4 ms·

What about sites that deal with violence or dangerous political ideas? Are we going to censor them by default as well? What about violence in movies which is pr

What about sites that deal with violence or dangerous political ideas? Are we going to censor them by default as well? What about violence in movies which is probably far more damaging to children? Are we going to block that too on the telly? Where do we draw the line? On a practical note, I can only imagine how many arguments this new legislation would lead to. Typical scenario: Husband openly or secretly wants porn, wife doesn't.

lsd5you 16y ago
I suppose you should define damaging. Presumably you're relating violence to homicide and other violent crime. I can think of an equally plausible (and equally unverified) analysis. Depicted violence is clearly fantasy and generally bears no resemblance to reality (of life in the UK), whereas the relationship with reality of the typically pretty appalling sexual behaviour depicted in pornography is much more ambiguous (especially to young people) and as such more deleterious to behaviour. In any case movies (or films rather) in the UK are censored for violence on the telly, and generally not shown before 9pm. Although the restrictions are much laxer than previously. Back to the original point, is depicted violence more damaging? Is that even true, and how much do people value it? Is it something you want for your children or more other people's children? At risk of demagogy, it might be best to think about what people desire. Many people, perhaps most people, fundamentally don't want their children to be exposed to large quantities of pornography - just on the grounds of the potential for awkwardness - and perhaps don't care so much about an unquantifiable increase in violence in society.
- pyre 16y ago
  Teens are currently making their own porn and texting it to themselves. How is censoring the internet supposed to change this? So now they can't get access to porn on the internet, but they can get access to nude photos of the girl in the next classroom. What have we really 'won' here?
  - lsd5you 16y ago
    Nothing you've written here contradicts what I wrote, because it is a matter of degrees, which you completely fail to acknowledge in your view point. A proportion of teenagers in some groups in some parts of society texting privately amongst themselves. Nude, consensual photos are arguably 'better' and more natural than typical pornography in any case and almost certainly less extreme and with a natural progression as the participants get older. It is (to me quite blatant) equivocation on your part to say, well A = B, therefore what is the point. The article mentioned that 1 in 3 children under the age of 10 have seen pornography on the internet. Probably most of them will be fine, but its not probably something they particularly would want (as children, or later as adults) to have happened since there is plenty of time to lose one's innocence. Finally, what have we won? This is a completely destructive dismissive attitude, again possibly characteristic of the highly partisan nature of American politics. Introduce the scheme, tune it, see how it goes. In light of the all of the above, it bemuses and somewhat disappoints me that your opinion should be voted up. You can of course disagree, but, in my mind at least, you have to be more nuissanced and acknowledging.
Jach 16y ago
As much as I love that argument (and similar e.g. in the US being allowed to kill people in the army but not consuming alcohol), and as much a knockdown argument it should be, it doesn't seem to be having much effect. How do you reason with unreasonable people who hold the power?
- cabalamat 16y ago
  > How do you reason with unreasonable people who hold the power? You don't, you fight against them: http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/ http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/

lsd5you 16y ago

I suppose you should define damaging. Presumably you're relating violence to homicide and other violent crime. I can think of an equally plausible (and equally unverified) analysis. Depicted violence is clearly fantasy and generally bears no resemblance to reality (of life in the UK), whereas the relationship with reality of the typically pretty appalling sexual behaviour depicted in pornography is much more ambiguous (especially to young people) and as such more deleterious to behaviour. In any case movies (or films rather) in the UK are censored for violence on the telly, and generally not shown before 9pm. Although the restrictions are much laxer than previously. Back to the original point, is depicted violence more damaging? Is that even true, and how much do people value it? Is it something you want for your children or more other people's children? At risk of demagogy, it might be best to think about what people desire. Many people, perhaps most people, fundamentally don't want their children to be exposed to large quantities of pornography - just on the grounds of the potential for awkwardness - and perhaps don't care so much about an unquantifiable increase in violence in society.

pyre 16y ago
Teens are currently making their own porn and texting it to themselves. How is censoring the internet supposed to change this? So now they can't get access to porn on the internet, but they can get access to nude photos of the girl in the next classroom. What have we really 'won' here?
- lsd5you 16y ago
  Nothing you've written here contradicts what I wrote, because it is a matter of degrees, which you completely fail to acknowledge in your view point. A proportion of teenagers in some groups in some parts of society texting privately amongst themselves. Nude, consensual photos are arguably 'better' and more natural than typical pornography in any case and almost certainly less extreme and with a natural progression as the participants get older. It is (to me quite blatant) equivocation on your part to say, well A = B, therefore what is the point. The article mentioned that 1 in 3 children under the age of 10 have seen pornography on the internet. Probably most of them will be fine, but its not probably something they particularly would want (as children, or later as adults) to have happened since there is plenty of time to lose one's innocence. Finally, what have we won? This is a completely destructive dismissive attitude, again possibly characteristic of the highly partisan nature of American politics. Introduce the scheme, tune it, see how it goes. In light of the all of the above, it bemuses and somewhat disappoints me that your opinion should be voted up. You can of course disagree, but, in my mind at least, you have to be more nuissanced and acknowledging.

Jach 16y ago

As much as I love that argument (and similar e.g. in the US being allowed to kill people in the army but not consuming alcohol), and as much a knockdown argument it should be, it doesn't seem to be having much effect. How do you reason with unreasonable people who hold the power?

cabalamat 16y ago
> How do you reason with unreasonable people who hold the power? You don't, you fight against them: http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/ http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/