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

News UK ISPs implement IWF censorship

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 8 Dec 2008.

  1. mmorgue

    mmorgue New Member

    Joined:
    16 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    386
    Likes Received:
    0
    The bottom line is, governing of censorship should be down to you, the individual and not a governing body who will not uphold the beliefs and freedoms that you do.

    I don't need the IWF to tell me what is or isn't appropriate to view -- as a fully functioning member of society I know right from wrong and choose to uphold what I believe in. So my viewing content should not be restricted based on what a group of "morally superior" people believe I can/cannot view.

    What if that group of people decide that images of burning <insert nation here> flags are deemed inappropriate? But we the people don't ?

    As an example, let's take the easiest topic to piggyback an all encompassing 1984 blanket of oppression : 'child abuse/porn'. Yes it's wrong and unacceptable and those who perpetuate it should be dealt with by the law. And we have dedicated areas of the law to search/find/dismantle and prevent this. But who in their right mind, or those with a mind, think blocking access to the material will stop these types of people?? It's a sickness, a mental disorder - just because they can't see the images doesn't mean the problem is gone!

    Just because you block access to Allie Akiebar's "How to build a jihadist bomb from simple household items" doesn't mean you stop fundamentalist muslims, does it? No. It means they'll find other means to get the material.

    I simply cannot see what difference the IWF are/will make apart from falsly allieviating the parents/yourselves/ourselves from being the ones to blame.

    I guess I'm just worried I'm going to lose access to my bukkake amputee midget and shetland pony pr0n... <sigh>
     
  2. impar

    impar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    24 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    3,107
    Likes Received:
    41
    Greetings!

    The "offending" image has been published over here in todays newspaper "Diário de Notícias", page 61.
    Dont see why that image has to be censored.
     
  3. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,361
    Likes Received:
    1,763
    It still shows that the solution to Totalitarianism in not lawlessness.
    Perhaps it shows that the IWF is prepared to learn from its mistakes. Internet law enforcement is all but nonexistent and in its infancy. It is frontier law here: harsh, swift and not very sophisticated in it's judgement. When it was the almost exclusive domain of geeks we did not need any laws, just as there were no laws on copyrights or censorship before the days of print. But now everybody is joining the Internet party, and the place is getting crowded and the crowd is getting a bit rowdy. House rules need to be set down, like in any society. And then they need to be enforced.

    Forum moderation: necessity or censorship? Discuss.
     
  4. impar

    impar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    24 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    3,107
    Likes Received:
    41
    Greetings!
    Necessary to curb excesses, spark topics and keep on-topic.
     
  5. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,361
    Likes Received:
    1,763
    Just as you worry that the IWF's censorship will set a dangerous precedent, so are they that allowing this image will. Sorry, but it is child porn, even if you can't see that. Even the creators of the album cover admitted it was meant to be controversial. Let it pass? Where do we draw the line?
     
  6. impar

    impar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    24 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    3,107
    Likes Received:
    41
  7. Xtrafresh

    Xtrafresh It never hurts to help

    Joined:
    27 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    2,999
    Likes Received:
    100
    do you always need to draw a line? It's not as if anyone has the capacity to scan the entire interwebs, so why not use some more common sense?

    At Nexxo's "necessity or censorship" question i would like to respond by quoting mmorgue:
    The necessity is there, but the measures need to be effective. Instead of blocking certain images from going to consumers, the IWF should go after the ones that put it there and take it completely off. Ofcourse this is hard in international law, and i have no easy answers for that. What i do know however is that raising more borders and building walls on a national scale is not going to be the answer to what is essentially a global problem.

    While in principle the IWF may (or may not) be right, their net effect on a larger scale is a very negative one. Much like a forum moderator who insta-bans everybody who disagrees with him/her would not be allowed to hid behind the cover of necessity for long. And yes, i am aware of the risks of discussing forum moderation with forum moderators :lol:
     
  8. impar

    impar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    24 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    3,107
    Likes Received:
    41
    Greetings!

    Regarding under-aged persons in provocative poses, my concern regarding the little dude with a big penis has not been addressed:
    http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?p=1860090#post1860090
    [​IMG]

    Ever since a forum member called him a "little guy" on that thread, I have perceived him as a little boy, showing of his unusual huge penis and with his right testicle out of the trousers.
    Therefore, I ask that offensive image to be removed from this forum.
    A line has to be drawn.

    Thanks.









    :D
     
    Last edited: 10 Dec 2008
  9. StephenK

    StephenK Sneak 'em Upper

    Joined:
    21 Dec 2006
    Posts:
    291
    Likes Received:
    2
    One can't help but notice that the actions of the IWF have shown this image to every person looking for child pornography on the net.

    On a personal note, whilst i think child pornography is wrong and sickening. I cannot support the actions of a group like the IWF. Why do they get to decide what is right and wrong? Some people here have said that 'some things are just universally wrong'. Whilst I will most probably agree with some people's lists of what is wrong, I may disagree with others. There is no universally right and wrong.

    As members of a global society we are self-censoring ourselves everyday. Most online communities have their own code of morals and each member picks their community based on what feels right to them. If BT condoned racism or homophobia I would 'self censor' my internet experience by going elsewhere. Child Porn isnt shoved in my face every time I go online. To access the really 'bad' material I'm pretty sure you need to go looking. Since most users dont go looking, is there anything to be gained by using poorly implemented 'moral' walls like this?

    Much like out DRM discussions. If this kind of censorship will only affect those who arent looking for child pornography because , like every cracked drm game, the people who it's supposed to stop will get around it easily, then what on earth is the point??
     
    Last edited: 10 Dec 2008
  10. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,361
    Likes Received:
    1,763
    I think equating that to child porn is a bit far-fetched (then again, if you see some Hentai... :p ). Child porn is a bit like most socially inappropriate phenomena: complex to define and explain, but a relatively balanced person recognises it for what it is. One may not know art, but one knows what one sees.

    On the other hand, you do have to sort of ask what kind of person would want to store images of the Simpsons child characters engaged in explicit sexual acts.

    Ask Wikipedia.

    I agree that the IWF went about it in completely the wrong (and kind of pointless) way. But I suspect it is learning as it goes along also. Thing is, as the internet is becoming more accessible and an as integral part of human society as TV or magazines, some sort of governance is going to be inevitable.

    Those providing internet content can either use some common sense and moderate themselves, or leave it to moronic institutions, but it is going to happen. What's the sensible choice?

    As I made clear in another post: porn is determined by the context and intention of the publication, not the impressions of the perceiver. Gay porn is still porn, even if it does not turn you on. A picture of the Eiffel tower is not, even though to some people it may be.

    So sorry, but this is your sexual deviance, you cope with it. :D

    Yes there is. Certain human needs and desires are universal: food, warmth, shelter, love and belonging, freedom, self-expression... Similarly certain behaviours are regarded as bad in all (relatively sane) cultures: murder, rape, abuse... To deny people their fundamental needs or to inflict harm or death on them is generally frowned upon.

    You don't have to look very far though. You are an intelligent, sane, moral human being; good on you. But there are people out there who are not --more than you think. Visit your local Social Services child protection team and ask why they are so overstretched... Just because you don't look for it doesn't mean nobody does.

    But that's by the by. The important thing is to divorce the motivations of the IWF from their ham-fisted actions. Just because their approach is ineffectual and stupid, does not mean they haven't got a point somewhere.

    Why do you lock your doors at night? A decent burglar will easily get past it (or else anyone with a crowbar). Why does your car have airbags? You think that is going to save you in a 70mph motorway crash?

    The point is about increasing the treshold of difficulty and about harm reduction. It may not be 100% effective, but at least it reduces the odds a bit. And in any case you feel that at least you are doing something. A bit like the IWF. :)
     
  11. StephenK

    StephenK Sneak 'em Upper

    Joined:
    21 Dec 2006
    Posts:
    291
    Likes Received:
    2
    This is a flawed statement. Your first observation (about human needs) in no way links to what you regard as bad behaviours. Are you seriously suggesting that cultures who have different ideas about 'correct' behaviour to you are somehow insane? I would love to see you list some countries that you regard as 'sane'. For me, this attitude is far too close to seeing African nations as primitive and savage for my liking. I may not agree with lots of what other cultures regard as normal but who they hell am I to decide that I can enforce my beliefs on them?? Oh those poor backwards savages, lets teach them how to live properly??

    You've missed my point. I didnt suggest that there were not people out there interested in this sort of thing. Nor did I suggest that just because I don't look doesnt mean nobody does. My point was that this approach was ill-considered and worrying. Their approach 'was' ineffectual and stupid , and does nothing to tackle the real problems or issues. Censoring images isnt stoping children from being abused. It isnt altering the sexual tendancies of child abusers and given that the censoring didnt work, it didnt even stop people from being able to see the images!! So what good did it do? It's not enough the 'have a point somewhere' , I can say that I believe terrorism is wrong... I may have a point. If my response is to kill all middle eastern people then my point is totally irrelevant. What I'm saying is that when a group of people feel something is wrong, their feelings (or points) are secondary to their actions.


    Did the drm on spore reduce the odds of it being pirated a bit? I lock my door at night because some crimes are opportunist. So yes, whilst i wont stop a determined thief, i might stop an opportunist. I get what you are saying about reducing odds but how on earth does censoring images reduce the odds or reduce harm? Odds of what? Odds of people being child abusers? The harm of children being abused? Odds of people who are looking for child porn finding any? C'mon.

    Whilst I still feel that what the IWF's personal morals are their own damn business. Who are they to enforce this on others? Why are social services overstretched? Perhaps they need funding so that they can try to help illeviate child suffering. Ask your local child services how many of their abuse cases are domestic abuse and non-sexual. Maybe if we focused on helping abused kids and keeping child abusers away from children we might do some good. But this isnt about that is it? It's about 'feeling' good about ourselves because we've 'done something'. As if doing something, ANYTHING, is better than doing nothing. Even if what you are doing, helps in no way at all and actually distracts from the real issues. So, lets pat ourselves on the back for a job well done. Whilst we raved about the dangers of an old album cover, children continued to be abused. Child abusers remained chiild abusers and continued to access child pornography. On the plus side, lots of people who we see as 'normal' and 'intelligent, sane, moral human beings' got stuck with behind some silly firewall rubbish. Wow. I guess we really did something to make the world a better place. See where I'm coming from?
     
    Last edited: 12 Dec 2008
  12. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,361
    Likes Received:
    1,763
    I think you are completely lurching to the other extreme of the argument now, mainly because you failed to read (or understand) the last sentence in that paragraph.

    "Bad" behaviours, i.e. behaviours that are socially disapproved of, are those that willfully and intentionally deprive other human beings of their needs or rights (food, warmth, shelter, health, love/belonging, freedom of expression etc.). This is why no matter what culture you visit, murder, rape, theft, child abuse/neglect, slavery etc. are generally frowned upon. There may be a few cultures where such behaviours are acceptable, but that is because they live in brutal circumstances where people are brutalised by these circumstances from cradle to grave; hence they become brutal in their behaviour and this becomes their cultural norm. We tend to consider such norms as "uncivilised". How do you feel about the Taliban again, by the way? Exactly.

    Certain social human values and rules are univeral because underneath all the cultural and ethnic differences, we're all the same humans with the same basic physical and social needs.

    That's a bit like saying the IWF responded to the cover by kiling all photographers. :rolleyes: However if you shut down a site that tells you how to build a bomb from household materials, bypas security in an airport and bomb a plane, then I doubt that anyone would consider that a violation of freedom of information, no matter how futile that act really is in preventing terrorism.

    The odds of people thinking it is acceptable to post sexual images of children on the internet, like locking your doors conveys the clear message it is not acceptable for anyone to just walk into your home and take your stuff.

    Thin end of the wedge --it works both ways. So far you have focused on sensorship. Now let's focus on normalisation.

    Yeah, because all these decent, normal, sane intelligent people really suffered not being able to access that obscure Wikipedia page. For all of 48 hours.

    I think you are losing perspective here. First off, the internet is not free (nor is the music on it, for that matter); it is someone's property. Organisations built it, maintain it, repair it, and keep it running and all that costs money. Some of it is government funded, some is commercially financed. ISPs finance their bit, and they charge us a fee for a service. They can, basically, decide what they provide to us as well as what they charge for it. If you as a customer don't agree, cancel your ISP subscription and go to an ISP that did not play along with this censorship deal. It is as simple as that. Vote, consumer.

    Back to normalisation. Second, as the internet is becoming a more integral part of society, it will become subject to the same social rules and censorship as TV, film and printed media. Censorship of child porn in those media has not led to a totalitarian regime of blanket censorship and control of those media. Neither has it changed anything about child sexual abuse or child abusers. But it has quite clearly conveyed the social message that child porn is not acceptable.

    The first step to normalisation of behaviour or viewpoint is to make it socially acceptable. The first step in that is to make it ubiquitous: people see it all the time, they habituate to it. After a while, they see it as no big deal anymore. At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, how did you think Hitler managed to get the whole German population to play along with systematically gassing six million Jews?

    We already blatantly sexualise women; it's no big deal. We normalise violence and drinking: it's no big deal. When there is a good football match in town, shop keepers board up the windows out of resigned habit. Police has to come out en masse to "control" the crowd. Hey, it's the beautiful game; no big deal. Friday nights, people get drunk and in fights and pass out on the street. A&E's flood to breaking point. It's no big deal. Like the Germans in 1940's Germany, nobody stops to think that this, perchance, is not normal, sane behaviour. You talk about savages? They are us.

    The IWF may have got it wrong, but it did have a valid point: "Hang on, should we just let such images go by unchallenged?". And if we do, what images will get by on the back of that precedent? At some point, we may not think anything of seeing sexualised images of young children anymore: it's no big deal. And then one day we won't think child sexual abuse is such a big deal anymore.

    "If you tolerate this, your children will be next" --Manic Street Preachers.
     
    Last edited: 12 Dec 2008
  13. Xtrafresh

    Xtrafresh It never hurts to help

    Joined:
    27 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    2,999
    Likes Received:
    100
    :sigh:

    AHA! Something we can finally agree on! :D

    The problem is, the IWF is a very, very poor model for such governance. First of all, it is national, with no jurisdiction outside of the UK. This means that as an internet agency, it is fundamentally flawed and unable to stop anyone with the brain to click to a hostingsite elsewhere. Secondly, it's approach is fundamentally flawed, trying to go about it the "Orwellian way": total control. Total control is A) an illusion B) very expensive, and C) morally objectionable. Your point that the IWF is still a "fledgling" and is still learning gives me the chills. What if they ever do become good at what they do? I wouldn't put it past any government agency to block all outgoing traffic from Bit-Tech for hosting this discussion.

    On a sidenote: i completely and utterly disagree with your statement on right and wrong. There are no such things, only in context. There are still nations where a girl is a "woman" at 12, and concidered too old to marry at 16. Wrong? in our context, yes, but just look at the age at which some of our finest members of the royal family got married. Aincient Greeks were known to have rather intimate relations with the boys that were their disciples, and a culture on Madagaskar regarded semen as a vital part of a young boys diet (not delivered in a sexual way btw). All of these cultures have their framework, and none are insane, yet all would call all the others insane. Would you have lived in any of the above ssocieties, you would have reasoned the same way, and thought nothing of it.
     
  14. StephenK

    StephenK Sneak 'em Upper

    Joined:
    21 Dec 2006
    Posts:
    291
    Likes Received:
    2
    Right and Wrong are temporal human constructs. They are decided by groups of people within a given social culture and time. In my country it was perfectly legal a few years ago for a man to rape his wife. Some 'civilised' countries still have the death penalty which other nations regard as murder. There was a time when it was generally accepted that black people should be slaves and were less intelligent than white people. Accepted medical fact in the civilised world... it didnt make it any less wrong. Rights and wrongs are what we decide they are. If the general population think its okay then we decide its right.

    Of course the internet isnt free. Of course it is an owned thing, with the service provided to consumers. The problem is that what if one country decides that child porn isnt wrong? Then what? Do we decide that their idea of right and wrong is insane? Then what? The American government decided (well the FBI but you get my point) that the image did not need to be censored. So how can we have a universal right? What you end up with is different mobs making up their own rights and wrongs. What about homosexuality? Right or Wrong? Depends on where and when you are. We consider things wrong now that will be legal and okay in 20 years. Nothing universal. Human suffering happens every single day. Some of it legal some of it not. We try our best as we move forward as a civilisation but we're far from perfect, our rights and wrongs are best guesses at the current moment, nothing more.

    The IWF may be simply wishing to convey a message that child porn is wrong. So what! Most of us apparently already believe that. So why is this message needed? And, since as you say the net is an owned thing, what if the country where the servers are makes child porn legal? Then what? Will each moral community need its own internet for it's own brand of right and wrong??

    The IWF didnt try and challange the idea of child porn being wrong. They sought to enforce their moral beliefs on others against their will. That is the problem. You say Hitler was wrong, I agree. At the time though, a group of people said he was right. It's all about people choosing what is right and wrong. Mostly we manage to do an okay job of it but who has the right to tell me that my sexuality or religion or my taste in music or entertainment is right or wrong?

    "If you tolerate this, your children will be next" --Manic Street Preachers.[/QUOTE]

    I don't want my children growing up in a world where independant groups decide what the rest of the world can do based on their own moral beliefs. :nono:

    And you know what. That may indeed be the case. I dont think so and I dont like the idea but there you go. How about a similiar debate from a few years ago...

    'Hang on, should we just let two men kiss in public unchallanged?' And if we do what will happen next? Will they be having sex? Will it be seen as okay or normal to be gay? At some point we may not think anything of seeing men kissing in our media and entertainment; it's no big deal.... then one day two men will be able to get married and our kids might get perverted by all this material and be made gay!

    See my point? Whilst I agree that child abuse is wrong (and also child porn but they are not the same thing mind you) thats my opinion. Now, most of us may indeed feel the same way, but the IWF think they have the right to challange something they dont like. I dispute that right. I also believe that child abusers will find sexually arousing material even if they have to go back to getting it posted to them in the mail.... so in the end, censorship is a pipe dream. You can't stop people by seeking to control their interactions with the world. We are not mind police, all we can do is wait for social norms to develop that make it unacceptable to do one thing or another. We can't force this. It's an organic process that is very hard, if not impossible, to manipilate.
     
    Last edited: 12 Dec 2008
  15. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,361
    Likes Received:
    1,763
    Good thing people objected to the rape thing, was it not? Or the black slavery thing? Or the death penalty? Changed some attitudes for the better? Or perhaps we should have accepted it as the legal, accepted cultural norm?

    I think you'll agree not. Because just like those few contradictory protesters then, we now generally accept it was wrong. Why? Because it violates basic human needs and rights. Homosexuality doesn't: a voluntary act between consenting adults. No human rights or needs are violated here.

    There are always cultural, political and tribal influences on what is considred "right" and "wrong" but you'll still find an awfully big overlap between different times and cultures. The morals of our current society for instance are based on a philosophy now about 2008 years old. In terms of fundamental "rights" and "wrongs" many religions and cultures from different times seem to wear remarkably well over time. Social rules are basically the same everywhere because social groups are basically the same everywhere: play nice with others, clean up your own mess, try not to hurt anybody, don't steal.

    In some nations life is simpler and children reach the status of adult sooner. A 12-year old girl may be married (although she will not live with her husband or have sex until about 16), but her husband is generally not much older (and in several cultures the girl can leave the husband once they have lived together if she feels he is not up to the mark. And in some, adulterous love relationships on the side are quite common).

    It all comes down to how psychologically healty or functional cultures are. Many may seem strange to us, but have a lot of sensible checks and balances. Others are outright dysfunctional (e.g. Taliban Afghanistan): people are miserable and unhappy, and soceity doesn't thrive. There is such a thing as a 'sick culture': one that fails to provide an environment and society in which people can generally thrive and survive. And yes, ours may be on the continuum...

    Most of us believe that now. If such images become the accepted norm, then perhaps we won't anymore. Perhaps we'll get that cultural drift in perception that you and XtraFresh mention. Is that a good thing?

    Anybody. Freedom of expression, remember? They just don't have a right to force their standards on you. Now you will say: "Ah! But isn't that what the IWF is doing?". No, because you can take your business to an ISP that does not co-operate.

    Sorry, are we still talking about the IWF, or about paedophiles? :p As I said before: it works both ways.

    No human rights or needs are violated by mutually consenting homosexual acts. That's kind of one important basis for deciding what is right and and wrong: mutual valid and informed consent.

    But you make a good point. You are (rightly) trying to separate moral judgement about the image from the moral principle of whether you can force your standards on others. Well no, you can't, it's wrong. The IWF should not have done what they did. But I do agree with their opinion on the image. Because that is the product of a few adults forcing their standards on a little girl (being a child, she could not give valid and informed consent on this particular issue). So it is kind of ironic that people object to the IWF imposing its standards on us, but nobody considers that the image, in fact, imposed some adults' standards on a child.

    Moreover, by not kicking up a fuss, such images may become more commonplace, and then we see a violation of the principle we so want to defend: that of freedom from oppression. It's all kind of connected, see?
     
    Last edited: 12 Dec 2008
  16. StephenK

    StephenK Sneak 'em Upper

    Joined:
    21 Dec 2006
    Posts:
    291
    Likes Received:
    2
    I'm merely highlighting examples of when something we now think is wrong was considered right. The reverse is also true. How about the middle ages ... we went into a period of what is now regarded as social decline. We went backwards and then had to do a u-turn. I fully understand where you are coming from with the idea that all humans are entitled to basic rights. From a natural standpoint this is perfectly sound. The problem is that the definitions of who is and isn't a person and what their rights are change all the time.

    Incorrect. Try looking at Aristotle (390 BC) and Siddhārtha Gautama (the founder of Buddhism, around 570BC). And before those, people who's names are lost in the history of about ten thousand years...

    But what's happened to these Universal rights and wrongs??? So NOW it isnt child abuse if it's in a 'simpler' country where the girl is somehow an adult sooner? So no universal wrong then....

    Incidentally, what does 'life is simpler' even mean and I thought all humans had the same rights and that they applied to everybody.

    Allow me to point you to this website : http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

    Look at the legal ages. 16 does come up a lot, but often the male can be much younger. Remember, it's not just young girls who can be abused. Some of those nations regard 12 as a legal age. If a 40 yr old woman was to sleep with a 12 yr old boy in the UK it would be seen as child abuse.

    The logic there is totally circular. They are sick because of what you think is healthy. How do you define what a healthy culture is? One that is thriving? How do you define thriving? Oh and the Taliban are not a culture, thats like me saying Westboro Baptist Church in place of American Culture...

    Maybe not to us. But no more than the abolishment of slavery was to some slave owners 150 years ago. Or the idea that the earth was round was to some religious groups at the time? Or the Age of Enlightenment. The list is endless and made up of things that you and I (for we do agree in our moral code it seems) would think right but was seen as wrong by the you and I of the time. But you and I are products of our society and our culture. We may believe that the basic idea is don't do anyone any harm but its very difficult to judge what exactly that is. I don't want to see child porn become a socially accepted form of entertainment but if society as a whole moved in that direction how would the members of that society even understand what our problem was with it? The same way we cant understand what a previous generations problem was with things like living together without being married, casual sex, organ transplants, etc etc. Things we are okay with. Also, remember, it's been argued over and over that open or legal homosexuality would corrupt our children, do them actual harm. How about violent video games turning our kids into violent killers? We might think it's silly but its no different to our suggesting that child pornography on the net can create child abusers? For why else would we focus on the pornography products (just inanimate images after all) instead of stopping the physical making of the product (the actual abuse) ?? Abusers wont stop abusing kids just because we don't let them put their pics on the net. So what are we doing attacking the symptom instead of looking at the cause.

    Not to get silly but that's like saying that when they did this without giving the consumers the warning and chance to change ISPs they somehow hadnt done anything wrong? If i punch a man without warning, its assault. I can't just say well, now that you know that i'm going to punch you again, who not just move away. Or if Australia or China bring in a national firewall, 'well, if you don't like it why not move country!'


    If, as you suggest, in some simpler life countries children become adults faster. Can a 12 yr old boy in Nigeria give consent to be filmed having sex with an older woman? He's legally allowed to have sex, regarded as an adult... Is it wrong still then? And if we think it's wrong, will banning the images from the internet stop the child abuse? Or just keep it out of our sight so that we can pretend it isn't happening?

    Sadly, I think it's a case of not in my back yard. And y'know what, it's perfectly understandable. If I'm really honest with myself, I wish it was as simple as banning the images. The horrible truth is that you can't put an end to child abuse, rape, murder, terrorism,etc and that makes me feel less safe. I think we want to feel safer, to make the world a better place. Since we can't stop child abuse we'll try and stop what we can. Just to give us a sense of control... just to make us feel a little better about the horrible world in which we live.
    We do it over and over, a terrorist attacks, deep down we know that it's almost impossible to stop terrorism but we keep ourselves busy with wars on terror, feeling like we're doing something so that we don't feel so damn powerless. The same happens after every school shooting, we blame rock music, and in a more modern setting, videogames (notice how we dont blame rock music anymore) , just as we blamed the devil for hundreds of years. We know it isnt true, and that it's human beings that are at fault. We just dont want to tackle that yet, so we call to have GTA banned, or guns, or drugs, or video nasties or entire systems of government, etc. Shame. All that energy, all that effort, used to sweep the real problems under the carpet but Life is just to short for us to spend our time fighting the real causes anyway. Maybe it's believing whatever helps us sleep at night.
     
    Last edited: 13 Dec 2008
    Bluephoenix likes this.
  17. impar

    impar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    24 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    3,107
    Likes Received:
    41
    Greetings!

    Regarding the line to be drawn:
     
  18. Bluephoenix

    Bluephoenix Spoon? What spoon?

    Joined:
    3 Dec 2006
    Posts:
    968
    Likes Received:
    1

    very well stated.
     
  19. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,361
    Likes Received:
    1,763
    No, simplified. Do you really want me to expand on where our cultural and societal norms come from? I could go back a bit further than ten thousand years. But regardless, it proves the point: our basic societal norms go way back.

    Yes there is. The adult role is a simpler one commensurate with the cognitive and emotional abilities of the youngster. More importantly her spouse is of roughly equal age.

    Life for a Mongol herdsman is simpler than for us. Considerably harder, with equally important problems, but not as complicated on many levels.

    Still culture, by any other name (you didn't think that was limited to national borders or ethnic groups, did you? Ever hear of Deaf culture?).

    And yes, there is such a thing as a "sick" culture: one in which people fail to thrive (basic human needs again). If you want a definition of thrive, let me refer you to a dictionary. Because arguing about semantics is an unproductive way to have a discussion.

    Science kind of provided the answer to those prejudices, didn't it? We know whether those things really are as harmful as people thought because research has told us.

    I'm not suggesting that child porn on the net creates child sex abusers; I'm suggesting that unchallenged child porn on the net normalises the inappropriate sexualisation of children, and that colludes with child sex abusers.

    No, but we don't have to collude with them either. We can't necessarily stop the abuse, but we can convey the social message to them and their victims that what they do is unacceptable.

    Research shows that the first step in planning child sex abuse is overcoming internal inhibitions. This is done by mental rehearsal and arousal (using child porn, almost others). The act is normalised. The second step is to overcome societal obstacles, because the act is generally frowned upon. The third step is overcoming the child's objections. It needs to be overpowered and/or groomed/persuaded.

    If inappropriately sexual images of children are normalised in society, then the perpetrator finds it easier to negotiate all these obstacles: internal inhibitions, because sexualisation of children is normalised by exposure; societal obstacles, because society habituates to the phenomenon; the child's objections, because it gets the message that sexualisation is normal so how can it refuse?

    Just think of the messages particularly young girls get already about their bodies. Anorexia for instance is a uniquely Western cultural problem (hey, you wanted an example of a 'sick' culture?).

    You can leave, can you? Changing ISPs is not emigration (even if it may feel that way to us. :p ). I switch credit cards when they decide to up the interest rates. Same thing.


    You know, we can argue the far end of a fart about different contrived scenarios and whether it will really make any difference to them happening. But that doesn't change the question: images of inappropriately sexualised children: should they be challenged or not? I think you and I both know the answer, even if we don't agree with the IWF's methods.
     
    Last edited: 14 Dec 2008
  20. StephenK

    StephenK Sneak 'em Upper

    Joined:
    21 Dec 2006
    Posts:
    291
    Likes Received:
    2
    Indeed we could go around in circles with this merry dance. We agree on some areas and not on others. To keep it simple then, if there is such a thing as a sick culture than I believe that neither you nor I would know it if it jumped up and bit us.

    One could argue that the entire human culture is sick by your logic as we can show examples (such as anorexia) of 'sickness' in all societies. I wrote a paper once on female body image in modern media and I can see where you are coming from about normalisation. Where we disagree is in that you feel that there is a way to decide what is right and what is wrong and I suggest that we are unable to make that decision.

    The sexualisation of children goes far deeper in our culture than the album cover. Look at children's clothing, tv programs, films, music,etc and you can find elements of sexualisation. This is the world we live in, a world of beauty pageants and belly tops. I don't want to see child porn on the internet but how can we, even with the best intentions, decide what is and isn't allowed?

    Sure we may not want to collude with child abusers by allowing child pornography to be seen as normal but how can we, with our own sickness and our own culturally imprinted ideas of right and wrong tell what normal is? I like the idea of doing no harm and respecting the rights of people. I just don't think we can apply these universally. It would be great if we could but our world just doesn't work like that. In the end I think we look at everything as it comes along and try our best to do the 'right' thing. I think the album cover should stay because people already decided that it was not illegal. End of story. The IWF thing is a separate issue (which we did move away from for a bit) but I simply feel that they were not elected to represent the public view. If a political party makes a few bad calls we don't vote for them next time, the IWF are self appointed and there is no transparency to their actions. We may indeed get to vote with our wallets, after the fact, but why are they deciding whats best for the rest of us? Did you ask them to? If indeed as you and I both do agree, child porn shouldn't be on the net (or at least as little as we can manage) why aren't they asking for our permission to take things down. Especially when they are blocking access to a page that they have no jurisdiction over as it's in another country.
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page