I've heard a bit about this so called 'war on porn' in the US recently, with the FBI cracking down on porn sites with 'unacceptable content'. This is crap.

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20051010121136948

Seriously, what the hell? Is America going all fascist on us? When you can have your house raided and equipment siezed for owning a porn site ... hell - a *writing* site - that's screwed.

[Edit to change link]

[ October 12, 2005, 11:19: Message edited by: Aikanaro ]

I guess Mills and Boons publications better watch out:

"with his hands clutching her sweaty waist, hot breath..."

Yes ban this filth!

... obviously they have never heard of free speech.

Yet another attempt to distrract the people from the important things like, say, the economy, the global warning, the war in Iraq.... *shakes head*

It has always been so in US, apparently, for I saw only a little while ago a document about Hustler and its founder. Back then the rebublicans wanted to sush up people and still they do that, having a majority in the senate and even the president is an old fart with traditional views. But think positively: 51% voted for rebublicans to get this. They get what is coming for them. :D

By the way, why can't they try closing down those annoying spam-porn-free-xxx-Pamela-Anderson sites instead of the good ones...?

In before the apologists.

Also, someone tell the idiots in charge that you can't war against porn. Waddya gonna do, bomb their headquarters? This is almost as stupid as the War on Terro or the War on Drugs.

But think positively: 51% voted for rebublicans to get this. They get what is coming for them. [Big Grin]Agreed. I said it the day after the election, and I say it again, they get what's coming for them. Except those that voted on anything that's not Republican, I feel for them.

War on porn won't work if you can't prevent people from acting the same way in real life. So you can shut down some magazines or manufactories but you can't make people dress up, stop lewd behaviour and so on, or guess what happens on the left side of the politics. :rolleyes: Not like legislation and police actions are an efficient way of doing that. Hmmm... paradox? Perhaps. After all, to change people's behaviour, we need to address the culture. Education, media, whatever. Means war on porn. And so the circle closes...

or guess what happens on the left side of the politics.No, can't guess. Please elaborate.

Suppression of personal freedom and citizens' right, of course. It was but a rhetorical figure.

Suppression of personal freedom and citizens' right, of course. This was but a rhetorical figure.I'm sorry, but this is not the leftists' fault, this is entirely of the Fascist part of the right to blame with their morale police, not the left.

Child pornography is a major target of the FBI -- and it should be. Whether it is pictures or stories should make no difference. Graphic porn literature depicting child molestation (for the sole purpose of the reader's sexual gratification) SHOULD be closed down.

Perhaps we may want to rethink the link given the topless woman that greets us when we click on it.

Aikanaro, shame on you. You should have given a warning the link was to a porn site. (I guess the X in the name should have clued me in, I'm a little slow today).

@Rutkowski

The left is just as guilty of suppressing free speech as the right. The left just calls it different things like "political correctness". Shouting down a republican/conservative speaker isn't "suppressing free speech" it is "a protest". In regards to porn, I'm sure you will find many if not all feminist groups opposed to it, and they tend to be leftist also.

Perhaps we may want to rethink the link given the topless woman that greets us when we click on it.Not for me. In fact, I scoured around on the website for a while, and while it's dedicated to report about the porn business, no pornographic images have yet to be seen.

The left is just as guilty of suppressing free speech as the right. The left just calls it different things like "political correctness".Off course, but this one isn't to blame on the left, this is entirely the rights', and only the rights', fault.

A porn advertisement shows up on the right -- perhaps it's random and only I have gotten it.

Yeah, couldn't say it better than Snook did. The left thinks it has a monopoly on everything "freedom" or "tolerance" but the reality is way behind the dreamy facade. Political correctness is a totalitarian system.

While I agree that child porn should be restricted and strongly enforced, that's not what this is about. It's about people 18 or over engaging in consensual sexual acts, being viewed by people 18 or over. What the hell is the problem? I'm not into that stuff, and maybe none of you are either, but I don't see the harm we're doing if this is adult content being viewed by adults. As Ara has already rightly pointed out, there are much more important matters to be dealing with. My tax dollars at work... on this...

First, I'm with T2Bruno - porn advertisement appeared on the right side of that site...and unless I'm mistaken posting such links is against rules here.

@Aldeth - one problem with porn is that

It's about people 18 or over engaging in consensual sexual acts, being viewed by people ...OFTEN LESS than 18. In fact most of those most interested in porn are either below 18, or above 40.

In fact most of those most interested in porn are either below 18, or above 40.Most, but it's very close.

The link in the first post also holds the news article being discussed here, so it's rather hard to just kill the link, unless someone can provide an alternative link to the news story.

From the story, there were stories about having sex with children. That alone is enough to warrant shutting down the site and incarcerating the owner. Then when you throw in the other perverted **** (like beastiality), I conclude that it's no great loss to society. I guess that the FBI is truly a blessing...

From the story, there were stories about having sex with children. That alone is enough to warrant shutting down the site and incarcerating the owner. Maybe in Canada, but in the US we have something called freedom of speech. I may find such stories repugnant to the extreme, but unless these are "based on a true story" or "written from experience", there's no crime in writing a story. Noone's forced to read them, and the thought police aren't quite official yet. :p

I actually think sites such as these could prove a great resource to the FBI and other law enforcement. If they could track who looked at the pedophile stories, they could quickly amass a list of people to keep an eye on. But simply shutting down a site just means a slight inconvenience to the pedophiles as they have to choose from the other 15 million sites. Or, worse yet, they may decide that it's time to start practicing. I'd rather have them whacking off to some words on a computer screen than violating a child.

You mean that the United states has no laws against Child pornography? Damn that's a shock...

No, we have laws against pornography period. But not even the legislators take them seriously. I believe there are also a couple places where prohibition (no alcohol for anyone) was never repealed, but they don't enforce those either.

Gah - sorry if the link has porn and such in it - I didn't get that ad and haven't seen anything else of the site - I'll replace it with the link to the story where I got the link from :)

And Gnarf - it's not like these were pictures of children - not even faked pictures. These were stories ffs - who exactly is being damaged here?

I wonder how long it will be before 'War on Freedom' is declared (openly, anyway).

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.

@ Arendil

Way to take a line from my post completely out of context. I'm only going to focus on the "under 18" part of your comment, because the "over 40" part is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

As for the purveyors of porn, it doesn't matter if a large chunk of people who are under 18 are trying to access their product, provided they have reasonable procedures in place to not sell to these people, and they do. In fact, they have similar practices to other age restricted products. You have to be at least 18 to purchase cigarettes, and at least 21 to purchase alcohol. Should we ban the sales of these products too? Or are you suggesting that no under-aged individuals use these products? :rolleyes:

Look, for direct over-the-counter sale of porn, it's definitely on the owner of the store to make sure he's only selling to clients who are at least 18. From what I understand, if you are on the internet and purchasing anything - porn or not - they ask if you are the holder of the credit card account that you are using to make the purchase. If you are under 18 years of age, you aren't the holder of the account, because credit card companies can't enter into contractual agreements with people under 18 years of age. That's not to say that there are no people under the age of 18 with a credit card, but in such instances the account holder is someone over 18 who had the under-aged person placed on the account.

I'm assuming that there's no such thing as a free porn site. These sites are in it for making money. If you are purchasing that material and claiming that you are the primary holder of the credit card account, you are committing fraud. That's not the internet site's fault. It's either on the purchaser or (more likely) on the person holding the account who is over 18.

@Aldeth

I envy you - it seems that you live in a country that has means of enforcing the law. Sadly, there are many cases in Poland when noone does anything about few specific crimes. Example: taking profits from prostitution is against our law, yet in fact it is quite legal, only under different name, like ...erm..."massage room" in place of a "brothel".

Pornography is even more complicated case. In theory illegal (if you want exact terms ask chev), in practice never punished, mostly due to lack of good definition what that is, or because of "little harm done to society" - those against porn hear this phrase a way too often.

Everyone here can buy whatever porn he/she/it wants, wherever, and whenever he/she/it wants. Although, in theory you have to be at least 15 to do so...


I'm assuming that there's no such thing as a free porn site. I'm sorry, but this is completely, and entirely wrong. There are plenty, most with free samples of films, photos, etc. Not to mention illegal sites...truth is - only intelligence of parents stands between their children, and porn from internet...

There are plenty, most with free samples of films, photos, etc. Not to mention illegal sites...truth is - only intelligence of parents stands between their children, and porn from internet Obviously, I do not frequent porn sites enough to know this. I was under the impression that virtually all of them existed to make money, and as such you were charged for their services. Sites such as this are not making reasonable efforts to prevent minors from accessing their sites.

As far as the law enforcement goes, well, that's the premise behind this new initiative. That having been said, I mostly agree with Poland's assessment, that it isn't doing much harm to society, and as such, there really isn't a need to spend a large amount of resourcing combating the problem.

As for prostitution, I imagine that you have that in every city with a decent sized population all over the world. It's also very hard to arrest people for prostitution also, as it basically requires working under cover as a police officer. You can't just arrest every scantily clad woman on every street corner and charge them with prostitution.

I suppose that if the powers that be get their way They could block the entirely of sites dedicated to porn-as has been done in China. Of course, once they do that, it would certainly lead to other temptations... say, blocking alternate view websites criticizing government policy, sites dedicated to free thinking and free living... basically any site that doesn’t agree with the instigators of the whole thing... so... what sites are left? (http://www.bible.com/)
I suppose this leaves a lot online for the American polulation to view. After all, its long and it says everything... doesn't it? :rolleyes:

Obviously, I do not frequent porn sites enough to know this. I was under the impression that virtually all of them existed to make money, and as such you were charged for their services. Sites such as this are not making reasonable efforts to prevent minors from accessing their sites. The basic idea behind it is to give out free samples (like those teeny cups of ice cream) to entice you to buy access to the rest of the content. But in practice, all it does is allows anyone access to those samples. I was even once redirected (while surfing a regular site to which I never went back for fear of further redirects) to a site that did nothing but collect links to samples. :rolleyes:

@Felinoid - Yep...I remeber once, I "googled" for "roguelike RPG", clicked on the second link, and it redirected me to a porn site... :mad: ...

@Aldeth - You disappointed me...first it is NOT a question whether this law makes sense or not, it is a matter of enforcing existing one. That makes a country lawful and civilized. Then it is harmful to society when teens somewhere around 15-17 age, or sometimes even younger, can buy whatever porn they want...I thought you agreed with me on that one, my mistake...

@Aldeth: There's even that law somewhere in the States that undercover officers can strip naked to perform an arrest. This is because prostitutes started requiring you to strip naked before arranging the deal. Come on, that's freaking slutty. I don't want girls (or guys, for that matter) like that in the police!

Obviously, I do not frequent porn sites enough to know this....Enough? :shake:

Oh, and there's no such thing as free porn -- in the sense that everyone involved pays the price in one form or another. I'm not talking about karma, but doing such things for money affects people. Making others do it and profiting from it does so. Watching it, too.

Then it is harmful to society when teens somewhere around 15-17 age, or sometimes even younger, can buy whatever porn they want...I thought you agreed with me on that one, my mistake... No, I do agree with you that people within the age of 15-17 should not be able to purchase porn. I'm saying that people aged 18 and older should be able to if that's what floats their boat. I don't support porn sites, but shutting them all down is a violation of freedom of speech. The problem isn't the porn sites, it's the fact that minors can access them. Just like the problem isn't the people who produce beer, but the people who drink and drive, and minors who also abuse it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously, I do not frequent porn sites enough to know this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...Enough? I had that one coming. Good one.

There's even that law somewhere in the States that undercover officers can strip naked to perform an arrest. This is because prostitutes started requiring you to strip naked before arranging the deal. Come on, that's freaking slutty. I don't want girls (or guys, for that matter) like that in the police! Actually, those are the very ones I'm glad to have on the police force. Taking the extra necessary step to get criminals off of the streets is to be commended, not scorned. Such actions only show that law enforcement will take whatever steps are necessary to comlete the job, no matter how distasteful those steps may be to them.

Simply giving up on enforcing a particular law because the "bad guys" have a way to screen out cops is, well, giving up. And that's not the kind of wimps I want patrolling my streets.

BTW, good one chev. :grin:

well, i actually think it is legal for kids(under 18) to watch porn as much as they want, on sites from other countries that is eg. Denmark, i'm not sure if there is a minimum age for viewing porn(if there is it is 15 or 16), like it is legal to post torrent files in sweden(if you know what that is

I don't know if it's been mentioned or not, but porn, in pictureor written form, is not protected speach and, as such, people have no inherrant right to it. I know Arabwel mentioned freedom of speach.

@Felinoid:

Actually, those are the very ones I'm glad to have on the police force. Taking the extra necessary step to get criminals off of the streets is to be commended, not scorned. Such actions only show that law enforcement will take whatever steps are necessary to comlete the job, no matter how distasteful those steps may be to them.Question is, are the steps necessary? Often those cops' superiors would rather they lost the case than had done that. Policemen are not just guys with guns who are on our pay as opposed to guys with guns who are not. Policemen are guardians in the society and as such they need to maintain a certain moral high ground. That high ground is lost when the distinction between the good guys and the bad ones is blurred. Is it really better to use sex to put someone into jail than to earn money? Come on, I could come up with a dozen arguments to support an improvised frivolous thesis that what prostitutes do is better than what cops do in such cases. And the more I think about it, the less frivolous the thesis sounds to me.

Simply giving up on enforcing a particular law because the "bad guys" have a way to screen out cops is, well, giving up. And that's not the kind of wimps I want patrolling my streets.But don't we give up if we have the police do what prostitutes do (use sex as a job tool)? If you were a woman and your husband a policeman, would you like him to get naked to make an arrest? What if female undercover decoys started undressing because johns wouldn't believe them to be real prostitutes if they didn't? Now imagine your gf or wife or daughter or sister is one.

Heck, every intelligence service probably has a batallion of special agents who are slutting "for king and country". I don't like the idea of public authorities dabbling with such things. It's not like I'm a prude. I mostly don't even care to care. But some things are just disturbing.

Question is, are the steps necessary? Often those cops' superiors would rather they lost the case than had done that. Policemen are not just guys with guns who are on our pay as opposed to guys with guns who are not. Policemen are guardians in the society and as such they need to maintain a certain moral high ground. That high ground is lost when the distinction between the good guys and the bad ones is blurred. Is it really better to use sex to put someone into jail than to earn money? Come on, I could come up with a dozen arguments to support an improvised frivolous thesis that what prostitutes do is better than what cops do in such cases. And the more I think about it, the less frivolous the thesis sounds to me. I assume this was meant to provoke a :bs: reaction, but I'll respond to it anyway. The cops are not having sex for money; the line is still clearly defined.

But don't we give up if we have the police do what prostitutes do (use sex as a job tool)? If you were a woman and your husband a policeman, would you like him to get naked to make an arrest? Well, it's not Plan A. I'm sure a number of things have happened that led to this unfortunate state of affairs. Undercover cops have a lot of psychological tricks to get out of bad situations, but they don't always work, and some allowance needs to be made for that.

What if female undercover decoys started undressing because johns wouldn't believe them to be real prostitutes if they didn't? :shake: Never going to happen. To put it bluntly, a john should not be expecting to get something he hasn't paid for yet. IOW, "No sampling the merchandise." And once he's offered, that's all you need to make the arrest.

Now imagine your gf or wife or daughter or sister is one. Now that's a different subject entirely. If someone you know is a cop, do you treat them like you would other cops? I don't think so.

The police force is not the knighthood; it has little to do with providing a shining beacon to humanity. Their job is the dirtiest one you can imagine, trudging through the filth of human society and trying to clean it up. You can hardly expect someone who cleans out a sewer pipe to come home smelling like roses. Yes, they should be better than the common criminal, but not so much so that they are prevented from doing their jobs.

@NOG: and just where does it say that?

Dittoing what Ara says and also:

'Freedom of speech', to me (and hopefully to everyone, seeing that it's not freedom if there are limitations attached to it) is freedom of *all* speech, not just that which you agree with. You might find it disgusting and wrong, but to define what speech can be free or not is totally screwing with the concept of freedom.

@Felinoid:

I assume this was meant to provoke a reaction, but I'll respond to it anyway. The cops are not having sex for money; the line is still clearly defined.Oral isn't sex?

Well, it's not Plan A. I'm sure a number of things have happened that led to this unfortunate state of affairs. Undercover cops have a lot of psychological tricks to get out of bad situations, but they don't always work, and some allowance needs to be made for that.So in order to fight the bad things we need to allow more bad things to happen? So, again, as an example, if we were to have a war on porn, should we send undercover female cops to take part in castings for porn actresses?

Besides, I'm a handsome guy, myself, and very charming, and I would never even think about using sex as a means of getting something. :p It's so incredibly cheap...

Never going to happen. To put it bluntly, a john should not be expecting to get something he hasn't paid for yet. IOW, "No sampling the merchandise." And once he's offered, that's all you need to make the arrest.Sampling could hurt business, but there is such a possibility. It doesn't have to be undressing, just something a decent woman wouldn't do. Besides, what about male prostitutes? Or, more in context of our current topic, what about hypothetical female undercover cops pretending to be porn actresses?

The police force is not the knighthood; it has little to do with providing a shining beacon to humanity. Their job is the dirtiest one you can imagine, trudging through the filth of human society and trying to clean it up. You can hardly expect someone who cleans out a sewer pipe to come home smelling like roses. Yes, they should be better than the common criminal, but not so much so that they are prevented from doing their jobs.A reasonable degree of morals? Naah, it doesn't work like that. ;) Sometimes you need to shoot a poor lost idiot before he has a chance of detonating his not even certainly working home-made bomb, but come on, sex is not part of the job. I believe we've had enough of cross-gender searching (police, prison guards, even teachers) and watching (prison guards), as well as naked scanning ideas (airport guards who aren't even public officers), we don't need special slutty units in the police. Not even as a part of the war on porn.

Sometimes you need to shoot a poor lost idiot before he has a chance of detonating his not even certainly working home-made bomb, but come on, sex is not part of the job.Are you suggesting that shooting a potentially innocent person is somehow more ethical than the aforementioned sex-related activities that conclusively *prove* the culprits are guilty?

Policemen are guardians in the society and as such they need to maintain a certain moral high ground. That high ground is lost when the distinction between the good guys and the bad ones is blurred.But the high ground isn't lost when shooting first and asking questions later?

Oh, for crying out loud... Why do people always start crusades at the weirdest possible targets? Yes, porn is hardly moral, but compared to a war on corruption, organized crime or merely drugs it is like having a pillow-fight with your boyfriend/girlfriend compared to beating them unconscious. Why not persecute mercenaries, since killing people for money is inherently worse than having sex for money - I hope no one will argue that. Compared to all that goes on today in society, I think porn is the last thing we should worry about. Frankly, I think the "moralists" who propose such measures to appeal to their audience/electorate/whatever complete hypoctites. This isn't a religious topic, but I think we could argue that Christianity itself is more lenient on lust than on avarice - but of course I don't expect a war on greed coming anytime soon. Do you?

Oral isn't sex? :confused: Yes, it is sex; they just wouldn't be doing it.

So in order to fight the bad things we need to allow more bad things to happen? So, again, as an example, if we were to have a war on porn, should we send undercover female cops to take part in castings for porn actresses? :hmm: Actually, that's not a bad idea if they really want to take the fight into the porn-makers' turf. Still, it would take an officer with very low morals to subject herself to something like that, so I doubt it'd be feasible.

Besides, I'm a handsome guy, myself, and very charming, and I would never even think about using sex as a means of getting something. It's so incredibly cheap... Same here, but that just means we don't have what it takes to sacrifice our dignity for the greater good. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Police work is a dirty job. So don't talk down about them just because you can't cut it.

Ban porn? Which heathen spouted that blasphemy!?!

Same here, but that just means we don't have what it takes to sacrifice our dignity for the greater good. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Police work is a dirty job. So don't talk down about them just because you can't cut it.Don't make self-sacrificing heroes of people who are ready to sacrifice morals for gain, whether of their own or their society's.


Actually, that's not a bad idea if they really want to take the fight into the porn-makers' turf. Still, it would take an officer with very low morals to subject herself to something like that, so I doubt it'd be feasible.What if they found such an officer? Do you want people like that to parade around in shining uniforms, collect medals and be presented as heroes of the community yadda yadda?

Yes, it is sex; they just wouldn't be doing it.Check out my thread about the conduct of cops during sex-related investigations. There are accounts of policemen allowing a degree of sexual contact, including touching women's pubic areas or receiving oral services.

But the high ground isn't lost when shooting first and asking questions later? Are you suggesting that shooting a potentially innocent person is somehow more ethical than the aforementioned sex-related activities that conclusively *prove* the culprits are guilty?Someone who claims to be going to detonate a bomb in a crowded area is hardly innocent. That kind of necessity is self-defence on the part of the society, whereas having oral sex to put a prostitute in jail is a totally different matter.

Someone who claims to be going to detonate a bomb in a crowded area is hardly innocent. That kind of necessity is self-defence on the part of the society, whereas having oral sex to put a prostitute in jail is a totally different matter.You're tweaking the mentioned situations a bit to fit your own arguments here, so you probably don't mind if I do the same:

I believe there is a bit bigger picture involved than *a* prostitute - pimps, prostitution rings, organized crime. And did you happen to read about the police force of London shooting dead a man who panicked and fled - who only was a suspect because of his skin tone and turned out not to be carrying any kind of explosives at all?

Don't make self-sacrificing heroes of people who are ready to sacrifice morals for gain, whether of their own or their society's.Isn't that "gain" a greater good? I'd be qurious to hear your answer to the ages-old question "Would you kill the young Hitler if you got the chance?"

Putting a bit coldly, the greater good is plain mathematics. Saving x number of people at the cost of y. If a prostitution ring (or a group making child pornography or such, just to get a *little* bit back on topic here) gets busted with a couple of cops voluntarily going the extra mile and doing distasteful things, I accept that.

I believe there is a bit bigger picture involved than *a* prostitute - pimps, prostitution rings, organized crime. And did you happen to read about the police force of London shooting dead a man who panicked and fled - who only was a suspect because of his skin tone and turned out not to be carrying any kind of explosives at all?That was extreme. He wasn't threatening or claiming anything. IIRC he was shot when already incapacitated, BTW.

Isn't that "gain" a greater good? I'd be qurious to hear your answer to the ages-old question "Would you kill the young Hitler if you got the chance?"The answer is no.

Putting a bit coldly, the greater good is plain mathematics. Saving x number of people at the cost of y. If a prostitution ring (or a group making child pornography or such, just to get a *little* bit back on topic here) gets busted with a couple of cops voluntarily going the extra mile and doing distasteful things, I accept that.That kind of good is called convenience.

I think the point they make is that to bust an illegal porn ring (child porn, snuff films, rape porn) someone has to be exposed to that ****. I can tolerate the legitimate porn industry (even though I don't support them), but the illegal stuff needs to get shut down and punished hard.

I can tolerate the legitimate porn industry (even though I don't support them), but the illegal stuff needs to get shut down and punished hard.That is exactly my opinion too. If it's illegal, shut it down. Otherwise, it's protected under the constitution.

However, if the website is located outsite of America, you can't do ****. Sorry, but even if it's right to shut it down, you can't, unless it is in your juridiction.

The answer is no.Fair enough. Sometimes your arguments make it seem like taking lives is more acceptable than questionable sex-oriented things, but apparently you don't think that way. Maybe I read too much into it.

That kind of good is called convenience.Now that. I can't believe you said that. Is a shining moral example, a spotless shield more important than busting criminals, perhaps the type Gnarfflinger mentions above, and saving a lot of people in the process? Is it "convenient" to save lives?

I agree that the stuff mentioned in the thread about the conduct of cops during sex-related investigations was somewhat crossing the line, doing things that weren't *necessary* to do. But in the above examples the people who you say are "sacrificing morals" are doing it so that other people wouldn't have to. So that countless other people wouldn't get forced into doing that kind of thing. Who says they enjoy it?

When it obviously isn't currently possible that *no one* would do or be forced to do that sort of stuff; isn't one person doing it better than a hundred people doing it?

I can tolerate the legitimate porn industry (even though I don't support them), but the illegal stuff needs to get shut down and punished hard. :eek: I agree with Gnarff!!! :eek:

Basically, as long as the site/maganize/book/broadcast/etc. has at least some value outside of its porn content, it is protected under freedom of speech. That's why publications such as Playboy and Penthouse have actual genuine articles in the magazine as well, so that they can say that there magazine has "literary value" and isn't just porn.

There have been many Supreme Court cases concerning freedom of speech as it relates to porn, and basically, so long as your product has something in the way of a redeeming quality about it, it's protected. It probably goes without saying, but sites that have rape porn, child porn, etc., have no redeeming qualities.

Ara, the supreme court has determined, and repeatedly upheld, that 'speach' must meet certain criteria to be called 'protected speach'. For example, someone yelling "Fire!" in a crouded theater is not protected by the constitution. I don't remember what all the criteria are, but they're fairly basic stuff. You can probably find it with google.

Oh, for crying out loud...Anything even closely resembling port was outlawed in Victorian society, I'm not sure that made it all that better. I'll claim it again - compared to all that is wrong in society, porn is so far from the top on my list it's not even funny.
War on porn... yeah, right.

Which is worth noting, in the Victorian period, it was nohing out of the ordinary for a mother to breast-feed in public and, for all I know, people still swam in rivers or lakes in mixed company before swimsuits were invented, especially in rural areas. It's just they didn't have the overwhelming omnipresent omniprevalent fixation on sex that our culture has now. :p

NOG: That would be the Miller test; the criteria that has to be met for something to be deemed obscene is the following:

* Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
* Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
* Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

All three of the conditions must be met for something to be obscene.

Pertaining to the site that the original article talks about, I would say that there is a good chance that the conditions were not met by the stories in question.

Eh, you can have a piece of porn that's excellent literature. I can't imagine anything hardcore having artistic value... well, depends what you understand by hardcore, but still; and I understand the concern. Scientific, I understand. Medical manuals and all. But political? Since when can a graphic description or depiction of sexual conduct have political value?

Well... for example, there are some people who consider Marquis DeSade's writings - as sexually graphic as they are and quite out of the norm - as political or sociological rahter as something written for the sake of eroticism.

Ara, I'm thinking about the test you put forth.

First, Child pornography or graphic descriptions of rape would likely offend Society.

Second, It is patently offensive.

Third, I fail to see any literary, artistic, political or scientific value in such crap.

@Gnarff; the original article owhere claims that there are any rape stories on the page - itt only mentions stories alledgedly containing bondage and/or sdomasochism, which is an entirely diffrent ballpark (ansdd perfectly outside this conversation).

As for child pornography.... I doubt that a site would have hgad any actual child pornography up; most likely, there is something akin to Nabokov's Lolita that has had people raising theeir shackles.

The best way for society to not be offended is to *not look at porn*. Those 'terrible deviants' who enjoy it should be able to - because it doesn't affect anyone but them. You aren't infringing on anyone else's rights by looking at porn.

Actual photographs of children are infringing on the right of the child - but that site didn't have any pictures. It was erotic stories - why is this not fine?

Why does it matter whether there's any 'value' by your standards of value? People who read it find value in it - they get off - your standards of value are not universal.

Ara: If the site was shut down, I would guess that the depiction presented was much more graphic and detailed than anything that would be accepted as literature...

The best way for society to not be offended is to *not look at porn*. Those 'terrible deviants' who enjoy it should be able to - because it doesn't affect anyone but them. You aren't infringing on anyone else's rights by looking at porn.Only in an ideal simplistic liberal world. In fact, porn is closely tied to prostitution and the rest of the sex industry, which is an industry not inherently based on the consent of all involved, to say the least. Supporting porn supports that industry.

Next, watching porn may lead to developing an addiction in anyone who is really interested. Only someone who doesn't really care won't be affected, others will want more and more of it and the slippery slope will begin.

- There's a party tomorrow.
- Great.
- Alcohol?
- Sure.
- Girls?
- Sure. Whole six gigabytes.

:rolleyes:

Needless to say, any addiction whatsoever is not the problem of just the addict. It's a social problem and addiction in one person more or less directly results in addiction in other people. It also affects the lives of family members, as well as marital life. You can't say porn has no effect on marriage.

Actual photographs of children are infringing on the right of the child - but that site didn't have any pictures. It was erotic stories - why is this not fine?Censoring admittedly sucks and one of the reasons is that it's such a good way of advertising filthy stuff that those who are really interested will get anyway. However, erotic stories with children stay within the boundaries of a certain perverse market, the same as real kid porn. That market creates a base for paedophiles.

Why does it matter whether there's any 'value' by your standards of value? People who read it find value in it - they get off - your standards of value are not universal.Neither is your liberal standard universal, by the same rules you apply.

Third, I fail to see any literary, artistic, political or scientific value in such crap.Here's the crux of the problem because incredibly sick stuff gets through under the guise of art.

Well... for example, there are some people who consider Marquis DeSade's writings - as sexually graphic as they are and quite out of the norm - as political or sociological rahter as something written for the sake of eroticism.Sake or not, what does it matter when the content is still there?

I think ultimately, certain things in content, regardless of value ought to be banned (rape pornography, child pornography).

Lo and behold! On most parts I agree with Gnarfflinger *and* chevalier on this one.

Only in an ideal simplistic liberal world. In fact, porn is closely tied to prostitution and the rest of the sex industry, which is an industry not inherently based on the consent of all involved, to say the least. Supporting porn supports that industry.Natch. Anyone read the memoirs of Linda Lovelace? Even if it's as exaggerated as some claim, it paints a pretty blood-boiling picture of the workings of the porn industry.

If all the criminal stuff - not just children and that stuff, but also forcing people to perform under the threat of violence, making drug addicts perform for fixes, abusing people with mental problems, there's a whole lot of stuff like that going on - could be rooted out and *kept* out of the industry, I'd have no problem with it.

Exactly, Susipaisti. A woman fairly compensated for her services in a video or photo shoot is none of my business. I won't support this, but I won't try to ban it. Rape, children or exploitation has no place in proper society...

I agree with Gnarfflinger! As long as the actors engaged freely, and were compensated adequately, then I don't see a problem... Tons of people enjoy watching porn, it sometimes even makes their sex lives better!
In my country we have no problem with sex. It's considered a normal thing! We have countless nude beaches, sex shops, brothels, sex programs on tv, you name it! So maybe we are, generally spoken, less frustrated then people who live in countries where showing a naked breast is a capital sin… I can't say that for sure, of course, but I do think things like that are related...

I am not into porn at all, but I have nothing against tasteful sex-scenes in movies. Still I will not support a ban, unless its glamorises rape, sex with animals etc.

Whether or not porn is morally culpable is debatable, right enough. But regardless of the assessment of porn as corruptive or merely entertaining (and this may apply to adults in the same way as to youngsters), the question in the context of war against porn should not be "how far should we go in prohibiting internet porn" but rather "is it feasible to prohibit internet porn - and if it isn't: how can we protect our children even so?"

I think that it is impossible to prevent porn samples from flying loosely through the web. It is not really possible to shove the responsibility to the government in this case - parental supervision is required here. How much time does a healthy teenager have to spend online anyway?

OK, I'm well aware of the fact that posing this question online is not the winning me the Convicing John Doe Award, but really: parents know of the dangers of the frightening pit that is the internet (nevermind...), how then can parents expect their children to circumsail the cliffs of sex on their own?

By the way, don't thank me for putting in the extra paltry metaphor every now and then, the pleasure is all mine. ;)

I certainly agree that parents should be responsible for most of the work. I hate that responsability for teaching morality has moved to the schools, which have now been prevented from teaching morality. Parents need to get back to the job of raising children and not leave it up to 'competent professionals'. But at the same time, there is some stuff the government can do.

Ultimately, it is what the parents teach their children that will guide them online. If the Children are taught that Pornography is dangerous, they will not seek out this filth, nor will they linger on accidentally found sites with this content. If they are not taught anything about it, they will do as they please when confronted with the situation.

The other side of the coin is that when highly objectionable content (rape porn, Child porn, other truly vile crap) is found, authorities need to figure out a way to find and stop these perpetrators. This would be where the providers of such services come in. I would imagine that if someone were to post a picture depicting child pornography here, not only would they be banned (and likely flamed repeatedly before the Mods themselves caught this), but there has to be a way find them IRL so that the proper authorities can deal with them...