1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Porn to be opt-in only with UK's biggest ISPs

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by arcticstoat, 11 Oct 2011.

  1. 1ad7

    1ad7 New Member

    Joined:
    13 Feb 2008
    Posts:
    263
    Likes Received:
    1
    Your all missing the real question. Is it the governments job to regulate morality? I had this same problem a few years ago, the patriot act is a perfect example. I agreed terrorist were a very serious threat and the way they wanted to use the new rules seemed reasonable. However a government agency should not be able to circumvent the core of government with a single piece of legislation. The patriot act allowed warrants with no name that judges were forced to sign. Circumventing checks and balances in one fell swoop, it lays the ground work for future issues.

    The UK government is currently with this legislation forcing private companies to change their services and pricing, as well as forcing its citizens to opt in to freedom of information, on what legal basis?

    The conversation should be, is this even legal?
    God I hope not I don't know the UK government well enough to know for sure.
     
  2. Nexxo

    Nexxo Queue Jumper

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    33,652
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    As I said before, We already agree on this point.

    But that is not how you argue your points. You state them as facts. Porn IS always bad; porn IS addictive etc. I'm sure that the article makes some compelling points, but it is, in the end, called an opinion piece for a reason (and frankly, the writer really should stay away from pseudo-psychology).

    I totally agree: it CAN do all those things --but it does not necessarily DO. Like alcoholism says more about the alcoholic then about alcohol, porn addiction says more about the addict than about porn. And I would be happier if "porn" had been better defined, and cultural norms had been taken into account. One man's harmless image is another man's smut. Ask the Taliban.

    Now who is nitpicking! I disagree. By your definition, an image/film of a husband and wife deeply in love having consensual sex is not porn, then? The IMO most appropriate and meaningful sex scene in film history, of a couple emptionally and physically reconnecting after the grief of losing their child (in Don't Look Now) is no different from the Song of Solomon, but your definition would regard it as porn.

    You would ban the paintings I mentioned before? Burn those books? Destroy ancient Greek statues because they show a bit too much breast and penis for your particular cultural sensitivities? How is that different from the Taliban blowing up statues of Buddha?

    Proof is kind of important. We cannot change the way people are allowed to live just because it feels right to us. The road to Hell is paved with such good intentions.

    Still, this clinical psychologist who has worked with the odd prostitute and lap dancer before finds it gratifying to see that you have qualified your arguments a bit. It may seem like nitpicking to you, but the scientific approach --which you engage in as soon as you state facts-- always has to be rigorous.

    No, but perhaps they are looking for a convenient externalised scapegoat. I would argue that there were reasons --within the men, or their marriages-- in the first place that made them seek fulfilment of their needs in porn. But just as Ted Bundy empathically stated that he was not a helpless victim of porn, but an autonomous adult responsible for his own actions, so are those men. Morgan needs to recognise when he is starting to collude with the dynamic.
     
  3. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Oink!

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    5,826
    Likes Received:
    315
    Nobody is second guessing anything, and what has law got to do with it? I'm not arguing for porn to be banned, or anything of the sort.

    This is a strawman argument from obfuscation - there is plenty evidence that porn is responsible for desensitisation; it’s a simple case of putting two and two together. Nobody denies that other existing problems may exacerbate a porn (or any other) habit, like a propensity to addictive behaviour (common in OCD sufferers and people with anxiety disorder) or loneliness etc., but these problems by themselves do not bring about the objectification, dehumanisation and desensitisation that porn has been shown to cause.

    As for passing law... like I said, I'm not arguing that any laws should be passed; all I’m saying is that people could be (really, could they?) a little more open-minded regarding the detrimental effects porn can have on the viewer.

    In what way is the writer entertaining pseudo-psychology?

    Fair enough, but tbh I don’t think people will agree on that. IMO porn is simply any material (pictures, videos and literature, including erotica) which is designed to sexually arouse usually by depicting or describing nudity, masturbation, or sexual intercourse. The dictionary uses the word “obscene” not to qualify types of porn but as a classification of all pornography, and I’m not sure I agree with this – I’d probably take a stance similar to yourself, which is that not all porn is obscene.

    It’s not nitpicking – it’s there in black and white (unless you are a Bible scholar and wish to demonstrate the contrary?): sex in the Bible is a deeply private and intimate union between husband and wife; a sex scene in a movie portrays this, but is not actually what it portrays. Sex that is not private between husband and wife (eg. portrayed in a movie) is outside the Bible’s definition of sex, but is not necessarily porn as per the definition above.

    No, and these nuances you talked about earlier (not nitpicking!) come into play here: porn is designed to sexually arouse and titillate; that is why much art etc can be excluded from the definition of porn, because there are many studies of the human form which are in no way designed to arouse sexual interest.

    Read above.

    I totally agree, and it’s my misfortune that you are a clinical psychologist which puts me at a huge disadvantage. I have friends who are psychologists and family therapists with decades of experience, but alas the experience is theirs and not mine – I can appeal to it and pass it on, but I cannot vouch for it personally, even though I find it most compelling.

    And you would be right – it just so happens that one of these reasons, lo and behold, is porn itself, which many married men have acceded to. Much research has been conducted which shows that men who view porn before they are married continue to view porn after they are married because they have developed a dependence upon it (or full blown addiction to it), and it often caused a lot of damage in their relationships. Granted, some women are quite happy for their husbands to seek solitary sexual fulfillment from porn, but does that constitute a relationship without problems: a marriage in which the husband focuses the majority of his sex drive on images of other women/couples?

    Totally agree, although comparing a narcissistic and psychopathic serial rapist and murderer to “regular” men is not fair – Bundy’s misgivings were more a result of his disposition than his exposure to porn, even though many people argue the contrary; it’s quite possible to be a rapist and murderer without ever having looked at porn, but to be addicted to porn kind of necessitates that you have looked at it before LOL.

    Of course men should take responsibility for their actions (including browsing porn regularly) but, as with other addictive substances, there comes a time when the drug itself takes over, at which point the user requires external help to come off it and cannot be held fully responsible for their addictive behaviour.
     
  4. Nexxo

    Nexxo Queue Jumper

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    33,652
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    It's chicken and egg, really. School shooters are not created by FPS games, but their interest in both activities has a common ground. I would argue that you already have to have a psychological predisposition to violence or degradation to be interested in such material.

    Similarly, people need to stay open-minded that this is not always the case.

    From the article:
    Very Freudian. Of course it has nothing to do with horny adolescent schoolboys just being interested in porn because of their testosterone-fueled preoccupation with girls and sex. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...

    As for the lessons the writer learnt: I once witnessed 15-year old boy from the estate telling his mate that he's got to realise that porn is just pretend, fantasy. Women and sex are not really like that. I guess not everybody learns the same lessons. Or some people just grow up.

    Yup, it's so deeply private that a man's love poem to his wife (talking about her body in some worshipful detail) made it into a book meant for public consumption. Whether the sex is portrayed on film, or in a book, it's public. The Song of Solomon is not any more private than Lady Chatterley's lover.

    I would argue that these men had problems before they sought to resolve them with porn, just as an alcoholic had psychological problems before he resorted to alcohol as a way of managing them. Porn didn't make them do it any more than video games, alcohol, drugs or the Devil makes them do it. Some people just got issues. But it is really convenient to shift the blame on porn, alcohol, drugs or the devil. "I'm not a self-centered, immature man with delay of gratification issues honey, I'm ill. I can't help it --it was teh 3vil porn that did it. Hold me please...". Yeah, right. :rolleyes: How is this different from the rapist blaming the short skirt?

    But looking at porn does not necessarily make you to addicted to it. Bundy did not cry: "Porn made me do it!". Bundy accepted responsibility for his actions. Are you seriously arguing that "regular" men should be considered less able to take responsibility for theirs?

    Of course, but that still does not make the drug responsible.
     
  5. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Oink!

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    5,826
    Likes Received:
    315
    By saying that porn "can" have a detrimental effect on the viewer, am I being close minded?

    The Song of Solomon is a portrayal of sex, lol, so of course by definition it's not private. You are straining at gnats here, man, grasping at straws - let's actually debate the subject at hand (and, if possible, leave the Bible out of it!). :)

    Of course "some" men have problems which lead to substance abuse and addiction, but did it ever occur to you that something so simple as (wait for it) sex drive is what makes men start with porn? Sex drive isn't a problem; it's an intrinsic part of human psychology and physiology.

    And here is the crux: you are (or seem to be) arguing that a problem must precede an addiction to porn, whereas I'm arguing that porn itself can become a problem (and indeed cause a litany of other problems) which is preceded by a perfectly healthy sex drive. I suppose the crucial distinction here is that drugs and alcohol are not intrinsically desired by our bodies; sex is.

    A long time ago many of my friends were reading a book about sex addiction, and the author - a therapist and psychologist - concluded that men who are addicted to sex had "mother issues" as children. Suffice to say I think his conclusion is utter BS - as you said your self, a cigar is just a cigar, and men like the female anatomy... they don't first need to be troubled by something before they feel very strongly attracted to the naked female form.

    That's not what I'm saying: there is such a thing as seduction and enticement, which means shared responsibility, even though one person usually takes the rap. Example: if a faithful and committed husband is seduced by a woman who is not his wife, he is of course responsible for his actions, but you cannot overlook that she had a part to play in his adulterous behaviour. The man returns to his wife who wants nothing more to do with him, which is perfectly fair from one point of view; but still the seductress is partly responsible for the broken marriage. Thankfully, in many cases, some women understand this and are very forgiving.

    So in short, men looking at porn are absolutely responsible for their actions, but when they become addicted to it they cannot simply choose to stop looking at it because it controls them, much like alcohol controls the alcoholic and drugs control the addict etc. They are still responsible for their behavour (entirely) but of course what influences them has a part to play.

    This is such an ambiguous claim to make - define "looking at porn." It's widely accepted that most people (eg. people with hands) masturbate to porn whilst looking at it (that is after all how porn is widely regarded and used, as a stimulus for masturbation), which is where the damage can be done: merely looking at porn is a voyeuristic experience, arguably harmless; masturbating to porn is a sexual experience and is arguably harmful, especially over extended periods of time. Conjecture, yes, but definitely not to be dismissed at the drop of a hat.

    :)
     
    Last edited: 14 Oct 2011
  6. 3lusive

    3lusive New Member

    Joined:
    5 Feb 2011
    Posts:
    1,100
    Likes Received:
    45
    Interesting debate. I'll just leave this here for you both to ponder over (although it probably helps Lenny's cause):

     
  7. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Oink!

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    5,826
    Likes Received:
    315
    The problem with the video is that it will indubitably be dismissed as "this guy's opinion" - many people will argue that (most) porn doesn't humiliate women at all, that women are treated fairly and respectfully, and indeed that they freely volunteer to do what they do. As Nexxo said, opinion vs. opinion doesn't make a particularly interesting debate; there need to be facts on either side of the argument, or at least compelling rational and logical arguments where there can be no hard facts.
     
  8. Ayrto

    Ayrto New Member

    Joined:
    20 Jun 2007
    Posts:
    255
    Likes Received:
    3
    Normally respect N. Chomsky, but here his arguments seem very condescending to women , a "poor naive things" type argument, that only intellectuals can deploy. And his Chinese sweatshop analogy doesn't stand up when considering women have many career choices, or even welfare, in the free societies where porn is mainly produced.

    I think we can safely say he clearly wouldn't want to star in it , any more than any of us would want to take up base jumping or cage fighting. However that doesn't mean people involved in these things get no pleasure from them, clearly some do. Many big performers who've been out of the business since the eighties, often with perfectly good alternative careers since, are now re-entering porn to star in so called, "cougar porn" what should be gleaned from this?

    Since when was all porn male/female anyway?
     
    Last edited: 14 Oct 2011
  9. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Oink!

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    5,826
    Likes Received:
    315
    The claim was made (or at the very least insinuated) that women are not treated fairly and respectfully, and I posted a hypothetical response to that claim. Incidentally, nobody claimed that all porn is male/female, nor did anybody claim that you need to be a male to disrespect females - it is possible for females to disrespect other females and indeed to disrespect themselves.
     
    Last edited: 14 Oct 2011
  10. Nexxo

    Nexxo Queue Jumper

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    33,652
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    No, I am genuinely interested to know: how is the Song of Solomon, a public portrayal of sex, different from porn: a public portrayal of sex?

    Sex drive is what motivates some men (and women) to look at porn. Pre-existing issues turn it into an addiction. Not everybody becomes an alcoholic --they may have got drunk a few times, but then they grew up. Not everybody becomes addicted to food --even if eating is an intrinsic drive.

    This is a familiar debate. The way I try to explain it is that blame (and responsibility) does not follow the laws of thermodynamics. There is not a limited amount of blame to go about. It is not shared in a divisional sense; someone can still be fully to blame even if the other party has some blame also. So if a faithful and committed husband is seduced, he is still fully responsible for his behaviour. The seductress carries some responsibility also, but that does not take away any from his. 'Cause (as you have argued before) he should be able to control his sex drive, no?

    This is the inconsistency in your reasoning. You argue that people should be in full control of their sexual desires (no argument there). Then you say porn is bad because, essentially, it causes people to lose control over these desires. But if they are in control, porn should not cause them to lose it. If it does, then they were not in control in the first place. If porn by its very nature causes people to lose control, then people are by their very nature unable to control their sexual desires. Casual observation shows not everyone to be an out of control sex beast (giggity giggity giggity...) so we know the latter is not true.

    Except that an object has no control over how it is used or abused. The responsibility is entirely the user's.

    I will let the spurious claim that "most people masturbate to porn while looking at it" pass for a moment... So by your reasoning when someone plays an FPS game, that is an experience of aggression and arguably harmful, especially over extended periods of time?
     
    Last edited: 14 Oct 2011
  11. thehippoz

    thehippoz New Member

    Joined:
    19 Dec 2008
    Posts:
    5,780
    Likes Received:
    174
    well actually too much of anything is harmful.. despite the willpower of the person

    you stick a guy in a room with nothing but different strokes playing on a loop.. about the 2000th what you talkin bout willis and he/she will snap.. it may not even be an outward snap.. but that mind is definitely facked until it gets help

    porn addiction is real.. they hold classes on it

    [​IMG]
     
  12. Nexxo

    Nexxo Queue Jumper

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    33,652
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Sure, but you and I both know that you have to force someone to watch 2000 episodes of Different Strokes, and that if they do it of their own volition, they are crazy to start with. :D

    Sex addiction is real. But so is the predisposing pathology.
     
  13. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Oink!

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    5,826
    Likes Received:
    315
    The detailed account in The Song of Solomon is a portrayal of God-honouring marital sex that is not intended to titillate or arouse; all porn is intended to titillate and arouse, and afaik the vast majority of porn does not feature husband and wife. Some people call this book of the Bible "biblical pornography" which completely misses the point.

    This is demonstrably not true: pre-existing issues increase the risk of addiction, but cannot cause it; the only thing that causes addiction is the "fix" or "high" that people get from the addictive medium, in this case looking at and masturbating to porn (the entire experience, which culminates in ejaculation/orgasm).

    Your logic is flawed: losing control doesn't mean that you were never in control in the first instance; in fact, losing control necessitates that you were in control in the first place, because you can't lose something that you didn't have to begin with.

    In any case I wouldn't say it's so black and white (I was speaking in hyperbole when I said sexual desire "controls" people); there are degrees of control people have over their desires and urges, and I think it's fair to say that addicts stil have a very low degree of control over their addictive behaviour...otherwise it would be impossible for them to recover.

    Actually with porn that's not strictly true, because the vast majority of porn is not "Just" an object: all photographic and videographic porn features real, living, breathing, talking people, which is why it's entirely different from other addictive things like alcohol and cocaine... porn can be interactive and can seduce, and it is most definitely intended to. Eg. any of thousands of webcam girls:

    "Give me three of your credits and I'll take my panties off; give me ten credits and I'll play with my toys" etc.

    Let's assume somebody is innocently browsing the net and a smutty advert pops up, and they proceed to view and masturbate to porn. They are fully responsible for viewing the porn, but the "object" (in this case, the pictures or videos from the ad) definitely intended to be seductive and enticing, and succeeded in doing so.

    You need to get off the "violence = sex" hobbyhorse; they are entirely different things and cannot be interchanged. As for your rhetoric, a person playing a game is not experiencing REAL violience; the violence is simulated. Perhaps it can cause harm (much study has been done on this and opinion is, as always, divided) but it's outwith the scope of this debate. Contrarily, the person who masturbates to porn has a very REAL sexual experience: real physical stimulaltion and arousal, and real orgasm.
     
    Last edited: 14 Oct 2011
  14. Ayrto

    Ayrto New Member

    Joined:
    20 Jun 2007
    Posts:
    255
    Likes Received:
    3
     
  15. Nexxo

    Nexxo Queue Jumper

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    33,652
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Cool. We can then agree that not every display of nudity and sex is porn. The art is safe.

    I disagree. The "high" alone is not enough; getting drunk is not enough. Orgasm is not enough. What makes it addictive is the function it serves for the person.

    Now we are getting there! And what causes some people to have less control than others?

    A gun is built by people to be an instrument with a very particular, limited range of purposes in mind. But we convict murderers, not gun companies. I would argue that they share some of the blame, but the guy who aimed and pulled the trigger still is 100% responsible. He still had a choice.

    You need to stop dismissing comparisons just because they make you feel uncomfortable. The person wanking to porn is engaging in sex, but is not being sexually intimate with a real person. He is engaging in a fantasy. The person shooting characters in FPS is experiencing aggression, but he is not being aggressive towards real people. He is engaging in a fantasy. But the aggressive feelings are as real as the sexual feelings, and the comparison, whether you like it or not, is valid and within the scope of this debate.

    But it's OK. Most people, from childhood onwards, can reliably distinguish between fantasy and reality, and keep the two side-by-side but separate. :)
     
  16. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Oink!

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    5,826
    Likes Received:
    315
    The posts are getting shorter, which is definitely a good thing. My brain hurts. :D

    A gun is dangerous but entirely amoral; porn is different, because much of porn is human behaviour, not an inanimate object. As soon as behaviour is factored in, it is no longer amoral because it concerns people and how they treat themselves/others. I'm steering this a little away from your (otherwise valid) point, but I think it's an important distinction to make. There really aren't any fair and balanced comparisons for accountability, because the guy who keeps going back to the webcam girl isn't just going to an object (the PC), he is also going to a person who is also reponsible for their behaviour. He has a choice, but so does his seductress!

    Fair enough, and I get where you are coming from; but that's not to say I agree. Being able to distinguish between fantasy and reality is IMO an ambiguous (mis)representation of what porn addicts struggle to do; the truth is similar although far more complicated and there are these nuances (again).

    This video from Cindy Gallop, who professes to be a fan of hardcore porn, makes the point quite nicely - an unsatisfactory but crudely workable summary of this video in view of your statement is this: the "reality" is that women generally do not want to be treated the same way as women are treated in porn (anal sex, aggressive ********, swallowing, etc): the "fantasy" is that women DO want to be treated this way. It is clear from this video that men do in fact struggle to differentiate between the two, courtesy of hardcore pornography.

     
    Last edited: 15 Oct 2011
  17. Krazeh

    Krazeh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    12 Aug 2003
    Posts:
    2,111
    Likes Received:
    56
    I don't believe the point of the video was to say that hardcore pornography was the cause of 'young men' believing that what it depicts is how real life sex should be, it was that the lack of education and open discussion about sex means that they have no other point of reference. The video certainly doesn't say to me that young men and women are aware of the differences between 'real life' sex and the fantasy sex depicted in porn but are struggling to differentiate between the two. What it does say is that there's a serious lack of proper sex education available to teach them the difference.
     
  18. Nexxo

    Nexxo Queue Jumper

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    33,652
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    So does the company who keeps making guns that are used for murder. So does the gun shop. Or, to put it on a larger scale: so does BAE and the UK, which keeps selling weapons to dictators. And so does the bartender who keeps serving when the customer is drunk, and lets him walk out of the pub digging in his pocket for the car keys. In the psychology trade we call behaviour that helps people maintain their addiction 'enabling' or 'collusion'.

    You are arguing that FPS is different because the game producer is not actively involved; he just provides the means. I feel that is a cop-out. Perhaps it gets even trickier when we watch boxing: a live performance of two men pummelling each other a brain injury for public entertainment. I think that is more barbaric than webcam girls.

    And my points are these:

    1. Men and women who cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality have psychological issues. Even a four-year old knows the difference between pretend play and real actions. If people think porn is like real life it is, as Krazeh says, because they are ignorant and not educated differently. Sex is not a dirty shameful thing. As the Song of Solomon does, it should be celebrated as a normal human need and teenagers should be taught healthy ways to express it. It is an interesting fact that the Netherlands have very explicit sex education and open discussion about sex (and porn) and also have the lowest teen pregnancy rates.

    2. People who get addicted have pre-existing issues in emotional self-regulation. If it's not one thing, it's another: in my work I regularly see people not overcoming addiction but simply shifting it to another object relation. It's not the object. It's the function it serves.
     
    Last edited: 15 Oct 2011
  19. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Oink!

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    5,826
    Likes Received:
    315
    Of course that wasn't the point of the video - she is promoting pornography, after all! :naughty:

    At least it's clear that viewing hardcore porn absolutely does shape people's sexual perceptions and behaviour. From that premise, which people rationally accept as fact, the default assumption tends to be that these increasingly "dirty" (or hard, rough, hardcore-porn-esque, etc) sexual expectations and behaviour are a result of this poor education, as per the video. And herein lies the conundrum: is it just poor education, or might it be actual conditioning and addictive behaviour? They are entirely different things.

    As found by Dr. Patrick Carnes, the US's foremost expert on sex addiction, many people (his patients) who have been repeatedly exposed to (read: educated by) internet pornography struggle to perform sexually with actual partners because the fix just isn't there: real sex just isn't enough. They have been re-programmed or re-conditioned to depend on (rather than merely perform) a particular type of sexual behaviour, and this behaviour can't simply be unlearned. In view of the detrimental knock-on effect internet pornography has on families, Carnes has expressed deep concern regarding "family life, and how the internet is changing it all."

    I didn't say that at all - I said FPS is different because of the experience of the participant; what I said has nothing to do with the producers, who may or may not be culpable (now I did allude to that ;) ). I also agree that boxing is barbaric, but that's a different debate altogether.

    Presupposition/assumption, and also biased - see above. It's not so much that people think it is real life; it's that they require a similar experience to have any semblance of sexual fulfillment, rather than a "conventional" sexual experience.

    Very ambiguous - sex can be a dirty and shameful thing (rape) and porn most certainly can be and often is dirty and shameful. I have nothing against sex whatsoever, but to say or imply that all porn is "just sex and therefore acceptable/harmless" is very naive, especially in light of Dr. Carnes' research.

    On the other hand, I COMPLETELY and EMPHATICALLY agree that sex education here should be improved, and I really wish we did it as well as the Dutch. :)

    Give me a week to read through all the research papers I've bookmarked, and I'll get back to you on this one (not that I disagree... I need to properly inform myself on the subject). :thumb:
     
  20. Ayrto

    Ayrto New Member

    Joined:
    20 Jun 2007
    Posts:
    255
    Likes Received:
    3
    You've got to have some sympathy for the people at the BBFC who decide what cuts are needed on our behalf-no doubt by the logic of certain people posting here , these poor souls , in having watch this stuff over and over, must have been irreparably psychologically damaged by the process? I wouldn't be surprised, if right now they're receiving the highest levels care in the most secure environments after working for a few years at the BBFC ;). Either this, or the harm - causation claim is total bs and extrapolating out - the vast majority of the public, isn't likely be affected either.

    I hope this increasing emphasis on censorship isn't anything to do with the Tories being back in . The self styled: 'party of personal liberty' *chuckles*. In 1984(pretty apt) they introduced the Video recordings Act of 1984 , which effectively amounted to total ban on video porn being introduced overnight. The police raided sex shops and high street video rental stores accused, post- VR Act, of still selling/renting adult porn and so called, 'video nasty'horror VHS films( think Zombies etc) . VHS tapes were seized in dramatic police raids, (without compensation) then placed in huge piles on land fill sites , up and down the land, then finally bulldozed. Often with a Tory politician in attendance for a photo op . It was one big show of censorship strength by Thatcher. It's back at this time the current Tory politicians were first becoming active in the party; Cameron , Hague et al, so what does it say about these and their thoughts on personal liberty, no wonder they hate the Human rights Act.

    People who know about this party's past are always wary as to what their agenda for the internet is now, even when it starts with something innocuous, something many can broadly agree with, like this net filter option.
     
    Last edited: 15 Oct 2011
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page