5 ms·

The argument is an extension of the reason we don't let stores sell porno mags to 13 year old's -- it is ridiculous to assume the parents will always be with th

The argument is an extension of the reason we don't let stores sell porno mags to 13 year old's -- it is ridiculous to assume the parents will always be with their child to make the decision for them. I've no measured and thought-out opinion on porn filtering or censoring at ISPs one way or another. But a lot of recent research on the subject of youth and lewd material consumption suggests the current free and unfettered access to pornographic material is unhealthy. Is there a "slippery slope" to cry out with where this line of thought goes? Sure. But in societies that decide their federal system should be arbiter of its health care system, it makes no sense to argue when that government takes measures to act on information regarding the health of its citizens.

Eclyps 13y ago
The big difference here is that purchasing a porno magazine requires interacting with a clerk who will then verify your age and send you on your way. A better comparison would be banning the sale of all porno magazines unless the buyer registers for a porno card for his/her family (which would then provide unlimited access regardless of age). I tend to agree that unfiltered access to all sorts of things can have an unhealthy impact on the minds of kids, but this is still the wrong way to handle it.
netcan 13y ago
in societies that decide their federal system should be arbiter of its health care system, it makes no sense to argue when that government takes measures to act on information regarding the health of its citizens. I really hate that argument. It's extremist and righteous.
- timje1 13y ago
  Seconding your objection. "in societies that decide their federal system should be arbiter of its health care system..." To most of the world this reads as: "in first world nations..."
  - netcan 13y ago
    I don't even see it as a nonsensical statement. Public healthcare does create a public interest in public health and a minor conflict with free society. But to extrapolate from that places with public health are slave societies where everything goes so stop complaining about freedom is the most annoying kind of extremist logic. It's like listening to mullahs and rabbis talk about how since you are all a debaucherous bunch anyway with your shorts and music videos, surly you shouldn't be complaining about child molesters.
  - mattlutze 13y ago
    I can't reply to netcan unfortunately -- this isn't a conclusion that the British people are a "slave society", that's a distraction. I'm saying that, if a government has the power to make decisions that affect the heath of its population, it's probably going to make decisions under the guise of that power. I'm not saying that I think it's a good decision - I feel quite in line with the majority voice here that it's a Bad Idea.
    - netcan 13y ago
      Sorry to pull the conversation in an uncivil direction. If you do think this is a bad idea why would you voice that opinion. If I can restate it in a less divisive way it's that as the UK Government is responsible for health, they need to have a say on (all?) things which potentially affect the mental health of UK citizens. You are (I assume based on your rhetoric) against public health services on those grounds - the loss of freedom. That frames the whole discussion in an extremist way: IE that those of us rejecting censorship are extremists and we see a choice between welfare societies (which are what the public want in most of Europe) with benefits like public schooling & healthcare or a free society without censorship. That's what I mean by extremist. I also think it's a false choice. We can have healthcare and a free internet. The connection between those two things would be difficult to explain to someone without a fundamentalist mindset to begin with. I can't even imagine a pro-censorship person making it though I can see them making a utilitarian mental health argument (Porn causes mental health issues and that is bad). In any practical sense there is no connection.
- mattlutze 13y ago
  I guess this news simply feels like a natural conclusion to me -- why wouldn't the British government see it within its powers to act in what its medical research suggests in the best interest of its people? I think the contention would be must lower on this site, if the news didn't involve making laws about the Internet. If it was about a food or something, it'd be a relative non-issue.
  - timje1 13y ago
    I suspect that a closer analogy is the classification system on films - which as far as I know is in effect in the vast majority of the world. Governments long ago decided that certain things are far too extreme for (young children / older children / anyone) to see, and have been censoring or restricting access to video media ever since. Now that the internet is becoming mainstream, and a powerful provider of videos / pictures, they will seek to install similar systems to censor or restrict access.
  - whatevsbro 13y ago
    > why wouldn't the British government see it within its powers to act in what its medical research suggests in the best interest of its people? Should the British government forcibly prevent you from drinking Coca-Cola because it's bad for you?
    - goggles99 13y ago
      >Should the British government forcibly prevent you from drinking Coca-Cola because it's bad for you? Your example is bad. These two things are clearly not the same. Porn (even in a small dose) for young children is almost universally accepted to cause long term psychological damage. Cola in a small dose is universally accepted to cause zero long tern harm. I think that if you gave your kid enough Cola to where it was universally accepted to cause major long term harm to them - CPS would come take that kid from you and you would likely be arrested for child endangerment (thus it is against the law). Secondly the govt is not forcibly preventing you from uncensored internet. It is the ISPs, and not forcibly, all you have to do is acknowledge that you want it (this could hardly be considered forcible) If a 4 year old kid drinks a bottle of soda, how will that affect them for the rest of their life? If a 4 year old kid watches a (simulated) hardcore porn rape scene, is that more likely to affect them negatively for the rest of his or her life? How does that kid get at the soda? usually their parents or caretaker gives it to them right? Is that how they usually run across porn randomly on the web too? Maybe parents should watch kids every second they are online, but that is hardly possible with the ubiquity of internet devices today. At least if a kid sneaks a Cola at 2am whilst his parents are asleep - it is clearly missing the next day. Not so obvious if they were sneaking out and surfing the web incognito.
hoggle 13y ago
This is as recent as 2010 - not much of what you are claiming here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19731132 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19731132 "Most of the participants had acquired the necessary skills of how to deal with the exposure to pornography in a sensible and reflective manner."
whatevsbro 13y ago
> But in societies that decide their federal system should be arbiter of its health care system, it makes no sense to argue when that government takes measures to act on information regarding the health of its citizens. 1) How did "society" decide that? 2) Why should the "federal system" be an arbiter of health care? 3) Why would it not make sense to discuss whatever the government is doing?
Houshalter 13y ago
I'm not aware of this research but lets just say it's true. The purpose of the laws isn't about any concern for children's health (otherwise they would be outlawing fast food, or caffeine or sharp objects other "dangerous" things kids could get exposed to.) It's because of social taboos against porn and viewing it as obscene or immoral. In any case it should be up to the parents and should not at all be necessary for the government to force people into it. ISPs are not selling internet access to 13 year olds in the first place, and if they were, under the current law they can easily opt-out.

Eclyps 13y ago

The big difference here is that purchasing a porno magazine requires interacting with a clerk who will then verify your age and send you on your way. A better comparison would be banning the sale of all porno magazines unless the buyer registers for a porno card for his/her family (which would then provide unlimited access regardless of age). I tend to agree that unfiltered access to all sorts of things can have an unhealthy impact on the minds of kids, but this is still the wrong way to handle it.

netcan 13y ago

in societies that decide their federal system should be arbiter of its health care system, it makes no sense to argue when that government takes measures to act on information regarding the health of its citizens. I really hate that argument. It's extremist and righteous.

timje1 13y ago
Seconding your objection. "in societies that decide their federal system should be arbiter of its health care system..." To most of the world this reads as: "in first world nations..."
- netcan 13y ago
  I don't even see it as a nonsensical statement. Public healthcare does create a public interest in public health and a minor conflict with free society. But to extrapolate from that places with public health are slave societies where everything goes so stop complaining about freedom is the most annoying kind of extremist logic. It's like listening to mullahs and rabbis talk about how since you are all a debaucherous bunch anyway with your shorts and music videos, surly you shouldn't be complaining about child molesters.
- mattlutze 13y ago
  I can't reply to netcan unfortunately -- this isn't a conclusion that the British people are a "slave society", that's a distraction. I'm saying that, if a government has the power to make decisions that affect the heath of its population, it's probably going to make decisions under the guise of that power. I'm not saying that I think it's a good decision - I feel quite in line with the majority voice here that it's a Bad Idea.
  - netcan 13y ago
    Sorry to pull the conversation in an uncivil direction. If you do think this is a bad idea why would you voice that opinion. If I can restate it in a less divisive way it's that as the UK Government is responsible for health, they need to have a say on (all?) things which potentially affect the mental health of UK citizens. You are (I assume based on your rhetoric) against public health services on those grounds - the loss of freedom. That frames the whole discussion in an extremist way: IE that those of us rejecting censorship are extremists and we see a choice between welfare societies (which are what the public want in most of Europe) with benefits like public schooling & healthcare or a free society without censorship. That's what I mean by extremist. I also think it's a false choice. We can have healthcare and a free internet. The connection between those two things would be difficult to explain to someone without a fundamentalist mindset to begin with. I can't even imagine a pro-censorship person making it though I can see them making a utilitarian mental health argument (Porn causes mental health issues and that is bad). In any practical sense there is no connection.
mattlutze 13y ago
I guess this news simply feels like a natural conclusion to me -- why wouldn't the British government see it within its powers to act in what its medical research suggests in the best interest of its people? I think the contention would be must lower on this site, if the news didn't involve making laws about the Internet. If it was about a food or something, it'd be a relative non-issue.
- timje1 13y ago
  I suspect that a closer analogy is the classification system on films - which as far as I know is in effect in the vast majority of the world. Governments long ago decided that certain things are far too extreme for (young children / older children / anyone) to see, and have been censoring or restricting access to video media ever since. Now that the internet is becoming mainstream, and a powerful provider of videos / pictures, they will seek to install similar systems to censor or restrict access.
- whatevsbro 13y ago
  > why wouldn't the British government see it within its powers to act in what its medical research suggests in the best interest of its people? Should the British government forcibly prevent you from drinking Coca-Cola because it's bad for you?
  - goggles99 13y ago
    >Should the British government forcibly prevent you from drinking Coca-Cola because it's bad for you? Your example is bad. These two things are clearly not the same. Porn (even in a small dose) for young children is almost universally accepted to cause long term psychological damage. Cola in a small dose is universally accepted to cause zero long tern harm. I think that if you gave your kid enough Cola to where it was universally accepted to cause major long term harm to them - CPS would come take that kid from you and you would likely be arrested for child endangerment (thus it is against the law). Secondly the govt is not forcibly preventing you from uncensored internet. It is the ISPs, and not forcibly, all you have to do is acknowledge that you want it (this could hardly be considered forcible) If a 4 year old kid drinks a bottle of soda, how will that affect them for the rest of their life? If a 4 year old kid watches a (simulated) hardcore porn rape scene, is that more likely to affect them negatively for the rest of his or her life? How does that kid get at the soda? usually their parents or caretaker gives it to them right? Is that how they usually run across porn randomly on the web too? Maybe parents should watch kids every second they are online, but that is hardly possible with the ubiquity of internet devices today. At least if a kid sneaks a Cola at 2am whilst his parents are asleep - it is clearly missing the next day. Not so obvious if they were sneaking out and surfing the web incognito.

hoggle 13y ago

This is as recent as 2010 - not much of what you are claiming here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19731132 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19731132 "Most of the participants had acquired the necessary skills of how to deal with the exposure to pornography in a sensible and reflective manner."

whatevsbro 13y ago

> But in societies that decide their federal system should be arbiter of its health care system, it makes no sense to argue when that government takes measures to act on information regarding the health of its citizens. 1) How did "society" decide that? 2) Why should the "federal system" be an arbiter of health care? 3) Why would it not make sense to discuss whatever the government is doing?

Houshalter 13y ago

I'm not aware of this research but lets just say it's true. The purpose of the laws isn't about any concern for children's health (otherwise they would be outlawing fast food, or caffeine or sharp objects other "dangerous" things kids could get exposed to.) It's because of social taboos against porn and viewing it as obscene or immoral. In any case it should be up to the parents and should not at all be necessary for the government to force people into it. ISPs are not selling internet access to 13 year olds in the first place, and if they were, under the current law they can easily opt-out.