What the sh*t?! Tory c*nts-

[Jaymii]

Welcome back, CitizenGeek.

 

[memorium]

And do note i do not support porn, i just support freedom.

Those kinds of arguments are basically ********. Everyone accepts the state has the right to ban things that are harmful to society in general, or at least to limit the impact of those harms. If you think porn shouldn't have limitations placed upon it, then you can't make an argument about free speech (because free speech has always existed within a framework of regulations, eg. not shouting 'fire!' in a crowded room), you have to make an argument about porn not really being harmful at all, or not harmful enough to justify this extreme measure.

A lot of the evidence seems to show that pornography has an acutely negative impact on the sexual development of children. It gives them the wrong impression of what sex is in reality and deforms their impressions of women (in the case of men). Adults can distinguish between reality and porn, children and teenagers largely have greater difficulties with this. So, while I'd prefer an opt-in rather than an opt-out system (i.e., the status quo remans but parents can choose to opt-in to a situation whereby all porn sites are banned from the internet in their homes), I think it's probably for the better that this legislation goes through.

It's the parents' or carers' responsibility to ensure that children and/or adolescents under their care don't allow their children to watch porn, if a child's mind is warped by seeing such things then surely the blame ultimately belongs to the person who looks after them, possibly their peers as well, it should be up to the people who look after children/adolescents to educate on matters such as this, rather than have the state outright ban it.

ALso, you say that pron has a negative impact on the way that males percieve women, that's true, but there are other things that give a negative perception, such as thetop models you see in magazines, people grow up with an idea of what a woman should look like, does this mean we should ban lad's mags and lingerie adverts as well?

You would also have to consider financial matters, a system such as this would be very, very costly, now considering that the government is banging on about saving money during this ghastly recession we're having, shouldn't they be focusing on economic recovery rather than a matter as trivial as this?

 

[CitizenGeek]

It's the parents' or carers' responsibility to ensure that children and/or adolescents under their care don't allow their children to watch porn, if a child's mind is warped by seeing such things then surely the blame ultimately belongs to the person who looks after them, possibly their peers as well, it should be up to the people who look after children/adolescents to educate on matters such as this, rather than have the state outright ban it.

You have it all wrong. Ultimately it's up to the state to ensure the welfare of it's citizens. For example, if the parents don't perform their duties properly and allow their children to watch porn (or engage in other harmful activities), then it's the children, and not the parents, that suffer. As such, it has to be up to the state to protect children from these harms.

ALso, you say that pron has a negative impact on the way that males percieve women, that's true, but there are other things that give a negative perception, such as thetop models you see in magazines, people grow up with an idea of what a woman should look like, does this mean we should ban lad's mags and lingerie adverts as well?

This is an important point. I accept that adverts and television promote unhealthy attitudes towards women and sex among youth, but it's much less harmful than pornography. I think it falls into a category of an acceptable harm; that is, it's harmful, but not so much so that it should be banned. Smoking and drinking are harms, but not so harmful in general as to warrant banning. There are still restrictions placed on these harms though, such as bans on underage drinking or smoking and regulations for advertising. I think that porn is an acceptable harm (or maybe even not harmful at all) for adults, but it is unacceptably harmful to young people because it warps and disfigures their sexual development. So, in the same way that we ban smoking and drinking for young people, we should do the same with pornography.

You would also have to consider financial matters, a system such as this would be very, very costly, now considering that the government is banging on about saving money during this ghastly recession we're having, shouldn't they be focusing on economic recovery rather than a matter as trivial as this?

I'm not convinced it would be that expensive. Why do you think it would it be so costly?

 

[memorium]

But the parent's can't always take the state for granted, ultimately it's up to them to keep their children out of harms way, with the the state taking action as an upmost last resort, as for it being expensive, first of all, you'll have to filter everything on a national scale to make sure that no computer can access such material withoout permission from the ISP, but then you have to deal with people who find a way round the filters via illegal methods, and ultimately prosecute them, at the end of the day, i see something as large scale as this is nigh impossible to enforce properly, it'll be a waste of resources unless they give me a clear plan on how the hell they'll do this

 

[shira]

I'm not convinced it would be that expensive. Why do you think it would it be so costly?

Even though the Internet Service Providers’ Association in the UK said it would be expensive and difficult to block porn, the British government is pressing for this action.