3 ms·

Techdirt publishes an image of a nude painting as an example to illustrate what pornography looks like. Why not a randomly chosen representative sample of inte

Techdirt publishes an image of a nude painting as an example to illustrate what pornography looks like. Why not a randomly chosen representative sample of internet pornography? Of course not, tech dirt wouldn't want to publish something like that. Their selection of a mild image to illustrate what pornography is tacitly concedes the point.

berbec 3y ago
They specifically were trying to illustrate how overly broad the law was, and > the law they’re defending sweeps in paintings like Manet’s Olympia (1863) It wasn't a bad attempt to "illustrate what pornography is", but an example of what most would agree is NOT porn, but would be effected.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  What techdirt definitely doesn't want to illustrate is the typical reality of what internet pornography is.
  - berbec 3y ago
    Correct, they wanted to illustrate how an overly broad law, supposedly designed to target pornography, would instead target art.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - berbec 3y ago
        > the typical reality of internet pornography, even though is what they want to be made available to kids You think this article show that TechDirt wants internet pornography to be available to children? I'm confused how you got there.
      - nickthegreek 3y ago
        If they want to ban explicit pornography, then the law needs to proper define explicit. If it can’t, then the law is broad and will infringe on protected rights. Imagine being pulled over by a cop for going “too fast”, but they get to decide what that means today. It’s ripe for abuse.
      - kthejoker2 3y ago
        Please write a description of "typical reality of Internet pornography" so we may all decide if we agree. The law in this article gave it a shot and seemingly missed the mark.
  - quantified 3y ago
    What's the matter with pornography? All the porn I find on the internet arouses sexual interest, which is a good thing. No one's getting choked, stabbed, shat on, or anything vile, but a lot of people are either getting laid or getting ready to get laid. So what? Some will say that if it's not vile and degrading it's not porn. I think there's a question of defining terms.
mojomark 3y ago
Caption from the image..."Incidentally, this portrait appears—along with other nudes—in a recent Supreme Court opinion. And now, of course, it appears on this website. Time to verify users’ ages (with government IDs or face scans) and post the state’s ridiculous “warnings”? Not quite: the site does not satisfy H.B. 1181’s “one-third . . . sexual material” content threshold. Still, that standard is vague." I'm not against your opinion, I'm just pointing out that the image had a clear intent and relevance to the argument. It wasn't to show an example of our collective actual judgement of what pornography 'is' - anyone can Google that. Instead, the image provides a discrete example of how extreme puritanical views can turn classical, or indeed any nude art or scientific study images, into the pornographic class of safeguarded images. As long as humans are humans, no oone will ever win this war. I, personally, think clothes are silly and am probably as far as you can get from a puritanical viewpoint. That said, I still believe the act of seeking a balance in a civilized manner through ongoing debate is not a worthless pursuit. Debates like this that seem eternal build the evolving infrastructure of our civilization.

berbec 3y ago

They specifically were trying to illustrate how overly broad the law was, and > the law they’re defending sweeps in paintings like Manet’s Olympia (1863) It wasn't a bad attempt to "illustrate what pornography is", but an example of what most would agree is NOT porn, but would be effected.

mcpackieh 3y ago
What techdirt definitely doesn't want to illustrate is the typical reality of what internet pornography is.
- berbec 3y ago
  Correct, they wanted to illustrate how an overly broad law, supposedly designed to target pornography, would instead target art.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - berbec 3y ago
      > the typical reality of internet pornography, even though is what they want to be made available to kids You think this article show that TechDirt wants internet pornography to be available to children? I'm confused how you got there.
    - nickthegreek 3y ago
      If they want to ban explicit pornography, then the law needs to proper define explicit. If it can’t, then the law is broad and will infringe on protected rights. Imagine being pulled over by a cop for going “too fast”, but they get to decide what that means today. It’s ripe for abuse.
    - kthejoker2 3y ago
      Please write a description of "typical reality of Internet pornography" so we may all decide if we agree. The law in this article gave it a shot and seemingly missed the mark.
- quantified 3y ago
  What's the matter with pornography? All the porn I find on the internet arouses sexual interest, which is a good thing. No one's getting choked, stabbed, shat on, or anything vile, but a lot of people are either getting laid or getting ready to get laid. So what? Some will say that if it's not vile and degrading it's not porn. I think there's a question of defining terms.

mojomark 3y ago

Caption from the image..."Incidentally, this portrait appears—along with other nudes—in a recent Supreme Court opinion. And now, of course, it appears on this website. Time to verify users’ ages (with government IDs or face scans) and post the state’s ridiculous “warnings”? Not quite: the site does not satisfy H.B. 1181’s “one-third . . . sexual material” content threshold. Still, that standard is vague." I'm not against your opinion, I'm just pointing out that the image had a clear intent and relevance to the argument. It wasn't to show an example of our collective actual judgement of what pornography 'is' - anyone can Google that. Instead, the image provides a discrete example of how extreme puritanical views can turn classical, or indeed any nude art or scientific study images, into the pornographic class of safeguarded images. As long as humans are humans, no oone will ever win this war. I, personally, think clothes are silly and am probably as far as you can get from a puritanical viewpoint. That said, I still believe the act of seeking a balance in a civilized manner through ongoing debate is not a worthless pursuit. Debates like this that seem eternal build the evolving infrastructure of our civilization.