Iceland Considers Pornography Ban (first Western democracy to block online porn?)

Telegraph UK ^ | 13 Feb 2013 | Staff

[Joe 6-pack]

It is a double-edged sword, and as many of our Founders indicated, the success of a constitutional republic is contingent on the ability of the individuals who comprise it to exercise moral restraint and virtue.

I went to a (nominally) Christian college, which still had a Religion course as a requirement for all majors. The course I took was "The Bible and Modern Moral Issues." As part of the class, we were broken into small groups that had to develop a panel presentation for the whole class.

I (an art history and history double major) was paired with two females, one a womyn's study major, and the other a pre-law English and poli-sci double major. We were all upper classmen (or upper classwomyn in the case of the second), and we all approached the topic from the perspective of our disciplines.

I compiled a multipage handout with images of paintings, sculpture, sketches, etc. and passed it out like a test for all the students in the class to vote on whether each image was "art" or "pornography." There were a couple of revelations from this exercise. A big one was the important of context. Despite his sleazy personality and loathsome character, Bob Guccione was a technically accomplished photographer who understood composition, color, balance and other aesthetic essentials. One of the images was a photo clipped from a Penthouse magazine (admittedly one of the relatively sedate ones) that when presented on its own merits was unanimously voted to be art. Similarly, an obscure Rembrandt engraving viewed outside of its context was almost universally seen as pornographic, so context is an essential consideration in the manner in what people use to decide what is pornographic exploitation of the human body and what is artistic elevation of the human form.

The second major "finding" was that, even outside of context, there was a lot of gray area. That is, there are pieces that certainly have what most consider to be artistic merit, and yet also tend to arouse the baser instincts. Generically, these would best be defined as "soft core" or "erotica," but many of these achieve their visceral response not through nudity, but by the suggestion or symbolism of it.

Finally, some of the most graphic depictions that students felt served "no legitimate purpose," came from medical texts.

I guess my point is that I would trust a generally moral populace to sort through issues of context and propriety and police its own members by social sanction rather than increasingly onerous laws. A generally immoral populace will, if left to its own devices, destroy itself from within.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I get what you're saying about context.

I could tell some stories -- funny ones, too. And some not funny.

I guess what makes things cross over the line into intolerable, is the vile crap --- vile crap, not a guy and a gal kaleidoscoping and tumbling in something that looks like lovemaking, but vile crap, aggressively contemptuous of the body ---perverse --- video ---available to every child in a couple of keystrokes, amounting not just to sexual "exposure" as much as an abominable initiation.

It's the ruin of sex, it pleases the slayer of souls. The word that pops into my mind isn't 'liberty'. It's 'millstones'.

[Darren McCarty]

Porn doesn't do much for me. Personally, I'd rather not see some dude's johnson. Kills anything for me.

That aside, I do have an issue with government filtering any "objectionable" content of any sort regarding the internet. If someone's downloading or uploading child porn, throw him in the bighouse.

Filters is a door to open government filtering of anything down the road, including what could be considered "violent" (NRA), hate speech (what the government says it is), and anything else.

[Joe 6-pack]

Oh...I agree. There is certainly some stuff that any person with the slightest scintilla of moral fiber will find repugnant. Yet, context can still play a part. Strictly speaking, I think most of us would generally agree that the depiction of a man stripped to his underwear, beaten, whipped and placed in extreme circumstances of bondage and torture would qualify as vile and aggressively contemptuous of the body, but if you let government run with that, they'll be removing crucifixes and icons from every Catholic or Orthodox church in the land.

I would still much rather live in a culture where people knew what was vile and rejected it of their own free will, rather than have government define it for them.

[little jeremiah]

Mrs. Don-o is right. Jean S is not correct. On both counts. You accuse Mrs. Don-o of crazy talk, and that is crazy talk.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I agree that govt. defining as objectionable, and filtering content across he board is Tyranny with a capital T. However taxpayer-funded institutions (like, say, public libraries) --- shouldn't they be permitted --- required!---to keep the jerkoff programs as well as the BDSM (sex abuse, assault and torture for titillation) stuff off the screens so the normal public won't be afraid to bring their kids to the library?

It kills me that saying "Woowoo" to a fellow employee can be regarded as "creating a hostile work environment," but viewing deranged, mentally-aberrant filth in a public facility is all sacred and jus what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Yes. Yes. Yes. But...

Mine at #106?

[DouglasKC]

The stated reasons for wanting to ban it have nothing to do with the real problem.

The real problem is that many don't believe it's inherently wrong to exploit sexuality and sex of men, women and children.

They either don't take seriously or are overtly hostile to the notion that God has set in place rules that he expects his worshippers to follow. At least two of these pertain directly to porn in most cases:

Exo 20:14 "You shall not commit adultery.

Exo 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's."

A large segment of those who call themselves Christian don't really believe this even though Jesus Christ himself states plainly that these commandments are valid and spiritual as well as physical in nature:

Mat_5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Most don't believe it's a sin against God. Against Jesus Christ. They don't see it's something that needs to be repented of each and every time we engage in it.

They don't believe, think or recognize that it's bad for THEM. That it stops their spiritual growth. That it prevents them from knowing the Lord.

[Mrs. Don-o]

But seriously, Jim, as a Christian, why do you think God made sexual arousal?

What is sexual arousal for? And is it pleasing to God to use it outside of, or in defiance of, His intentions for it?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Exactly. See mine at #109.

[little jeremiah]

Pls check freepmail...

[little jeremiah]

It stops spiritual growth, ruins marriages and thus harms children due to ruined families, ruins both men and womens’ natural sexuality, and ruins children who are exposed to porn.

And when all those are ruin, culture is ruined.

It’s really quite simple and all follows immutable natural law.

[little jeremiah]

When vileness is promoted by gov, people will accept it. It’s simple. Or at lesat be FORCED to accept it, like homo agenda filth.

[Jim Robinson]

Seriously? I was just kidding with you. ;~}

By the way, you have freepmail.

[Jean S]

I find this interesting, your posse sort of ganged up on me. I received replies from you and your friends over a several day period.

I think you are overwrought about porn. I did not say it was good but it is certainly not as bad as you holier-than-thou types make it out to be. One is not doomed to hell or to a life of despair if one has looked at porn online on occasion.

Lighten up a bit.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Mmm-Kay, but I think a lot of people are still thinking of porn as naughty recreation, airbrushed babes in 1950’s Playboys, kinda like getting a little beer buzz. Hard to fathom what a monster it’s turned into: child-warper, sex-distorter, marriage-killer.

Sex makes the bond that holds together the two genders and 10,000 generations. That’s why God made it feel so good. It’s important to get it right.

[little jeremiah]

You are imagining things.

1. I do not have a posse, I have two ping lists. I pinged one of them, not having read very many comments. In fact, the only comment by you on this thread that I have read is the one I am replying to.

2. I did not come back to the thread until last night as I am very busy.

3. If people replied to you, either people on my list, or people not on my list, that is not my affair and I have nothing to do with what other people do.

4. Holier-than-thou? What on earth is that supposed to mean? Generally it means a hypocrite who accuses others of impiety or vice he himself engages in. I never accused you of being a porn user, and I am not one myself, so your accuseation is without merit.

5. You seem to know nothing about the vile nature, effects, or all-pervasiveness of porn. I do - not because I have personally experienced it - in fact, I have never seen any - but because I am very concerned with the cultural decay we have witnessed over the last several decades; decay which has been fostered and promoted by leftists. And indeed, has been fostered by hard core communists, as a way to destroy us as a country for easier infection by communism.

And it has worked quite well.

A couple of links to Judith Reisman’s site, and some articles about the nature and deleterious effects of pornography, if anyone wants to learn. I just did a search, interesting how she is hated by leftists. Who are a person’s enemies is always enlightening.

Main page:

http://drjudithreisman.com/

A few articles about porn, some by Reisman with some other authors.

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2011/05/can_pornography.html

Can pornography use become an actual brain addiction?
By Donald L. Hilton, Jr., MD

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2011/06/2004_testimony_1.html

2004 Testimony: The Science Behind Pornography Addiction (with endnotes)

Statement of Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., President, Institute for Media Education

Testimony before the United States Senate, Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space of the

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2012/08/sexual_offender.html

Sexual Offenders and Pornography: A Causal Connection?

By Marlene Goldsmith,

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2011/04/the_structure_f.html

The Structure & Function Of Erototoxic-Pornographic Sexual Media
How All Public Sexual Imagery, “Mating Signals,” Hijack Cognition & Subvert Informed Consent and Choice by The Rational Animal (Aristotle: 350 B.C.)

By Judith A. Reisman, PhD

And if people want to accuse those concerned about the harmful effects of pornography has being “weird” or somehow suspect, and we need to “lighten up”, what about those whose life is the porn “industry”? That’s perfectly fine? How about those who spend hours and hours daily or weekly “using” porn? That’s pefectly fine? But those concerned - we need to “lighten up”?

Odd.