Icelandic MP claims porn shield is unworkable
- Interior minister Ögmundur Jónasson's proposal to block online porn is censorship and stands no chance of becoming law
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.
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.
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.
Evidence, please?
If pornography is not obscene, then nothing is obscene. I defer to the SCOTUS ruling in the Miller case.
I've never seen those programs. Do they show orgies, "cum shots." and people defecating in each other's mouths?
Don't worry, the freaks in your country will probably be giving it out to primary school children in a couple of years.
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?
_________________
SanityTheorist
Veteran
Joined: 13 Feb 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,105
Location: The Akuma Afterglow
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
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
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.
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.
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.
One is a rather annoying soap opera, the other one is a sexist talk show.
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.
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.
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?
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.
_________________
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?
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
Joined: 3 May 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 749
Location: This is not my home; I'm just passing through
ICY
Pileated woodpecker
Joined: 17 May 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 192
Location: Hertfordshire England
In my experience such systems will often block unintended sites, which therefore requires a mechanism to unblock them. At a national level I can't see this being cheap.
I also agree that any level of internet censorship is worrying, it would also create a political mine field regarding who decided what was unacceptable.