He doesn't mention as an example, gay/lesbian porn. He's thinly disguising is contempt for porn in general. Consenting partners, unencumbered and free to make the choice, make porn all of the time. He's just interested in making sure no one watches it, for his sense of moral satisfaction.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. What about porn made by men, staring men, only men, with an audience of men, and no women involved in the production process at all?
It's really easy to have good safe porn, without exploitation. Yes, it's certainly true that a lot of porn exploits the actors (men, women, etc.) involved. But that doesn't mean that Internet porn is all bad. And certainly the stuff that two consenting couples film, and then voluntarily put up on the Internet is not bad.
Re:well... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think Icelanders are any more or less sexually moral than any one else.
I'd argue that the banning of pornography and stripping makes Iceland significantly less sexually moral than other countries. Prudery is not moral. Freedom, and respecting the rights of people who use that freedom even if you don't like it, That's what real morality looks like.
Re:well... (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree with your sentiments, you judge all 300K+ Icelanders by the whims of one moralist minister.
Re:well... (Score:5, Funny)
Is trafficing huge?
I watch Law and Order Special Victims Unit, and yes, it's huge. The entire female population of Russia has been kidnapped and forced into prostitution in New York City.
I also learned that all Russian women are gorgeous, all Russian men are angry, and video games make teenage boys murder people.
The only thing I've noticed to be actually true is that there really are a lot of good looking Russian women. something in the water over there?
Re:That's not what Progressive means... (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not banning porn in the name of "old-world belief systems", they're banning it in the name of feminism. I suppose since it's located in Iceland you can consider it to be old-world simply by location, but it's not based on the kind of religious attitudes one normally means by that term. And there's no evidence that he or his supporters aren't sincere about banning porn on feminist grounds rather than religious ones. Iceland is also a very secular country overall, despite having a state church.
Re:That's not what Progressive means... (Score:5, Insightful)
True feminists support a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. Denying free sexual expression to women in the name of feminism is the height of hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:3)
they're banning it in the name of feminism
There's nothing feminist about banning porn. Real feminists respect the right of women to make their own decisions.
Re:That's not what Progressive means... (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not banning porn in the name of "old-world belief systems", they're banning it in the name of feminism.
Odd, much of porn is made by women. If they lose their jobs, they will be liberated or something I guess.
Re:Who wants it more? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, Conservatives and religious people will try to remove your freedoms on different grounds.
Sooner or later, any group in power will try to impose their view of the world on everybody else and try to define acceptable behavior according to their model.
And if you have a better system than democracy, we're all ears.
Re:What do we lose? (Score:5, Insightful)
What do we lose, if porn is banned?
The freedom to choose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the question should not be what do we have to lose. But whether there is any gain legislating on that.
Why not banning lolcats? lolcats do not (typically) have polical speech or social commentary, so let's just ban it. For sure we are not losing anything of much value. But why do that? People like lolcats.
If you were making anonymous polls to keep either lolcats or porn, I think cats would go out.
Re:What do we lose? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure we do -- we lose the right to do things without someone else deciding that it's morally wrong and forcing us not to do it.
Ah, but whose standards? Are you suggesting your standards are so awesome the rest of us should be legally required to adhere to them? Because anybody who suggests something is half way to becoming the problem as they'll want to make it illegal to do anything they disagree with.
Humans have been crass and supportive of outright destructive ideas for millenia. And humans are a diverse group who believe all sorts of stupid shit, believing otherwise is stupid.
And people tend to define "outright destructive ideas" as anything they don't agree with.
The best you can do in society is to try to balance the needs and wants of everybody -- not take one group and make what they think is Divine Immutable Truth and make everybody else follow it.
Who do we pick? The loudest? The most numerous? The ones who have always been in power? The first born male child?
Little old ladies who think a skirt should never be above the knee, people who believe a woman's face should be covered, or that dancing is the work of the devil -- those people are all entitled to their beliefs, but that doesn't confer any obligation on me to adhere to their beliefs. No more than anything that I choose to do that they disagree with confers any obligation on them.
The only obligation here is to shut the fuck up and mind your own business. Freedom of speech says "you can disagree, but you can't stop it" -- and quite frankly, it's a far better situation than a bunch of fanatics trying to make it law that the rest of us live up to what they believe.
I'm not going to adhere to your beliefs just because you want to, and I'm not going to listen to anything you say that says "god told me we can't do this" ... and at that point, you hold your tongue, and I'll hold mine. But if you think your beliefs gives you the right to tell me what I can and can't do -- then your beliefs are shit.
Re:What do we lose? (Score:5, Insightful)
If porn gets banned, we don't lose anything that will improve our society.
We lose the porn. I like porn, and losing porn would make this society worse for me. Just because *you* don't value porn doesn't make it worthless. This is why we have freedom, because people have different values.
In the name of freedom of speech, expression, etc. we have permitted ourselves to become crass and to support outright destructive ideas, and in fact force them on others
Yes, destructive ideas like censorship are being force on Icelanders. This is a serious problem. Far more serious than porn.
Re:What do we lose? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Porn is almost as bad for the mind as fluoridation. Do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk, ice cream? Ice cream, Mandrake? Children's ice cream!...You know when fluoridation began?...1946. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the in