News Free speech and porn

As a teenager I was left to my own devices to discover the adult world of sex. If it wasn't for porn, or rather erotica, I for one wouldn't have learnt much about sex or come to fully appreciate a woman's entire anatomy....particularly in the fur-burger department. I'm talking here about pre-internet porn days, the 80s and top shelf mags when Mayfair wasn't trashy. I certainly wouldn't have know anything like giving a girl oral sex without them. Certainly helped when I had my first serious girlfriend and subsequentially making like rabbits there after....in a loving, "with emotion" way of course. Unfortuantely the likes of Penthoase, Mayfair, etc; didn't teach me anything about not being a selfish arse and that serious relationships really are a two way thing. So she dumped me after 16 months after one particular act of total male pigheaded-ness. Learnt that lesson the hard way, real life stylie.

I think the problem these days is younger folk are easily able to access some pretty strong stuff, like Gonzo porn being a "mild" example. What perception of sex is that going to teach them? Porn is certainly a lot more extreme and way more accessable now than say 10-12 years ago. Who still buys erotic mags like Playboy for kicks? Back in the 80s it was a mail order form and hoping your parents didn't open your post.

 

Parents should be responsible for bringing up their kids to be decent citizens, but surely they should expect some support from society in setting a legal framework that defines what's not acceptable and punishes wrong-doers?

Or you may as well throw out all laws and law enforcement and leave it up to sensible individuals to make up their own rules and behave accordingly.

Most civilised societies have laws against exposing young people to pornography, why should an internet publisher be treated differently to a magazine or film publisher? Just because they're not face-to-face with the customers doesn't mean they're above the law. It's up to them to work out a way to abide by it.

It's the same old story, some antique document justifying the Right to Make Money whatever the cost to some other citizen. And don't forget even the best brought-up kids are sneaky little buggers who don't tell their parents everything by a long chalk, especially when it concerns sexual curiosity. Been there, got the mucky books.

 

Our judges have gotten so left-wing over here in the states. The Anti Christ Libertarian Union can get almost anything they want from our judicial review-empowered courts.
I would say a lot more but don't have the time or energy to type it.

 

Careful now Slug, we don't want people to take responsibility that'll break some Constitutional right somewhere...

EDIT:

Let's see what Conservapedia has to say on Pornography

 

Firstly I think congratulations are in order, it's 150 years since the term pornography came in to common use, ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography?redirect=no#History .

It's just one more thing the Victorians did for us. Perhaps before that time there were simply sub-categories of normality, say, naked normality - what could be more natural ? Or sexual reproductive normality - again perfectly natural. Perhaps there was simply no need to sub-categorise as before that time the fundamental concept of sex being dirty simply did not exist. How many of the problems attributed to the availability of sexual imagery would be better attributed to an embarrassed society that positively promotes sexual repression?

Anyway, that discussion is going nowhere. On to the judgment.

Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr., sir I salute you. Not for defending pornography but for having the insight to recognise when personal liberty is being infringed upon and the courage to publicly state the fact. The decision is a fine example of joined up thinking, an example I wish the figures of authority here in the UK would follow.

 

"Word". In an ever changing world where our rights evaporate like LSD at a rave, it's reassuring for someone to pay attention to the U.S.'s forefather's sentiment of true freedom (though porn would probably be punishable by death back then). And (an english teacher starting a sentence with and, I know) I don't think porn is a good thing past the ripe age of 17, unless you make it your self Just joking... maybe but really, maybe... really.. maybe...

 

That might be true but try to tell that to my 15 year old niece who "just can't live without MSN"

 

ummmm 15 comes after 12...

 

true but she's been at it since before she was 12

 

THis is a good thing. Full stop.

Keep in mind this is also the case where the Justice Dept tried to get a month's worth of searches from Google and Google told them to get bent. I'm very glad to see it end this way.

Oh, and another shout out for the hun

 

i would have to say that i am not entirely surprised that the ACLU would be backing this one, i wonder who's payroll they are on this time?

i myself am completely appalled by the explosion of internet usage for pornography. it is a vicious scourge of our society that will damage the lives of millions and for what? trillions of dollars that will just go in to the pockets of the corrupt. some people may call it a harmless thing, something that is apart of human curiosity/nature or whatever however it is an addictive material that will destroy your ability to have a long and stable relationship with a person of the opposite sex. i have seen it destroy lives and families with breakneck speed and honestly i find it somewhat depressing when something like this is heralded as a "victory". little do you who support this type of thing realize that this will aid in destroying our society.

now i realize that i might have said some things that might have offended some of you who see things completely different than me, if so then that is just too bad. this is my opinion and i am going to stand by it till the day i die because i know it to be true. i have experienced it and seen it happen over and over in the lives of thousands. if you want to put it to the test, just wait and see.

 

You've literally seen thousands of lives damaged by internet pornography?

Or was that all sarcasm? I can't tell any more.

 

yes, i have. i actually moderate a 12 step group for pornography addiction. it is the most pervasive and devious addition that mankind has ever known because it is everywhere, not just in its obvious media related forms. for a person who is addicted they see just about everything as a trigger to relapse. in some cases, if they see a fully clothed and modest pretty girl it can be a HUGE problem.

usually i do joke about this and that and the other however this is no joke. i type this with all seriousness and importance written text can express; this is an epidemic.

 

Epidemic? I see how it can be a huge problem for some people, as there really is porn everywhere (sex sells, I guess); but I really think you're blowing this out of proportion. Looking at porn won't ruin your life, in the same way drinking a beer won't make you an alcoholic.

Sure I wouldn't want my kids seeing pornography at an early age, but there's adequate protection available without the need for vague legislation against adult sites.

Just out of curiosity, what would you suggest be done to combat this problem?

 

I know some ex-smokers and ex-alcoholics and for them one smoke / drink is all it takes to set them back on the path to being controlled by their addiction. The difference for porn addiction is that what happens in the mind doesn't require ingesting anything - I imagine just thinking about it a little too long might be enough. That would make it a much easier line to cross and thus a harder addiction to break.

 

I agree that recovery is hard, hence this part of my post:

But it's not a problem with porn, in the same way alcohol / cigarettes can't be blamed for people being addicted to them. Pornography is something we have, and the majority of people are able to enjoy it in moderation.

Any attempt ot irradicate or control porn on the internet would be futile.

 

i see your point and for some people this is true however for others one sip, one sample is all it takes and from what i am seeing it would be better to avoid that slippery stair case altogether. take a read of the articles below to hear it from a different source:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=388134&in_page_id=1770

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c65a4966-bf...age=daa36138-ce4f-11d7-81c6-0820abe49a01.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3078769/

honestly these above are just articles and they could be easily dismissed by naysayers and the like however just from what i have seen in my own town with the people i help, this thing is getting worse very quickly.

well for one i think that ISPs could do a lot more than they have, much like cable TV providers like offering a family safe internet and an unrestricted package however even this might be hard and time consuming to implement. i would say that the suggestion earlier in this post would be of great help to ISPs and parents in providing a safe internet, just use "www.---.xxx". this way if people wanted it then whatever, however if they don't then it can be blocked out rather easily. yes the legislation that was blocked is incredibly vague and therefore just as useless however no protection at all is much worse than something half way. that is why i am so mad at what happened, now we have nothing to build from. it would have been much easier to implement something better off of the existing law however now we have to create a new law which will take much more time and most likely will be too late for far too many.

 

What's interesting is that it's the conservativer Christians for the most part who are opposing implementation of the .xxx TLD. The discussion is a source of concern for civil libretarians who worry that the TLD might be blocked without the customer's consent, by a municipal code perhaps.

As for me, I'm all for people being able to block online porn for themselves, but will fight vigorously any attempt to prevent others from being able to legally access it.

 

honestly i do not care if another person access porn or whatever. i just would like the courts to require ISPs to provide an alternative or safe internet. i have been working with computers for years and know very well that filters on the network as compared to each computer are much more effective

 

If there was really a demand for porn free ISPs they'd exist, bottom line is that there's not enough to make them profitable.

Situations like this don't call for legislation to satisfy the needs of the few, it'd be a huge drain on ISPs with little pay-off.