Online pornography to be blocked by default, PM to announce

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Unneccessary state infringement of internet freedom or a reasonable restriction to protect the kids from graphic images? Over to you, folks.

Every household in the UK is to have pornography blocked by their internet provider unless they choose to receive it, David Cameron is to announce.
In addition, Mr Cameron will say possessing online pornography depicting rape will be illegal, bringing England and Wales in line with Scotland.
In a speech, the prime minister will warn that access to online pornography is "corroding childhood".
The new measures will apply to both existing and new customers.
Family-friendly filters will be automatically selected for all new customers - though they can choose to switch them off.
And millions of existing computer users will be contacted by their internet providers and told they must decide whether to activate "family friendly filters" to restrict adult material.
Customers who do not click on either option - accepting or declining - will have filters activated by default, Tory MP Claire Perry, Mr Cameron's adviser on the sexualisation and commercialisation of childhood, told the BBC.
Other measures expected to be announced by the prime minister include:

New laws so videos streamed online in the UK will be subject to the same restrictions as those sold in shops
Search engines will be given until October to introduce further measures to block illegal content. They have a "moral duty" to block illegal content, Mr Cameron will say
He will also call for warning pages to pop up with helpline numbers when people try to search for illegal content
Experts from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre will be given more powers to examine secretive file-sharing networks
A secure database of banned child porn images gathered by police across the country will be used to trace illegal content and the paedophiles viewing it
(BBC News)

[Per Levy]

In a speech, the prime minister will warn that access to online pornography is "corroding childhood".

yeah, sure. poverty and unemployed or working poor parents dont "corrode childhood" in any way shape or form only online pornography does.

edit: filters like that will usally also block political and other nonpornographic content after a while, so yeah just another law to controll the population.

[VDS]

a) I never though I'd be GLAD to say that I live in the good ol U.S of A.

b) Infringement. Plain and simple. First off, if parents don't want kids to watch porn, monitor them, monitor the PC, there's programs that restrict all that. There's ways of finding out.

It goes beyond kids. I mean think about the 18 year old living with his parents, no porn for him/her. Think about the husband who loves his wife, but likes to rub one off when she's gone, that's HIS personal choice. Now he doesn't HAVE that choice.

Also, what is deemed adult material? is it ONLY porn sites? What about nude art? What about sex AS an art? Movies that depict nudity and/or sex?

Also, I've never understood what people see in rape porn, but hey, I'm not the one getting my jollies off to it. If people are into that, why make it illegal? I understand that rape porn is obscene, and personally, I could never bring myself to watch it, but should that mean any sort of violent porn should be blocked?

Slippery slopes.

[precarian]

Could these pricks possibly do anything more to rip every vestige of fun out of life?? They actually want to erode all progressive values normalised over the past century.

Social security?? What makes you proles think you deserve to live!? Get rid of it!
Public health care?? Deliver it to the market! Healthcare isn't a right..
Alcohol?? Proles don't deserve alcohol! Minimum pricing now!
Human rights legislation?? Scrap it!
Wage Slave...err.."work"?? No rights for proles. Do as we say, or starve.
Pornography?? WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!

My hatred for these rodents couldn't possibly be stronger. It's back to Victorian values, keeping us all in line with ludicrous moralising: Sex is filthy, sex is ultimately wrong. It's a transgressive and base act which should be resisted by stoic boot-faced neo-Calvinists who know how to act "responsibly." Sex must, henceforth, only be engaged in furtively by deviants who have the gall to "opt in" to viewing such filth...oh the horrors!

As for rape porn, I remember reading a feminist defence of "consensual non-consent" somewhere. If the act takes place between two consenting adults then there's no problem with it. If they ban this, then what fetish is next in line to be tagged with the "immoral" label?

As for Scotland being the first to implement the ban on certain types of porn, I'm not surprised. This is the most restrictive and dour country in Europe, despite all our couthy pretences at being open and tolerant. No one does petty authoritarian, small "c" conservatism like the SNP. Presbyterianism has a lot to answer for..

[Luís Henrique]

Another victory of the unholy coalition between conservatives and "abolitionist" feminism.

Luís Henrique

[ed miliband]

thing is right, i just know if labour introduced this some of the people now up in arms about it would be cheering it on as a progressive move.

[Arlekino]

Did he band page 3 from Sun? Meh

[precarian]

Another victory of the unholy coalition between conservatives and "abolitionist" feminism.

Luís Henrique

Exactly! Some strands of feminism are more austere, histrionic, irrational and finger-waggingly self-indulgent than the most right-wing of paleo-conservatives.

[precarian]

thing is right, i just know if labour introduced this some of the people now up in arms about it would be cheering it on as a progressive move.


Indeed. Reformists, by their nature, cannot be trusted to articulate a coherent political argument on anything. Look at their pathetic support for minimum pricing, anti-gambling laws, tobacco prohibitionism...suddenly policing the behaviour of the working class becomes "progressive" when such legislation is enacted "for their own good" by the red rosette-wearing faction of the ruling class.

[#FF0000]

Exactly! Some strands of feminism are more austere, histrionic, irrational and finger-waggingly self-indulgent than the most right-wing of paleo-conservatives.


Another victory of the unholy coalition between conservatives and "abolitionist" feminism.

The people I know who are "anti-porn" don't think this is a good thing.

I take a dim view to pornography as well and think this is bad legislation.

[rednordman]

thing is right, i just know if labour introduced this some of the people now up in arms about it would be cheering it on as a progressive move.Pfft..if it was labour who did it, half the country would protest, what they would label 'authoritarian socialism' taking away our rights. What i mean is that the tories get away with loads more than the labour party ever will.

[ed miliband]

Pfft..if it was labour who did it, half the country would protest, what they would label 'authoritarian socialism' taking away our rights. What i mean is that the tories get away with loads more than the labour party ever will.

yeah, well that's not really that true given how little resistance there was to almost anything the labour party did in power (aside from the iraq war, of course). and we're not talking about "half the country" we're talking about the left - who'll happily twiddle their thumbs when labour are in power, and vote for them when they aren't.

i mean, you honestly believe "half the country" would protest if labour did this? lol.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I'm anti-porn and I don't like this. I doubt it'll be very effective. You can't keep people with internet connections from seeing what they want in the year 2013.

[soso17]

I know that in the US, filters like this prevented students from researching breast cancer and HIV/STDs. Also blocked sites with resources for LGBT youth. Slippery slope, indeed. How about we trust parents to raise their children?

--soso

[rednordman]

yeah, well that's not really that true given how little resistance there was to almost anything the labour party did in power (aside from the iraq war, of course). and we're not talking about "half the country" we're talking about the left - who'll happily twiddle their thumbs when labour are in power, and vote for them when they aren't.

i mean, you honestly believe "half the country" would protest if labour did this? lol.Right now, probably. People seem to blame labour for everything, even stuff in the coalition's term. But then again maybe its just where i'm from being a strangle hold for the conservative party.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

yeah, well that's not really that true given how little resistance there was to almost anything the labour party did in power (aside from the iraq war, of course). and we're not talking about "half the country" we're talking about the left - who'll happily twiddle their thumbs when labour are in power, and vote for them when they aren't.

i mean, you honestly believe "half the country" would protest if labour did this? lol.
There was huge organised resistance in things like the squatters movement, the anti-roads protests, the anti-globalisation protests. To say that there was 'little' resistance is a little disengenuous. It was definitely a difficult period for the revolutionary left in the post-Soviet Union era but while capitalism exists so does class struggle.

[Ace High]

The UK government is absolutely out of control. As if it wasn't enough to have CCTV cameras monitoring your every move. Hopefully there will be some major protests. It's not about porn, it's about privacy.

[ed miliband]

There was huge organised resistance in things like the squatters movement, the anti-roads protests, the anti-globalisation protests. To say that there was 'little' resistance is a little disengenuous. It was definitely a difficult period for the revolutionary left in the post-Soviet Union era but while capitalism exists so does class struggle.

anti-roads, squatting, etc. was all a hangover from the early 90s. you may as well have thrown in anti criminal justice bill protests while you were at it. anyway, it's not about whether class struggle exists or not, it's about the relationship between the left and the labour party.

the point is, and i think it's fairly obvious: large parts of the left have an uncritical attitude to the labour party, and even when they are critical it won't stop them from for voting for them.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

anti-roads, squatting, etc. was all a hangover from the early 90s. you may as well have thrown in anti criminal justice bill protests while you were at it. anyway, it's not about whether class struggle exists or not, it's about the relationship between the left and the labour party.

the point is, and i think it's fairly obvious: large parts of the left have an uncritical attitude to the labour party, and even when they are critical it won't stop them from for voting for them.
Who amongst the 'left' are you talking about? I get what you're saying in part; I've been to a couple UAF meetings where irritating swappies were willing to organise with Labour and Conservative party members on the grounds of 'united front' or some shit without taking a principled stance against the very policies that generate racism (ie capitalism and the parties that promote them).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In addition, Mr Cameron will say possessing online pornography depicting rape will be illegal, bringing England and Wales in line with Scotland.

Hang on, this isn't exactly legally clear language. Are they talking about actual instances of rape being that have been recorded, or are they talking about porn in which the participants simulate rape as part of a fantasy?

Because given the whole fiasco over so-called "extreme" pornography, I don't trust it not to include the latter.

Fuck off, Dave.

[Pirate Utopian]

Return of the video nasties. I hope they make a fun list of "objectionable" movies to look out for.
Until then you got all the "exciting" news about the royal baby to follow.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

the point is, and i think it's fairly obvious: large parts of the left have an uncritical attitude to the labour party, and even when they are critical it won't stop them from for voting for them.

Large parts of the left - particularly certain Trotskyist groups - think that if they print enough "socialist" newspapers and hand them out to Labour party supporters, Labour will become the new Bolshevik party.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I don't really think of anyone supporting the Labour Party as the 'left'.

[ed miliband]

I don't really think of anyone supporting the Labour Party as the 'left'.

why not though? aside from anarchists, the spgb, the communist left -- none of whom identify as 'the left', and (i believe) a few small trotskyist and marxist-leninist groups, the british left undeniably exists in relation to the labour party. i'm glad you obviously find that objectionable, but that doesn't make it any less true. just have a look at the (atrocious) debates around 'left unity' and the people's assembly -- the stench of the labour party just can't be shaken off for leftists.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Indeed. Reformists, by their nature, cannot be trusted to articulate a coherent political argument on anything. Look at their pathetic support for minimum pricing, anti-gambling laws, tobacco prohibitionism...suddenly policing the behaviour of the working class becomes "progressive" when such legislation is enacted "for their own good" by the red rosette-wearing faction of the ruling class.

I think there's a difference between policies such as minimum pricing & tobacco laws that are evidence-based in response to a real health/social problem in society, and introducing laws to curb the viewing of ALL online porn - I mean, whilst certain types of porn (i.e. those which are already against the law) clearly need to be clamped down on, comparing the effects of having a wank to pro-porn and smoking/drinking is like comparing apples and pears. One has proven and easily demonstrable negative consequences to self and others, the other well, doesn't. It's just a faux-moralistic crusade by the powerful in society to exercise a greater level of control over workers, and nothing more.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

why not though? aside from anarchists, the spgb, the communist left -- none of whom identify as 'the left', and (i believe) a few small trotskyist and marxist-leninist groups, the british left undeniably exists in relation to the labour party. i'm glad you obviously find that objectionable, but that doesn't make it any less true. just have a look at the (atrocious) debates around 'left unity' and the people's assembly -- the stench of the labour party just can't be shaken off for leftists.

Whilst i'm no labourite, it is true that the Labour Party does exist, whilst to all intents and purposes the British left does not exist outside of its own introspective milieu.

So we have a choice between a 'left' (and those who don't consider themselves 'left' such as anarchists etc.) which doesn't exist, and a party that is nominally 'left' but in reality generally a centrist party which does exist. What do? :(

[human strike]

If they could, they would ban masturbation altogether. As it is, this legislation will actually go pretty much unnoticed because ISPs will make it as easy as possible to get round - it's just more hot air from Cameron, saying he's done something he actually hasn't.

Do people here think we have a right to porn?

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Do people here think we have a right to porn?

Do you mean 'here' as in revleft, or 'here' as in the UK?


Because personally, I think people have the right to access porn when they need a good self-love session. Until the moronic bourgeoisie sexual and social mores are finally done away with, and access to sex is easier and (mostly) consequence-free, then we humans need to have some sort of sexual outlet.

[rednordman]

anti-roads, squatting, etc. was all a hangover from the early 90s. you may as well have thrown in anti criminal justice bill protests while you were at it. anyway, it's not about whether class struggle exists or not, it's about the relationship between the left and the labour party.

the point is, and i think it's fairly obvious: large parts of the left have an uncritical attitude to the labour party, and even when they are critical it won't stop them from for voting for them.but that isn't really all that true. i think its more that socialists traditionally have generally seen labour as the significant lesser of two evils. But that is only the socialistic left. A lot of people actually sit on the fence and just vote for what the media tells them.

[d3crypt]

Good thing i don't live in the UK... I need my porn

[Ace High]

Studies show that with wider availability to porn, sex crime rates are considerably lower. For instance, Japan has a huge porn culture, yet rates quite low in the frequency of sex crimes like rape and child molestation. So making porn as available as possible may have more positive implications than just fapping, lol.

[Bostana]

Heart goes out to the Comrades in the U.K.

[human strike]

Do you mean 'here' as in revleft, or 'here' as in the UK?


Because personally, I think people have the right to access porn when they need a good self-love session. Until the moronic bourgeoisie sexual and social mores are finally done away with, and access to sex is easier and (mostly) consequence-free, then we humans need to have some sort of sexual outlet.

Revleft. Does one really need porn to masturbate?

Anyone else think it's ironic that this legislation is coming from the biggest wanker in the country?

[d3crypt]

Revleft. Does one really need porn to masturbate?

I think porn is pretty helpful for masturbation.

[human strike]

I think porn is pretty helpful for masturbation.

But that wasn't the question...

[Igor]

and for a brief moment i thought we could talk about this without people starting to discuss their masturbation habits

(i didnt really though)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Revleft. Does one really need porn to masturbate?

Whether one "needs" porn to masturbate or not is irrelevant, isn't it?

The point is that this is a PR stunt on the part of a illegitimate authority, not a genuine attempt to improve matters.

[piet11111]

Return of the video nasties. I hope they make a fun list of "objectionable" movies to look out for.
Until then you got all the "exciting" news about the royal baby to follow.

I know people will have a race to have everything on such a list.

As always as reasonable as such legislation seems it is still a step towards total censorship of the internet and as such it should be fought tooth and nail.

first they come for the wankers and then they will come for us leftists.

[helot]

This will restrict children's access to vital information on sexual health. This is far more important than not being able to watch porn.

[ed miliband]

but that isn't really all that true. i think its more that socialists traditionally have generally seen labour as the significant lesser of two evils. But that is only the socialistic left. A lot of people actually sit on the fence and just vote for what the media tells them.

there's absolutely no contradiction between what i have said and you're statement that "socialists traditionally have generally seen labour as the significant lesser of two evils". this "lesser-evilism" sees leftists adopt a largely uncritical attitude towards the labour party, and translates into voting for their candidates in elections. (and less-evilism is a crock of shite, anyway, based on a completely flawed (idealistic) understanding of how the capitalist state functions).

also, the leftists do try and justify support for the labour party theoretically, the more intelligent ones at least. they might say that the illusions of the working class (and indeed the left, lol) in the labour party need to be exposed (lenin's 'give them rope to hang themselves with') as wrong via the betrayals of a labour government, or that the labour party is 'connected to the working class through the union link'. of course, both these arguments are incredibly wrong.

[zoot_allures]

Hang on, this isn't exactly legally clear language. Are they talking about actual instances of rape being that have been recorded, or are they talking about porn in which the participants simulate rape as part of a fantasy?

Because given the whole fiasco over so-called "extreme" pornography, I don't trust it not to include the latter.

Fuck off, Dave.
Most of what I've read about it suggests it includes a ban on simulated rape, e.g.:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/07/22/204535262/uk-cracking-down-on-porn-blocking-it-unless-users-opt-in

Of course, just what "simulated rape" means isn't exactly clear either. Presumably it would include a film depicting:

(1) A woman's walking down a secluded alley. Three men jump out, grab her, punch her, tear off her clothes, and force her to have sex. She's screaming and crying the whole time. It's filmed with a handheld camera. It's simulated, but it looks real enough.

But how about:

(2) A man ties a woman up. She's saying 'no', looks worried, maybe puts up a minor struggle. She continues to object as her has sex with her... but she has poor acting skills because she's also letting out moans of pleasure and occasionally seems to forgot that she's supposed to be objecting. It's filmed professionally. This one, then, isn't just simulated but clearly looks simulated too. It's an obvious rape-roleplay.

(3) A woman's sleeping and a guy does something sexual to her - let's say he touches her genitals, cums on her face or whatever. He claims (as part of the fantasy) that she's just a friend, who didn't and wouldn't have consented to this.

(4) A series of cartoons of any of the above scenarios.

(I presented all the above as men raping women simply because that's how the moralists usually conceive it: they're against rape porn because it encourages violence against women. But, of course, this law persecutes not just people who enjoy playing the rapist but also people who enjoy playing the victim, of which there are many in both genders.)

I don't think there's anything wrong with enjoying any of the above videos. But certainly, I'm not convinced that everybody who gets in a huff about (1) would be so bothered by the others. They'd all be covered by a blanket ban on "simulated rape", though. This wouldn't just affect evil dirty perverts, either: after all, there's plenty of porn that might be of interest for historical reasons. I remember coming across a tumblr blog about Victorian porn. There was a lot of rape on it (along with plenty of other evil dirty pervert things). I wasn't looking at it to jack off, but because I found it amusing and historically interesting. Who's to say that a person collecting stuff from this blog wouldn't land in jail under this law?

I wonder who they'll go after the next time they need to score some points from the moralists? Maybe there'll be no more crossdresser or transsexual porn, because it "corrodes" children's understanding of gender and leads to confusion and unhappiness and dirty perverts, dirty filthy perverts, violence against women, moral duty, children, childhood, innocence, domestic abuse, sexualisation, family values, children.

[zoot_allures]

as reasonable as such legislation seems
I don't think there's anything even seemingly reasonable about such legislation. To target rape porn is nothing more than anti-fetishist/anti-s&m bigotry in my opinion. Of course, there are plenty of fellow leftists - though I sure wouldn't call them comrades - who are perfectly happy to join the conservatives in peddling such bigotry. Personally, I don't find it any less vile than homophobia, transphobia, or whatever else.

There's nothing wrong with finding fantasy rape a turn-on, whether as the fantasy rapist or the fantasy victim, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with watching or creating rape porn.

[#FF0000]

Studies show that with wider availability to porn, sex crime rates are considerably lower. For instance, Japan has a huge porn culture, yet rates quite low in the frequency of sex crimes like rape and child molestation.

Well, if you look at how women who try to report sex crimes are treated, the low rate of sex crimes on paper starts to make a little more sense.

Either way, I think I know the study(ies) you're talking about, and all the show is that there's no correlation with porn and sex crimes, not an inverse relationship between the amount of porn and the number of sex crimes

[Ace High]

Well, if you look at how women who try to report sex crimes are treated, the low rate of sex crimes on paper starts to make a little more sense.

Either way, I think I know the study(ies) you're talking about, and all the show is that there's no correlation with porn and sex crimes, not an inverse relationship between the amount of porn and the number of sex crimes

Here's a pretty thorough one that supports my claim. Although I will admit that whenever something comes up as "recent studies show...", you should sometimes take it with a grain of salt. But this is a pretty reliable source. http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2005to2009/2009-pornography-acceptance-crime.html

And I know you made your first statement because of my comments about feminism xD Like I said in my posts on that thread, I agree that women are treated horribly because of patriarchy-based rape culture and the objectification of women. It needs to stop via a UNITED front, not one of gender-based membership. I simply just don't like feminism, it's really quite simple honestly. But no, I do agree with you.

[Comrade Jacob]

Wow, I am surprised that some "Marxists" are defending the porn industry! The industry that lures mostly troubled people in just to use them for their own personnel gain! Truly shocking! Although I do not agree with this "bill", I think it is being rushed.


Response to several people:
I never said I am against the workers in the porno, I am saying they are being exploited, which is why I'm against the industry of porn and prostitution! Some people in this discussion HAVE been defending the porn industry, I never said I have anything against ammeter porn or hentai because nobody is being exploited, I'm sorry, I should have made that clear.

[helot]

Wow, I am surprised that some "Marxists" are defending the porn industry! The industry that lures mostly troubled people in just to use them for their own personnel gain! Truly shocking! Although I do not agree with this "bill", I think it is being rushed.

Are you a sex work abolitionist by any chance?

[Ace High]

Wow, I am surprised that some "Marxists" are defending the porn industry! The industry that lures mostly troubled people in just to use them for their own personnel gain! Truly shocking! Although I do not agree with this "bill", I think it is being rushed.

As bad as capitalism is, it doesn't force people into the porn industry...... Prostitution yes, but not porn. Porn stars generally make very good livings, even the not-so-well-known ones. So what's wrong with porn if they choose it? Aside from the corrupt people making money off of them, I understand that of course.

[zoot_allures]

Wow, I am surprised that some "Marxists" are defending the porn industry! The industry that lures mostly troubled people in just to use them for their own personnel gain! Truly shocking! Although I do not agree with this "bill", I think it is being rushed.
I hope you're not conflating porn with the modern porn industry. The porn industry is a vile institution and I'd like to see it burn to the ground - along with the food industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the fashion industry, etc etc. Anybody who defends the porn industry as it currently exists obviously isn't a socialist. So it is with every other industry.

But what does the porn industry have to do with, e.g., an amateur couple making home movies for an S&M forum they frequent?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Wow, I am surprised that some "Marxists" are defending the porn industry! The industry that lures mostly troubled people in just to use them for their own personnel gain!

As if other industries do something qualitatively different. And no, Marxists do not defend the porn industry, but we do defend sex workers, and we are against any sort of morality police, even if it drapes itself in a red flag and spouts rhetoric about feminism (violence against women is grounded in the economic basis of modern society, chiefly in the way the labour force is renewed, not in the black magic of pornography and whatnot).

[helot]

As bad as capitalism is, it doesn't force people into the porn industry...... Prostitution yes, but not porn. Porn stars generally make very good livings, even the not-so-well-known ones. So what's wrong with porn if they choose it? Aside from the corrupt people making money off of them, I understand that of course.

Trans people are often compelled into the sex industry, both porn and prostitution, due to the difficulties of finding other work because they're trans.

[Os Cangaceiros]

But how about:

The BBFC has denied certification (i.e. banned) a number of professionally-made, non-pornographic films that clearly were made by non-raped, still-living actors/actresses because they found them "sexually objectionable" in some way.

As to the subject of pornography (which is really the only interesting topic in this thread, because otherwise it's just about a doofus named David Cameron and the ineffectual policies of the UK nanny state), I've become more critical of it as time has gone on. Not all pornography, as there's obviously a pretty big range of visual depictions of human sexuality out there, but I think that a lot of mainstream pornography plays into the same lame dichotomies of the "clean" and the "impure", and ironically is so successful because of the lingering sexual repression and guilt that still exists ("ironically" because sometimes pornographers will portray themselves as renegades against this same repression, esp. when confronted with obscenity charges by the government, etc) IMO

That's in addition to the economics of the sex trade, of course.

But of course I'm very much in opposition to this and similar measures from that the morality police. "Corroding childhoods"? *vomit* Motherfuckers have no shame.

[Klaatu]

Here in the USA, you can buy a powerful gun with a hundred rounds, no questions asked, and go blow away a classroom full of six-year-olds. Furthermore, you can get away with gunning down a teen you merely "suspect" of wrongdoing (as long as you're white and he is black)

But porn? OMG it will corrupt the children!!! Is death a better alternative than carnal knowledge?

[Crux]

Another victory of the unholy coalition between conservatives and "abolitionist" feminism.

Luís Henrique
What coalition are you talking about? I'd be surprised to see feminists of any variant in alliance with the tories, but I'm sure you weren't just conjuring that up out of thin air, so do tell which feminist group in the UK are you talking about here?

Oh and yes, you guys are completely on the ball here. This legislation is clearly just an infringement on your masturbatory habits in your parents house. (http://tompride.wordpress.com/2013/07/24/how-camerons-plans-to-block-on-line-porn-could-also-block-political-sites/)

:rolleyes:

See this is why I'm skeptical of anyone attempting a political analysis while holding their dick in their hand, both figuratively and literally.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What coalition are you talking about? I'd be surprised to see feminists of any variant in alliance with the tories, but I'm sure you weren't just conjuring that up out of thin air, so do tell which feminist group in the UK are you talking about here?

I haven't followed the events in Britain closely, but an alliance between conservatives and bourgeois "feminists" is nothing new - not since MacKinnon and others helped conservatives enact sweeping laws against pornography in Canada that, surprise surprise, mainly ended up being used against queer people.


Oh and yes, you guys are completely on the ball here. This legislation is clearly just an infringement on your masturbatory habits in your parents house. (http://tompride.wordpress.com/2013/07/24/how-camerons-plans-to-block-on-line-porn-could-also-block-political-sites/)

:rolleyes:

See this is why I'm skeptical of anyone attempting a political analysis while holding their dick in their hand, both figuratively and literally.

Outstanding. So if it was just pornography, just someone's "masturbatory habits" (the line is not as clear-cut as you imply - certainly much of reformist "socialist" politics is outright obscene), then the prohibition would be alright? (The implicit assumption that only people with dicks - men, probably, since you're really invoking an ancient stereotype - care about pornography and masturbation is also fairly hilarious.)

[Crux]

I haven't followed the events in Britain closely, but an alliance between conservatives and bourgeois "feminists" is nothing new - not since MacKinnon and others helped conservatives enact sweeping laws against pornography in Canada that, surprise surprise, mainly ended up being used against queer people.



Outstanding. So if it was just pornography, just someone's "masturbatory habits" (the line is not as clear-cut as you imply - certainly much of reformist "socialist" politics is outright obscene), then the prohibition would be alright? (The implicit assumption that only people with dicks - men, probably, since you're really invoking an ancient stereotype - care about pornography and masturbation is also fairly hilarious.)
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Clearly this is a discussion about banning pornography. :rolleyes: No the implication of saying you're sitting with your dick in your hand is a) you've convinced yourself this is about porn which leads to b) you're missing what's actually going on, i e sitting with your dick in your hand in the figurative sense. This is quite a bit more severe than letting your parents choose if you can surf porn at home or not.

[Crux]

Well, if the discussion is not about that, what is it about? One or two flippant comments aside, that is what most of the posts in this discussion talk about. That and the Labour party.
Which is why I tried to inject some reality in this amusingly predictable debate. Did you even read the link? But yeah if you think the porn side of this is the most relevant, be my guest.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Clearly this is a discussion about banning pornography. :rolleyes: No the implication of saying you're sitting with your dick in your hand is a) you've convinced yourself this is about porn which leads to b) you're missing what's actually going on, i e sitting with your dick in your hand in the figurative sense. This is quite a bit more severe than letting your parents choose if you can surf porn at home or not.

It is about porn, partly, and about the bourgeois state enforcing bourgeois morality. I think that giving the state the right to imprison people for having pornography related to a certain fetish is severe enough.

[Crux]

It is about porn, partly, and about the bourgeois state enforcing bourgeois morality. I think that giving the state the right to imprison people for having pornography related to a certain fetish is severe enough.
That's how it may appear to a casual reader of the Daily Mail, yes.
Meanwhile...
How Cameron’s plans to block on-line porn could also block political sites (http://tompride.wordpress.com/2013/07/24/how-camerons-plans-to-block-on-line-porn-could-also-block-political-sites/)

But who cares right? Clearly this is just about those stupid pornfilters your parents want to put on your computer. Or that stupid daddy Cameron, right? But while you guys were busy with being horrified at prospect of it being slightly more difficult to acquire your rape porn this legislation seems to be about something far more serious. If you had read the link when I put it up the first time you might've had an idea what I'm talking about.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That's how it may appear to a casual reader of the Daily Mail, yes.
Meanwhile...
How Cameron’s plans to block on-line porn could also block political sites (http://tompride.wordpress.com/2013/07/24/how-camerons-plans-to-block-on-line-porn-could-also-block-political-sites/)

I take it you missed this post way back on the first page:


I know that in the US, filters like this prevented students from researching breast cancer and HIV/STDs. Also blocked sites with resources for LGBT youth. Slippery slope, indeed. How about we trust parents to raise their children?

--soso

OK, so they might not have provided a nicely dressed link, but clearly the thought that this filter had political implications was there. So this next bit from you makes you look like an ass:


But who cares right? Clearly this is just about those stupid pornfilters your parents want to put on your computer. Or that stupid daddy Cameron, right? But while you guys were busy with being horrified at prospect of it being slightly more difficult to acquire your rape porn this legislation seems to be about something far more serious. If you had read the link when I put it up the first time you might've had an idea what I'm talking about.

Taking that kind of sneering, condescending tone is not going to win friends and influence people; indeed, it's more likely to provoke a negative reaction. Unless of course that was your intention?

That's aside from the fact that this filter nonsense is going to affect everyone who wants to look at porn on the internet, including people like me who have their own home and internet connection, since us wankers would have to put our names on a government list. Hmmm.

[Crux]

Yes, I saw it being mentioned 2 times, but for some reason that aspect of the debate didn't really catch on. Priorities I suppose. And yes, I would oppose this law regardless in case that wasn't clear.

[#FF0000]

But what does the porn industry have to do with, e.g., an amateur couple making home movies for an S&M forum they frequent?

i think it's really dumb when people criticize "professional porn" and act like amateur porn is somehow more ethical or something. It flat out isn't -- you have no idea if the people in the video consented to having it posted on the internet. You don't know if they consented at all, for that matter.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i think it's really dumb when people criticize "professional porn" and act like amateur porn is somehow more ethical or something. It flat out isn't -- you have no idea if the people in the video consented to having it posted on the internet. You don't know if they consented at all, for that matter.

Surely it must easier to determine that than whether the beef mince in one's lasagna is actually beef and not say, horse.

[zoot_allures]

i think it's really dumb when people criticize "professional porn" and act like amateur porn is somehow more ethical or something. It flat out isn't -- you have no idea if the people in the video consented to having it posted on the internet. You don't know if they consented at all, for that matter.
Firstly, I didn't make any comments about "amateur porn" in general. I gave a specific example: a couple making home movies for an S&M forum they frequent (and I assumed it would be obvious we're dealing with a case where it's all consensual). I wanted to know what the problem is with this, and whether the objections we might have to the porn industry are plausibly applied here. I was also making the general point that it's silly to conflate porn with the porn industry; this general point holds even if we judge amateur porn to be worse than professional porn (but come on, what the hell kind of socialist hold that the porn industry is no less ethical than an amateur couple making home movies for an S&M forum?).

As for consent: if I say stuff like "there's nothing wrong with amateur porn" (and I very well might say something like that), it should be obvious that this includes the assumption that it's been produced consensually. Consent is an issue for any sexual activity, filmed or not - consider: "I think it's really dumb when people criticize prostitution and act like sex between romantic partners is somehow more ethical or something. It flat out isn't -- you have no idea if people having sex have consented or not." Nevertheless it seems to me that sex free of economic transaction is clearly less problematic than that which involves it.

[Luís Henrique]

I'm anti-porn and I don't like this. I doubt it'll be very effective.

So, you don't like it because you think it will be ineffective? Not because it is an infringement on people's liberties?


You can't keep people with internet connections from seeing what they want in the year 2013.

It doesn't seem to be the intention, either. It seems what they want is to have people who want to look at porn to have to stand out and expressly say, "I want to look at porn". For what end, I can only speculate...

Luís Henrique

[Hegemonicretribution]

Perverts and terrorists; if you want to restrict freedom and be congratulated for it start here.

Limited time special offer: remove liberties, and label your objectors as despicable deviantsat no extra cost.

I guess there isn't much of a debate here, just a sad acceptance that tories will be tories.

[zoot_allures]

But while you guys were busy with being horrified at prospect of it being slightly more difficult to acquire your rape porn
I think it's worth correcting your understatement: what I find horrifying about it isn't simply that it's "slightly more difficult" to acquire rape porn, but that if you do acquire it, you can end up being jailed for two years and put on the sex offender's register. This is persecution of people (of all genders) in the BDSM scene. In some ways, a blanket ban of all pornography would be less horrifying.

[Luís Henrique]

being horrified at prospect of it being slightly more difficult to acquire your rape porn

Yeah.

The reason I am for the legalisation of marijuana is that I want to dope myself into oblivion.

The reason I am against persecution of homosexuals must be that I am a slut fag myself.

The reason I for the legalisation of prostitution can only be that I want to "sell myself" or perhaps pay for sex with teenage prostitutes.

The reason I oppose antisemitism must be that I am an adept of Judaism.

And obviously I can't even be for the legalisation of abortion: only women who want to become serial aborters can ever fancy the idea.

Can't you fathom the idea that we might want to protect some liberties without necessarily wanting to exert those exact liberties?

Luís Henrique

[Crux]

Surely, again I'd oppose this law regardless. But I'd still maintain that the apparent potential for this law to be used to block political sites is the prime issue here not some discussion about pornography in the abstract (with the usual references to personal use). And yet that's largely where this discussion has ended up.

[Luís Henrique]

Surely, again I'd oppose this law regardless. But I'd still maintain that the apparent potential for this law to be used to block political sites is the prime issue here not some discussion about pornography in the abstract (with the usual references to personal use). And yet that's largely where this discussion has ended up.

The main issue seems to be that this law intends to block sites. If those blocked sites are political, pornographic, philosophical, or gastronomic is another issue. But those who want to suppress ideas will suppress any ideas if we allow them to.

The main problem, again, is that they seem to be intent to create a situation in which people who intend to access some sites will have to write their names down, making them vulnerable to political repression.

"If you want to read The Marxist Review, please sign here, so that we can if necessary accuse you of wanting access to Raped Housewives."

Luís Henrique

[3OPNCA]

Man, that sucks! I love porn... Lucky I live in Australia. :)

[Pirate Utopian]

Cameron's proposed filters extend to more than just porn

The British prime minister's internet filters will be about more than just hardcore pornography, according to information obtained by the Open Rights Group.

The organisation, which campaigns for digital freedoms, has spoken to some of the Internet Service Providers that will be constructing Cameron's content filters. They discovered that a host of other categories of supposedly-objectionable material may be on the block-list.

As well as pornography, users may automatically be opted in to blocks on "violent material", "extremist related content", "anorexia and eating disorder websites" and "suicide related websites", "alcohol" and "smoking". But the list doesn't stop there. It even extends to blocking "web forums" and "esoteric material", whatever that is. "Web blocking circumvention tools" is also included, of course.

The ORG's Jim Killock says: "What's clear here is that David Cameron wants people to sleepwalk into censorship. We know that people stick with defaults: this is part of the idea behind 'nudge theory' and 'choice architecture' that is popular with Cameron."

He adds: "The implication is that filtering is good, or at least harmless, for anyone, whether adult or child. Of course, this is not true; there's not just the question of false positives for web users, but the affect on a network economy of excluding a proportion of a legitimate website's audience."

You can find out more over at the Open Rights Group's website.
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-07/27/pornwall

[piet11111]

Blocking web forums ?

Anyone else feels as if that is meant against revleft specifically ?

I doubt Cameron minds st**mfront more then revleft.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Damn! "extremist related content" + "web forums" + "esoteric material" = bye bye revleft :(

Or at least it'd end people just chancing upon the site, which is how I originally found out about revleft.

[NeonTrotski]

I know that in the US, filters like this prevented students from researching breast cancer and HIV/STDs. Also blocked sites with resources for LGBT youth. Slippery slope, indeed. How about we trust parents to raise their children?

--soso

This is true about most public libraries and schools in the US. It's also notoriously easy to subvert these filters and get porn anyway.
Similar to the golden shield in China, there's a lot of, esp youth, people that know how to tunnel out.