Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



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

EU To Vote On Proposal That Could Ban All Online Pornography 853

Posted by timothy
from the easy-enough dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The European Union is voting on a proposal next week that could lead to a blanket ban on porn in member states, and it seems the measure may well be approved. The proposal, called 'Eliminating gender stereotypes in the EU,' mentions issues such as women carrying a 'disproportionate share of the burden' when raising a family, violence against women as 'an infringement of human rights,' and gender stereotypes that develop early in life. From the proposal: "Calls on the EU and its Member States to take concrete action on its resolution of 16 September 1997 on discrimination against women in advertising, which called for a ban on all forms of pornography in the media and on the advertising of sex tourism." Update: 03/07 19:05 GMT by T : Pirate MEP Christian Engström writes on his blog that citizens writing to the European Parliament about the proposal are not necessarily being heard: "Before noon, some 350 emails [on this topic] had arrived in my office. But around noon, these mails suddenly stopped arriving. When we started investigating why this happened so suddenly, we soon found out: The IT department of the European Parliament is blocking the delivery of the emails on this issue, after some members of the parliament complained about getting emails from citizens."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU To Vote On Proposal That Could Ban All Online Pornography

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 07, 2013 @12:36PM (#43106203)

    Up next: EU proposes new law that says all sex is rape.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 07, 2013 @12:39PM (#43106245)

    then gay male porn is all good, yeah?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 07, 2013 @12:42PM (#43106277)

    has to do with topless women peddling orange juice in adverts on television.. not "porn" in general.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 07, 2013 @12:43PM (#43106297)

    Why is it that so few leaders are willing to ignore violence against men, one form of which is the forced circumcision and genital mutilation of boys which remains legal in many countries that protect girls from similar. Can't violence just be opposed in all it's forms without regard to sex?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 07, 2013 @12:44PM (#43106309)

    That's just copying US law.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 07, 2013 @12:45PM (#43106333)

    Porn is a release, not an inspiration.

  • by It doesn't come easy (695416) * on Thursday March 07, 2013 @12:50PM (#43106397) Journal
    I travel in Europe occasionally and some of the commercial billboards I have seen in airports would be considered pornography in the US...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 07, 2013 @12:50PM (#43106399)

    Because power isn't about taking enlightened logical decisions for the greater good.

  • by gestalt_n_pepper (991155) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @12:50PM (#43106405)

    And speaking of women's rights, are they going to ban Berlesconi too? I mean, I'm in favor of banning him, but not for that reason.

  • by neiras (723124) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @12:51PM (#43106413)

    I'm getting tired of "Violence against women" being portrayed as a special case worthy of special laws at the expense of everyone else.

    Violence in general is the problem. All violence has victims. Violence typically occurs where society needs new rules and new norms. Right now there is lots of violence against against women, more in some cultures than others. It's ugly.

    Still, when we start getting laws designed to combat violence against group X that end up doing violence to the rights and freedoms of people outsideof group X, we're doing it wrong.

    By all means, let's make rules that discourage violence against everyone - childredn, the elderly, women, men, pets, gingers, neckbeards. Short of widespread deployment of G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate [wikia.com], though, humans will keep bashing each other. There's a limit to prevention.

  • by Joce640k (829181) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @12:54PM (#43106431) Homepage

    Yep, it says "in the media".

    They may have a point. It's hard to turn on the TV in Spain after 11pm without seeing women in a state of undress or being "sexualized" in some way (even if it's only getting some bimbo to express her views on society so they can mock her).

    I'm all for pornography/eroticism, but there's no need for that...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 07, 2013 @12:54PM (#43106437)

    This is exactly why consolidation and centralization of power is so dangerous: it leverages the injustice that inevitably results from coercive authority. Whatever flavor of injustice is currently in fashion will be extended and compounded by orders of magnitude. Instead of the isolated cases of injustice that result from small independent states, what you get with consolidation of political power is a nuclear explosion of injustice.

    Of course, for the elite few at the top of the pyramid, consolidation of power is the road to riches.

  • From the article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phantomfive (622387) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @12:57PM (#43106481) Journal
    The propsal to ban pornography already passed in 1997, according to the first link in the summary. This one merely calls on the states of the EU to actually take concrete action towards that goal. Also, it's not clear that this proposal is binding at all, even if it passes; it seems more like a 'call to action', encouragement, than anything else. Someone who has deeper knowledge of the EU than I do can clarify. Here is the quote from the proposal:

    17. Calls on the EU and its Member States to take concrete action on its resolution of 16 September 1997 on discrimination against women in advertising, which called for a ban on all forms of pornography in the media and on the advertising of sex tourism

    I'm not sure anything at all will change even if this passes.

  • by operagost (62405) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @12:57PM (#43106491) Homepage Journal
    Does it matter? It's censorship. Why do we think any intrusion on people's private lives is OK?
  • by operagost (62405) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @12:59PM (#43106531) Homepage Journal
    Media is everything! TV, DVD, Blu-Ray, Internet, paper!

    I'm all for pornography/eroticism, but there's no need for that...

    Says who? Oh, you. And them. I'm sure that your personal opinion is not censorship.

  • by mcgrew (92797) * on Thursday March 07, 2013 @01:05PM (#43106613) Homepage Journal

    "Porn: anything the powerful doesn't want plebes to have." And here I thought Europe was civilized and we Americans were the dummies. How could they ever enforce this, have a Chinese style firewall around Europe? Do they think all the porn comes from Europe?

    Idiots. Just like us, passing totally unenforceable laws.

  • by Ardeaem (625311) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @01:05PM (#43106617)

    I'm getting tired of "Violence against women" being portrayed as a special case worthy of special laws at the expense of everyone else.

    Violence in general is the problem.

    Eh, yes, but it is not very productive to ignore that different kinds of violence have different causes and thus probably different solutions, and that some kinds of violence are more pervasive than others. I'm not defending the specific policy in question here, but your knee-jerk "all violence is bad response" is a sign that you might want to consider more nuanced ways of thinking about the world.

  • by operagost (62405) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @01:06PM (#43106635) Homepage Journal
    Even if violence against women were the most important issue today, this resolution is lacking some sort of reference to actual SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that pornography is the cause. For years, people have been blaming games, movies, and TV for everything with no actual reasoning behind it.
  • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @01:07PM (#43106651)

    Because... it's a cultural thing. It doesn't have to make sense! It's only mutilation if the other tribe does it. If we do the same, it's a perfectly respectable practice.

  • by amiga3D (567632) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @01:09PM (#43106705)

    You know they can't even get rid of the child porn out there and somehow they think they'll succeed with porn in general? Luck with that.

  • by BasilBrush (643681) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @01:11PM (#43106731)

    Indeed, I've always thought the US fad of circumcision is barbaric. I can't understand it at all. The Jews have a religious tradition, but what's the excuse for the rest of the parents? "It's traditional in the USA so it's OK?"

  • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @01:12PM (#43106735)

    And yet the countries where women are most unequal are also those which have heavy restrictions on pornography,

  • by HornWumpus (783565) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @01:17PM (#43106797)

    The internet wasn't built for children.

    It is the parents problem, period.

    The net is an adult destination, simple as that. Don't let your kids lose here unsupervised. It's not that hard, most just don't want to know.

    I would no more leave a kid on an unfiltered net connection then I would leave him at a titty bar for babysitting.

  • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @01:18PM (#43106817)

    The porn industry thrives on variety and niche. People usually end up seeing roughly the type of pornography they seek. If they like seeing women bound, subjegated and abused, that is what they get. If they like romance and cuddling, they get that too. If they want story, they can have it - and if they don't, they won't. Hah, with the right search terms I could ask the internet to bring me pictures involving My Little Pony, dubstep, machines of some type and a sandwich - and there's a good chance that exists, somewhere.

  • by BasilBrush (643681) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @01:23PM (#43106879)

    Same as the USA did two hundred and odd years ago.

    And if the USA hadn't done that. If they'd been independent states, they'd never have become a world superpower. So much as it's very fashionable theses days to be libertarian and hate the federal government, you Americans wouldn't have had the success you have had without it.

  • by rk (6314) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @01:23PM (#43106893) Journal

    Oh no, then it would be about sex discrimination. "I'm sorry, you may be making gay porn, but that doesn't allow you to discriminate against female porn actors." So one department will force them to hire females, and then another will shut them down and jailing them for demeaning and degrading women.

    I'd like to think what I just wrote is satire, but when you look at the bending and twisting of legal interpretations by The Powers That Be that are enough to make yoga masters wince, I'm afraid I am probably wrong.

  • by dittbub (2425592) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @01:27PM (#43106945)
    I guess all the other problems facing EU have been solved?
  • by Samantha Wright (1324923) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @01:27PM (#43106953) Homepage Journal

    Feminists are a very diverse bunch. Every now and then you find a radical misandrist—or, more likely, someone who has lost sight of their objective and can no longer tell the difference between defending women's rights and assaulting men—who does say something appalling or across the line. As a result a lot of women and men, who espouse essentially egalitarian ideals, avoid the feminist label and find sexism uncomfortable (most of whom would picket for, say, suffrage) avoid the "feminist" label.

    ...for the sake of it, though, those arguments have been made; in the late sixties and early seventies, the GLF (Gay Liberation Front) was faced with feminists who believed that, by disengaging the other sex, gay men had deemed them unworthy of their attention and were trying to exclude women entirely. This is less of an argument against gay porn than it is about male homosexuality entirely. As an example, the author Susan Brownmiller apparently believed this [paganpressbooks.com]. (The reality, of course, is that the gay rights movement has always been in solidarity with women's rights, and only in ancient Greece do we see cultural acceptance of the kind of chauvinism that was being claimed.)

    For what it's worth, I expect that the porn industry generates sufficient economic activity that it will be spared by an unwitting accountant.

  • by phayes (202222) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @01:29PM (#43106983) Homepage

    I wasn't aware that the Islamic republic of Europe had come so far...

    Seriously, Iran & the loopy feminists are in agreement that repression of all sexy images of women will make the world better...

  • by BasilBrush (643681) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @01:29PM (#43106985)

    The internet wasn't built for children.

    It was built for the military and the universities. But at some point they let you on it. And at the same time they let you on it, they let all other civilians on it, including children.

    Don't let your kids lose here unsupervised. It's not that hard

    As I predicted, the old pass the buck to the parents nonsense. Yes, it is that hard. Technically, logistically, and time wise.

    I would no more leave a kid on an unfiltered net connection

    As I also pointed out, a net nanny on a PC isn't enough. Even if the kids can't find their way around it, they have consoles, smartphones, their friends houses, free wifi all over the place.

  • by Rude Turnip (49495) <valuation@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Thursday March 07, 2013 @01:30PM (#43106995)

    Religious tradition is not an excuse. We're not accepting that bullshit in 2013.

  • by Applekid (993327) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @01:30PM (#43107001)

    It's not about 'think of the children.' Read the article. It's about protecting women's rights. It comes from the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality. Some feminist groups oppose porn, for various reasons. The Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality is one of those.

    Among other things, if you read the article, they feel pornography encourages the culture that allows women to make less money than men.

    Thankfully, there are nations that have already banned pornography and are hailed as beacons of Woman's Rights, like Saudi Araba, Egypt, China, North Korea, Guyana, and Botswana.

  • by thomasw_lrd (1203850) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @01:39PM (#43107121)

    You'd have less rights. You'd have more rights, if you weren't a WASP Male, Women, Racial Minorities, Religious Minorities all have more rights than than the Male WASP (where the P in wasp stands for either Protestant or Catholic.) at least in the US.

    The part where it gets tricky is where you when you start mixing the above groups. For instance, a Female WASP has more rights, unless she wants to fight against gun control, then she's a right wing nut job. (AKA Sarah Palin).

    It saddens me that I when I read Fahrenheit 451, it seemed very prophetic given the way that "rights" are being eroded in the US.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 07, 2013 @01:40PM (#43107137)
    Try using http://e621.net/ [e621.net] and don't say I didn't warn you...
  • by Joce640k (829181) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @01:42PM (#43107163) Homepage

    Flipping through Spanish TV channels in the hope of seeing naked women is the most mind-numbing way I can imagine of finding 'porn'.

    Who are you trying to fool? Just admit to yourself you really want is porn, then watch porn. It's not difficult. You might even find something to your own personal taste.

  • by BasilBrush (643681) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @01:45PM (#43107195)

    Well that's what you get with a private healthcare system.

  • by cayenne8 (626475) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @01:46PM (#43107203) Homepage Journal

    And libertarians and child pornographers are in agreement that an unrestricted internet will make the world better.

    See how stupid it is to associate people based on one particular thing they agree on?

    You know...an unrestricted internet is what we started out with, and that un-restriction is what allowed it to grow and thrive in such a short period of time (look at the vast difference between about say 1993 and 2013).

    Why should we try to restrict it now, just as it is becoming pervasive enough that so many in the world now can connect and express their view points.

    This is mostly govt.s trying to put the genie back in the bottle because they didn't see this coming when it started.

  • Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hatta (162192) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @01:47PM (#43107215) Journal

    Banning ads for sex tourism should be a no-brainier I would hope.

    Not at all. The no-brainer is that sex tourism should be legal and regulated, just like any other industry. Tax them and use that money to enforcefair working conditions. Problem solved.

    It is merely trying to remove negative stereotypes from everyday media

    Negative according to who? And why do they get to decide what is negative?

    It isn't about being puritanical, it is about protecting people from well understood psychological harm.

    Exactly what sort of harm are you talking about? How is sending the message that sex is positive and desirable more harmful than sending the message that sex is dirty and should be hidden?

  • by PraiseBob (1923958) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @01:51PM (#43107283)
    I think the difference is that libertarians usually acknowledge the negative impacts, but provide a weighted argument that the overall freedom is worth the cost. Are the feminists acknowledging the negative impacts of imposing censorship on broad segments of the populace?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 07, 2013 @01:54PM (#43107333)

    Holding parents responsible for their own children isn't nonsense, and was easy to predict, because it's the only sensible option. You sound like a lazy parent.

  • by SomeKDEUser (1243392) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @01:54PM (#43107337)

    Actually, people came to America because they couldn't properly oppress the people back in Europe that did not have quite their exact brand of puritanism...

  • by s0lar (217978) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @01:55PM (#43107347)

    OK, so would femdom be OK? Affirmative action and all?..

  • by cayenne8 (626475) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @01:58PM (#43107387) Homepage Journal

    --Don't let your kids lose here unsupervised. It's not that hard

    As I predicted, the old pass the buck to the parents nonsense. Yes, it is that hard. Technically, logistically, and time wise.

    --I would no more leave a kid on an unfiltered net connection

    As I also pointed out, a net nanny on a PC isn't enough. Even if the kids can't find their way around it, they have consoles, smartphones, their friends houses, free wifi all over the place.

    So, exactly when did parent 'lose' the ability to control their children? My parents did quite a good job of it...they told me what I could and could not watch on TV, the TV being in all public rooms. I didn't get a phone in my room or a tv till I was in High School.

    What is the world is so difficult in keeping the computer the children access in a room where they are easily observed while on it? Who says you have to give a child a fucking cell phone?!? Don't give them on till they're old enough for one.

    Seriously, when exactly did we switch from the parents having 100% authority and responsibility for the raising of their offspring and start to unload it on the public in general. When, exactly did parents lose the ability to control their children, and instill in the kids the fear of God (so to speak) of the repercussions if they broke the rules?

    And yes, when I grew up, both my parents worked....I knew where the loaded guns were in the house, I had been taught how to use and fire the weapon, but I never once even THOUGHT about going to get it out to play with it or show it off, etc. WTF happened since I grew up....are kids more stupid or are they not parented properly? This is just an example and carries over to anything.

    The parent can control who's house the kids visit...they can control what and how much TV they consume, same with video games and computer/internet time.

    This should not be a problem, it wasn't in the past, why is it such a "burden" now?

    If you are going to fuck and have kids...you have to be prepared to make the sacrifice of $$ and TIME that you have to devote not to yourself as a human being, but use that time as a fucking PARENT, and spend whatever time and set whatever rules and enforce the rules on your children.

    Internet time and access is one more that is added on in the modern world

    Be a parent....and also remember...you do not have to give little Johnny or Susie or Shenequa everything they ask for, and just because a friend has it, doesn't mean THEY have to have it too.

  • by Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @02:01PM (#43107431) Journal

    We in the US tried to warn you -- we have experience with states creating a federal government, giving it limited, well-defined powers, and no others, and seeing it grow, expanding its power over the centuries, until it fancies itself the one and only government, with the states being historical curiosities.

    If that can happen with an "iron clad" Constitution, how much moreso without one?

    "Long stream of words", and it grabs more power it didn't use to have. Repeat ad collapse.

    You were warned. God help you, you were warmed.

  • by Agent0013 (828350) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @02:06PM (#43107509) Journal

    Among other things, if you read the article, they feel pornography encourages the culture that allows women to make less money than men.

    The really ironic part of that statement is that pornography is one of the fields where women make much more money than men.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 07, 2013 @02:17PM (#43107661)

    The American Association of Pediatrics believes the benefits of circumcision outweighs the risks.

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/27/health/aap-circumcision-recommendation [cnn.com]

    Keep in mind that this is a trade organization looking out for the interests (profit) of its members. They also are willing to conveniently overlook the fact that performing surgery on non-consenting minors to remove normal, healthy, functional body parts violates medical ethics. The vast majority of the world's men have their entire dick and aren't in poor health as a result. Regardless of whether you buy into the circumcision hype, the bottom line is that men should decide for themselves what happens to their OWN penis. After all, they are the ones who are going to live with ramifications.

    Child Circumcision: An Elephant in the Hospital [youtube.com]

  • by Penguinisto (415985) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @02:18PM (#43107677) Journal

    We'll just start here... [dol.gov]

    (OTOH, I find it hilarious that I get more calls when I declare my race as "Other" (as though the HR machinery seems to completely ignore the fact that I put "Human" in the descriptor field. Go figure.)

  • by dunkelfalke (91624) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @02:19PM (#43107687)

    Excuse me? Hello!? How they bloody dare to complain about getting emails from their employers?

  • ROFL-worthy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by argStyopa (232550) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @02:32PM (#43107857) Journal

    The story just gets funnier as you read it:

    "...The IT department of the European Parliament is blocking the delivery of the emails on this issue, after some members of the parliament complained about getting emails from citizens."

    EU Parliament is a triumph of democracy, clearly.

    Really, the moment I start to think that nothing could be more ridiculous than the US Congress, there I go, proved wrong again.

  • by Opportunist (166417) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @02:36PM (#43107897)

    And how on earth is YOUR kids more important than MY liberty? If you want to protect your kids, then do it yourself and leave me out of this!

    I'm fed up with the whole "thinkofthechildren" crap. You wanted kids, now deal with it!

  • by darth_borehd (644166) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @02:43PM (#43108003)

    Because science instruction belongs in school and religious instruction does not. Please stop pretending these things are equal.

  • by RazorSharp (1418697) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @02:48PM (#43108081)

    WASP means White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. It doesn't mean white. Usually it references upper or middle class white New Englanders because they tend to be of Anglo-Saxon descent, and until the twentieth century they mostly didn't mingle with Irish (Celtic descent), Italians, Jews, etc.

    While I agree that white males do in fact have less rights than any other class in America, your post does nothing to back up that claim. White males have less rights because there are less opportunities for financial aid and scholarships for white males. Basically, a lot of time and paperwork could be saved if financial aid forms just had a single question: "Are you a white male with no disabilities and parents who aren't completely destitute?" As long as you can answer no to that question, there's tons of financial aid available.

    White males are also oppressed by social stigma and cases of over-reaching affirmative action (I actually do support some forms of affirmative action, but in some cases it's taken too far). Hate-crime legislation is basically punishing white males more for being violent to minorities than to each other. White males are also discriminated against when it comes to welfare -- and even if they weren't, white males are much less likely to take advantage of assistance because among most accepting help is culturally unacceptable.

    There is, however, one major advantage of being a well off white male: cops are afraid of you. This country still battles racism, and will continue to do so as long as 1) the police and court systems treat the poor, blacks, and Hispanics unequally 2) our education system provides more opportunities for the wealthy. However, I'd argue that direct racism is a pretty minor issue. Nowadays the issue is class, which leads to an indirect racism because blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately poor.

    But punishing white males for being white males isn't the solution. The thing that women and minority races tend to overlook when they claim that white males have it made is that they're only looking at wealthy white males. Poor white males are probably the most disadvantaged class of people in America. WASPs have it made -- that term is reserved for the elites who have run this country since its inception.

  • by Samantha Wright (1324923) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @02:50PM (#43108101) Homepage Journal

    That's what I meant by "lost sight of their objective." But you must be careful to realise that feminism is a confused movement. To borrow your notation, you will often see feminist sources use F1 language without realising it isn't F2 language. Layers upon layers of manifestos and treatises have transmitted F1 ideas and terminology until it (essentially) subverted egalitarian-oriented feminists into using it like Newspeak. Sometimes the line is crossed, usually by women feminists, simply because they have no frame of reference for addressing sexism; they don't know where F2 ends and F1 begins, or what actually constitutes misandry. Men, on the other hand, have been the target of such for years, and everyone is very good at spotting most forms of genuine misogyny.

    This is an innate human problem, though, found in all populations who feel repressed. (The easiest example that comes to mind is Malcolm X.) There's a very easy analogy to the physical senses—when you've been cold for a long time, it's hard to tell when something's so hot that it is likely to cause pain. Both have the same source, in fact; it's a fundamental flaw in how nervous systems work and not something to get upset about, though it does need correction. We are good at measuring change, but not status quo, and beyond a certain magnitude, we cannot measure change either.

    Good luck finding a party that both sides will regard as neutral, though. Maybe a bunch of transgendered people?

  • by Hatta (162192) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @03:00PM (#43108217) Journal

    Does it? Why can a teacher not take a group of students to see A Charlie Brown Christmas at a church, but can take those same students to see a lecture on evolution at the science museum?

    In what way are those two things at all analogous? A christmas story is just that, a story. Evolution is a well supported scientific theory. The first is indoctrination, the second is education. There's nothing about the theory of evolution that implies the presence or absence of any god or gods.

    Separation of church and state protects christians just as much as it does atheists. If a biology teacher were to say to his class "Evolution is proof that God does not exist", that would be good cause to sue the teacher and/or the school under the 1st amendment.

  • by infinitelink (963279) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @03:07PM (#43108317) Homepage Journal

    I travel in Europe occasionally and some of the commercial billboards I have seen in airports would be considered pornography in the US... --http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3525793&cid=43106397 [slashdot.org]

    Porn is ensnaring and addicting as hell, which is why it is so effective in advertisements, by making a powerful physiological association between product and something which cannot be simply ignored and removed from the mind once seen. And yon dipshit [slashdot.org] and many like him cry "OMFG censorship like as done by tze evilz dictatorz/autocratz/religioz tyrantz!!!" without paying attention to why they actually ban it: they simply observe it is bad for their populations, which is therefore bad for their national strength (and own power), and given they have the power to impose and enforce bans...they use it.

    Among ancient "conservative" (without having to be Statist, as the Europeans have always confused Statism with "conservatism" because State-imposed atomism (Tocqueville) they have always confused with "liberalism") realizations, throughout every society, is that a little social imposition of difficulty to access certain things (like sex) go a long way toward making a happier society (like women who get men interested, civil, chivalrous, etc.; women who can't be entitled hear-me-roar bitch-princes who are only worth a quick bang followed by walking-away: which I am not saying is right). The truly "liberal" realization is that to avoid massive problems you should let people contract their relations, and the State's role is to enforce the contract: in a place like the U.S., where feminist lawyers in judges robes presiding over family "court" spent decades excising the controls of contract law from marital disputes, and even now the fight is over a "marriage" which is not about a serious relationship with definite ends (like building an enterprise, having children, and commitment for life except emotively as an idea that is kinda-liked) but a "dignified" status and thing done because it's "romantic" and "feels good" and all the "witnesses" are a mob of idiots who won't be going to court with you to uphold the contract (that's what the vows are) or to testify against either party that breaks them (who should, as in other areas of contract law, get nothing: and be removed from all claims upon anything that resulted), there is neither conservatism nor liberalism--anymore, only Statism and atomism.

  • by HornWumpus (783565) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @03:17PM (#43108435)

    Nobody has the right to put religious symbols on public property. Therefor non-religious people have more rights because they don't even want to.

    Nice logic there Tom.

  • Re:ROFL-worthy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Somebody Is Using My (985418) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @03:50PM (#43108935) Homepage

    What's not so funny is that you have to do 95% into this discussion before anyone even mentions this important point.

    Yes, talking about sex is popular but these attempts at restricting pornography come and go. They are usually thrown down because it is difficult to define and as difficult to enforce.

    Blocking messages because "members of the parliament complained about getting emails from citizens" is something I find altogether more interesting - and abhorrent. It is a behavior of a professional ruling caste that no longer feels obligated to its citizenry; in fact, they consider those citizens a nuisance or threat to their profession.

    Dear EU members of parliament (or any politician in a representative democracy): you are supposed to REPRESENT us, assholes! That means you need to listen to what your electorate says, which in turn means reading any messages sent to you. If you get a lot of messages because of a particular issue, that's probably because it is an important issue to them. Your job - the reason you were put into power, and the reason you get a salary at the taxpayer's expense - is to read those damn messages,

    None of this is news, of course. Politicians have always screwed over the common man. What /is/ new is how, increasingly, the politician caste is blatantly, /obviously/ open about ignoring its responsibilities. They make no attempt to hide their own corruption, that they are either serving only themselves or some other master than the citizenry they swore to represent. /This/ is a topic that needs far more discussion than the titillating sexual mores that have inspired this proposal and so far otherwise dominated the conversation.

  • by Rene S. Hollan (1943) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @03:57PM (#43109041)

    Seriously, when exactly did we switch from the parents having 100% authority and responsibility for the raising of their offspring and start to unload it on the public in general. When, exactly did parents lose the ability to control their children, and instill in the kids the fear of God (so to speak) of the repercussions if they broke the rules?

    About the time when a child could injure themselves in some minor way, and tell someone "Daddy did this to me" because they were denied some toy they wanted.

    Been, there, done that, spent four days in jail because my nine year old didn't want new shoes, and I failed to observe what he was doing with the seatbelt buckle (jabbing it into his abdomen to leave a bruise).

    These days, a child calling 911 and saying they're scared becaue they don't get some treat is taken as probable cause of abuse (the child's purported fear, that is). Add to that laws that establish a child under 13 lacks the ability to know right from wrong, and therefore mens rea to commit a crime, and you have children, not parents, in control.

  • by mattventura (1408229) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @04:15PM (#43109245) Homepage

    Religious freedom is not bullshit.

    Using it as justification to perform a not-easily-reversed medical procedure on someone else who may not actually want it is bullshit.

  • by St.Creed (853824) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @04:17PM (#43109261)

    That is because the integrity of someones body is not for someone else to decide. The body of a woman undergoes many changes, and her health is at risk, from any pregnancy. Historically, childbirth has always been a leading cause of death for women and even today it is most certainly not a risk-free experience. Therefore, the woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy.

    The man has no say over the body of a woman - unless we have state-sanctioned slave owners - so he has no rights in the matter. Forcing a woman to become pregnant against her will is rape. Forcing her to terminate a pregnancy is physical abuse, depending on the time of the pregnancy, and would certainly do emotional damage. So once again: no rights for the man in this scenario because the damage to the woman trumps the damage to the ego of the man.

    Since the cost of bearing a child falls mostly onto the woman, the father could then basically "freeload" by walking away: the child is there, the woman is now responsible for the cost of raising the child. The father has reproduced and can go on. To prevent such a freeloading scenario and undesired consequences for society, the father has an obligation to support the child after birth.

  • by Hatta (162192) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @04:36PM (#43109515) Journal

    I'm with you on most of those points. Except for this:

    Since the cost of bearing a child falls mostly onto the woman, the father could then basically "freeload" by walking away: the child is there, the woman is now responsible for the cost of raising the child.

    You forget that a woman also has the ability to "walk away". If she chooses not to do so, why should that fall on the man?

  • by Samantha Wright (1324923) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @04:55PM (#43109739) Homepage Journal
    Feminism has officially always espoused gender equality as its primary goals. The movement was persistently subverted by radicals starting in the sixties. If anything, it's a victim of bad planning—when the movement was introduced, it was taken for granted that "giving women all the legal and social rights that men have" was equivalent to "gender equality." It is largely because of the success of the healthier parts of feminism that many educated people now assume by default that the partners in a heterosexual relationship (romantic or otherwise) should treat each other with equal respect. We're all inside the bubble now (at least in English-speaking, urbanized North America); that's why the only thing you can readily identify as "feminism" is crazy radical crap.
  • by Macgrrl (762836) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @05:07PM (#43109959)

    As someone who is nominally christian and was raised in a strongly christian household I agree with the point above.

    My biggest issue with organised Christian religion today is the people who call themselves Christians and use it as an excuse to treat other people like crap. For example see treatment of LGBT, women's rights, religious freedoms for non-Christians, etc...

    Especially egregious are those I call the 'one-hour-per-week-Christians' who seem to believe that because they happen to occupy a specific geographic location for one hour per week it excuses their immoral behaviour the rest of the week.

  • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@@@gmail...com> on Thursday March 07, 2013 @05:24PM (#43110223) Journal

    Ya know, I USED to argue against that "feminists are all man haters" stereotypes...until I saw the widely praised Vagina Monologues. Anybody else notice that the plays says quite clearly pedophilia is okay as long as its a woman doing the raping? And yet at the time all I saw from feminists was praise for the play. I mean how fucked up in the head do you got to be to say being a pedo is okay as long as its woman on girl? For those that don't know what I'm talking about look up the original play and the dialog for "little coochie snorcher" which I swear to God even has the line "If it was rape it was a good rape"". I mean can you imagine how crucified an author would be if they came out with a play where a woman praised her male rapist for "giving it to her good"? Feminism got hijacked by the nutbags and passed the exit for sanity a few miles back.

    As for TFA this is another trend I've noticed from the militant feminists, that all non lesbian sex is rape. Its kinda funny how much they actually sound like the old Victorians, how women couldn't possibly WANT to have sex or ENJOY sex in any way, the only real spin they put on it is that lesbians are the exception to the rule since there are no dirty rapist men involved. Kinda ironic that they refuse to acknowledge that one of the most profitable genres in porn these days is so called "chick porn" where they use exotic locations and hunky guys to appeal to a mostly female audience.

    But of course just like how the founder of MADD don't want anything to do with them anymore and PETA went from treating animals ethically to actually arguing that antibiotics were murder because you are killing germs and fish should be called "sea kittens" so people wouldn't eat them (I swear, look it up) the feminist movement got hijacked by the nutballs awhile back and have gone so militant I doubt the original feminsts, who from what I saw simply wanted equal pay and to be treated equally in the workplace, would scarcely recognize it anymore.

  • Good Idea (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JOrgePeixoto (853808) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @08:11PM (#43111837) Journal

    Pornography is unhealthy and, among other evils, makes men stop desiring their wives (because they are not willing to do the bizarre fantasies of their husbands).

You might have mail.

Working...