Icelandic MP claims porn shield is unworkable

Page 1 of 2 [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 30,500
Location: Lancashire, UK

16 Feb 2013, 10:37 am

Quote:
Iceland's internet 'porn shield' is misguided and unworkable
  • Interior minister Ögmundur Jónasson's proposal to block online porn is censorship and stands no chance of becoming law
Iceland's minister of interior, Ögmundur Jónasson, is backing a full online pornography ban for Iceland, which would be supported by an "anti-shield" preventing internet users from accessing certain sites.

Since he claimed office as minister, Jónasson has brought forward progressive legislation and has shown that he can be a man of principles and courage. For that, I truly respect him. But he is way off track in his attempts to place a shield around Iceland in order to "stop porn" from entering the country. It is therefore with a heavy heart that I am forced to fight him on this occasion, even if I side with him on many different matters – such as fighting other laws which would do great harm to freedom of expression and speech.

Perhaps Jónasson has chosen to put forward the controversial bill because he simply doesn't know better. I admit that it is noble to have the desire to protect children from porn and gambling addicts from sites such as Betsson, but at what cost? The fact is that this bill has already made many companies think twice before hosting their business in Iceland – not because they support porn, but because they fear the country's laws could transit into the kind of full-blown censorship commonly attributed to countries like China and Saudi Arabia.

Good for her. I don't agree with all her beliefs (she wants Iceland to join the EU, for a start - most Icelanders reject EU membership) but she's right on this.



Telekon
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 411

16 Feb 2013, 2:04 pm

I hope they are successful. They may not be able to stamp it out entirely, but governments can impose fines on ISPs and restrict search engine results. Porn is obscene garbage, it makes no artistic or political statement whatsoever and countries can limit access to it with no infringement on personal liberty.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 38,669
Location: Stendec

16 Feb 2013, 2:09 pm

Telekon wrote:
Porn is obscene garbage...

Evidence, please?


_________________
"I would rather be hated for who I am than loved for who I am not."
-- Kurt Cobain (1967 – 1994)


Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 30,500
Location: Lancashire, UK

16 Feb 2013, 2:32 pm

Telekon wrote:
it makes no artistic or political statement whatsoever


Neither does an episode of EastEnders or Loose Women, but I don't see people demanding that those be banned.

There are plenty of countries in the world that ban pornography, but I wouldn't want to live in any of them.



Telekon
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 411

16 Feb 2013, 4:44 pm

Fnord wrote:
Telekon wrote:
Porn is obscene garbage...

Evidence, please?


If pornography is not obscene, then nothing is obscene. I defer to the SCOTUS ruling in the Miller case.

Quote:
Neither does an episode of EastEnders or Loose Women, but I don't see people demanding that those be banned.


I've never seen those programs. Do they show orgies, "cum shots." and people defecating in each other's mouths?

Quote:
There are plenty of countries in the world that ban pornography, but I wouldn't want to live in any of them.


Don't worry, the freaks in your country will probably be giving it out to primary school children in a couple of years.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 38,669
Location: Stendec

16 Feb 2013, 4:47 pm

Telekon wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Telekon wrote:
Porn is obscene garbage...
Evidence, please?
If pornography is not obscene, then nothing is obscene. I defer to the SCOTUS ruling in the Miller case.

What do gun rights have to do with pornography?

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), was a Supreme Court case that involved the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The "Miller Case" is often cited in the ongoing American gun politics debate, as both sides claim that it supports their position.

Would you please provide an appropriate link?


_________________
"I would rather be hated for who I am than loved for who I am not."
-- Kurt Cobain (1967 – 1994)


SanityTheorist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2012
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,106
Location: The Akuma Afterglow

16 Feb 2013, 4:56 pm

I think that porn overall is fine....until it becomes commercialized. Then, it starts catering to strange fetishes. However, amateur pornography is good for curbing teen pregnancies and such.

Don't get me started on rule 34 though, lol.


_________________
My music at: http://www.youtube.com/user/SanityTheorist5/videos

Currently working on getting in a studio to record my solo album 40+ tracks written.

Chatroom nicks: MetalFluttershy/MetalTwilight/SanityTheorist


Telekon
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 411

16 Feb 2013, 5:12 pm

Fnord wrote:
Telekon wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Telekon wrote:
Porn is obscene garbage...
Evidence, please?
If pornography is not obscene, then nothing is obscene. I defer to the SCOTUS ruling in the Miller case.

What do gun rights have to do with pornography?

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), was a Supreme Court case that involved the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The "Miller Case" is often cited in the ongoing American gun politics debate, as both sides claim that it supports their position.

Would you please provide an appropriate link?


I overestimated your ability to use Google. There is only one Miller v case that went to the SC that involved pornography and laid out criteria for identifying obscene material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,254
Location: London

16 Feb 2013, 5:41 pm

Banning porn doesn't help. It is not going to change dependency.

There is some evidence that the saturation, of free porn of late is meaning there is diminishing returns of some the artists, it is not as profitable as it used to be. It is not all the same, there is innovation, but here will be a subset that are more vulnerable because there they are more desperate. I don't think all free porn is equal, some business have a good strategy and take care of their employees.

However it will be a lot worse if they ban it, because criminal gangs will control all the profit.

I think it can desensitize if you are over exposed, but I'm not here to lecture anyone. I think being a discerning consumer.



PM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,473
Location: Southeastern United States

16 Feb 2013, 7:05 pm

Hopefully this a-hole's moral crusade won't overshadow the good politicians in Iceland, such as the ones who stood up to the FBI.


_________________
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?


Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 30,500
Location: Lancashire, UK

16 Feb 2013, 7:27 pm

PM wrote:
Hopefully this a-hole's moral crusade won't overshadow the good politicians in Iceland, such as the ones who stood up to the FBI.


It's the pro-EU Social Democratic Alliance politicians who are calling for this anyway, and they'll almost certainly be out of power at the next election, as the conservative liberal and anti-EU Independence Party sweep back into power.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 30,500
Location: Lancashire, UK

16 Feb 2013, 7:31 pm

Telekon wrote:
If pornography is not obscene, then nothing is obscene. I defer to the SCOTUS ruling in the Miller case.


I don't know, child pornography is pretty obscene. Videos of teenage girls being stoned to death for adultery (probably after rape) whilst religious scripture being played in the background is pretty obscene.

Telekon wrote:
I've never seen those programs.


One is a rather annoying soap opera, the other one is a sexist talk show.

Telekon wrote:
Do they show orgies, "cum shots." and people defecating in each other's mouths?


I don't see a problem with any of that if people want to do it. And what's your obsession with cumshots?

That last one - that kind of stuff is niche, and is usually faked anyway even when it is produced.

Telekon wrote:
Don't worry, the freaks in your country will probably be giving it out to primary school children in a couple of years.


We call these people 'paedophiles' in my country. I don't know what they call them in yours.

And most people here don't want an Internet web shield, not even readers of the newspapers calling for one.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 38,669
Location: Stendec

16 Feb 2013, 7:48 pm

Telekon wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Telekon wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Telekon wrote:
Porn is obscene garbage...
Evidence, please?
If pornography is not obscene, then nothing is obscene. I defer to the SCOTUS ruling in the Miller case.

What do gun rights have to do with pornography?

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), was a Supreme Court case that involved the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The "Miller Case" is often cited in the ongoing American gun politics debate, as both sides claim that it supports their position.

Would you please provide an appropriate link?
I overestimated your ability to use Google. There is only one Miller v case that went to the SC that involved pornography and laid out criteria for identifying obscene material.

You did not used the proper named for the case in your original post.

The Court, in an attempt to set such limits devised a set of three criteria which must be met in order for a work to be legitimately subject to state regulation:

1. "whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
2. "whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law; and
3. "whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

It fails when:

1. "Community Standards" do not define Internet content on a global scale.
2. Same for "State Law".
3. Standards vary with the individual when it comes to literary, political, or political value; and applying scientific value to pornography is like trying apply practical value to a flash mob - a non sequitur is generated.

"Miller v. California" is useful in prosecuting porn producers and distributors within an incorporated neighborhood, but are useless when one community tries to limit the construction of a strip club, a porn shop, or even a porn studio in another community; and that is what makes it a complete joke when trying to regulate porn on the Internet - the Internet "community" has tacitly agreed that practically anything that would be determined "pornographic" in a Bible Belt community is NOT pornographic if it is presented on-line.


_________________
"I would rather be hated for who I am than loved for who I am not."
-- Kurt Cobain (1967 – 1994)


Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 30,500
Location: Lancashire, UK

16 Feb 2013, 7:54 pm

Fnord wrote:
Telekon wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Telekon wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Telekon wrote:
Porn is obscene garbage...
Evidence, please?
If pornography is not obscene, then nothing is obscene. I defer to the SCOTUS ruling in the Miller case.

What do gun rights have to do with pornography?

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), was a Supreme Court case that involved the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The "Miller Case" is often cited in the ongoing American gun politics debate, as both sides claim that it supports their position.

Would you please provide an appropriate link?
I overestimated your ability to use Google. There is only one Miller v case that went to the SC that involved pornography and laid out criteria for identifying obscene material.

You did not used the proper named for the case in your original post.

The Court, in an attempt to set such limits devised a set of three criteria which must be met in order for a work to be legitimately subject to state regulation:

1. "whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
2. "whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law; and
3. "whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

It fails when:

1. "Community Standards" do not define Internet content on a global scale.
2. Same for "State Law".
3. Standards vary with the individual when it comes to literary, political, or political value; and applying scientific value to pornography is like trying apply practical value to a flash mob - a non sequitur is generated.

"Miller v. California" is useful in prosecuting porn producers and distributors within an incorporated neighborhood, but are useless when one community tries to limit the construction of a strip club, a porn shop, or even a porn studio in another community; and that is what makes it a complete joke when trying to regulate porn on the Internet - the Internet "community" has tacitly agreed that practically anything that would be determined "pornographic" in a Bible Belt community is NOT pornographic if it is presented on-line.

Good.

Anyone going to break out the nun smut then?



AngelKnight
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 May 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 748
Location: This is not my home; I'm just passing through

17 Feb 2013, 2:44 am

RFC 3514

Note the datestamp on this RFC.