3 ms·

Most African and Asian countries have laws against the production or distribution of pornography. Unless you're talking to Church members, it's not really seen

Most African and Asian countries have laws against the production or distribution of pornography. Unless you're talking to Church members, it's not really seen as a moral concern but a simple procedural problem: we can't easily be sure if pornography was produced with willing knowing participants and the economic benefits are not worth the bureaucracy to make sure. The whole article is an odd scattershot approach of criticizing many different countries without naming specifics of the law and only interviewing the 'victims' without getting any insight into the actual governments---who are democratically elected and literally pay people to respond to these questions. For example, the Uganda law was dropped[1] and the arrested model never faced any jail time or fines. In the Uganda case, the law went further than any others by criminalizing nudity and 'indecent' clothing regardless of context, which is insane considering nudity is not naturally taboo in our culture (nudity taboos were imported from Christian missionaries). It even criminalized 'indecent' language like songs about sex. It was light-years past a 'anti-pornography' law but it's being lumped in under the same banner because the article is in my opinion lazily written. The Rwanda case was a politician being shamed---not an example of a law being used against anyone. Lydia's case has no country attached but she used the anti-pornography laws to get her ex-boyfriend to stop posting her pictures on social media. That's a case of the law being used for good, right? In the Tanzania case, the woman herself is urging the government to take action against the people who illegally posted her pictures [2]. Why is this article using that example as support for the anti-pornography camp? All said, it just doesn't make sense. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-58235637 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-58235637 [2] https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/entertainment/news/2001288855/hamisa-mobetto-forced-to-apologize-for-posting-indecent-photos https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/entertainment/news/200128885...

stevenicr 5y ago
Thanks for adding some interesting info around these things. I can see how it's easy to feel this: "she used the anti-pornography laws to get her ex-boyfriend to stop posting her pictures on social media. That's a case of the law being used for good, right?" but I'm not in agreement for a few reasons... first let me say I m 100% against people sharing intimate photos of others without permission. Things get a little different in my opinion when people become high level public figures for some reasons .. for example sharing the pics of mr wiener with hookers was not cool.. but considering he became a public figure trying to climb the political ladders and especially because part of that process was him prosecuting hookers and making PR stunts out of it.. well then sharing the pics became a slightly different thing. Anyhow I hate that anti-porn laws are used for her censoring public discourse - and if the pics were otherwise noteworthy (like they included bisexual whatever and she had voted against lgb or something) - then the photos could be censored in some type of way and published in newspapers for legit public discussion. I believe she should be able to use copyright laws alone to stop publication / sharing of her pics, and perhaps a lawsuit for defamation (not a great recourse vs poor people) - or other means. But I don't think anti-porn laws should be a thing and they should not be weaponized by the political class to hide things they don't like. (even though yes, I agree this one appears to be used "good" - I don't have enough info to be 100 on that)
eikenberry 5y ago
> Unless you're talking to Church members, it's not really seen as a moral concern but a simple procedural problem: we can't easily be sure if pornography was produced with willing knowing participants and the economic benefits are not worth the bureaucracy to make sure. I'm not sure I buy that it is purely a procedural problem. There is no way to know anyone in any industry is a willing participant in the production of anything. It is already against the law to enslave or coerce people, so you already have a bureaucracy to handle it. You just need a way to report unlawful activity and a bureaucracy that considers sex workers on equal footing to other professions. IMO it is that last point that is the problem and it basically swings back around to people making a moral judgement about sex and sex workers.

stevenicr 5y ago

Thanks for adding some interesting info around these things. I can see how it's easy to feel this: "she used the anti-pornography laws to get her ex-boyfriend to stop posting her pictures on social media. That's a case of the law being used for good, right?" but I'm not in agreement for a few reasons... first let me say I m 100% against people sharing intimate photos of others without permission. Things get a little different in my opinion when people become high level public figures for some reasons .. for example sharing the pics of mr wiener with hookers was not cool.. but considering he became a public figure trying to climb the political ladders and especially because part of that process was him prosecuting hookers and making PR stunts out of it.. well then sharing the pics became a slightly different thing. Anyhow I hate that anti-porn laws are used for her censoring public discourse - and if the pics were otherwise noteworthy (like they included bisexual whatever and she had voted against lgb or something) - then the photos could be censored in some type of way and published in newspapers for legit public discussion. I believe she should be able to use copyright laws alone to stop publication / sharing of her pics, and perhaps a lawsuit for defamation (not a great recourse vs poor people) - or other means. But I don't think anti-porn laws should be a thing and they should not be weaponized by the political class to hide things they don't like. (even though yes, I agree this one appears to be used "good" - I don't have enough info to be 100 on that)

eikenberry 5y ago

> Unless you're talking to Church members, it's not really seen as a moral concern but a simple procedural problem: we can't easily be sure if pornography was produced with willing knowing participants and the economic benefits are not worth the bureaucracy to make sure. I'm not sure I buy that it is purely a procedural problem. There is no way to know anyone in any industry is a willing participant in the production of anything. It is already against the law to enslave or coerce people, so you already have a bureaucracy to handle it. You just need a way to report unlawful activity and a bureaucracy that considers sex workers on equal footing to other professions. IMO it is that last point that is the problem and it basically swings back around to people making a moral judgement about sex and sex workers.