Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iceland Considers Pornography Ban (first Western democracy to block online porn?)
Telegraph UK ^ | 13 Feb 2013 | Staff

Posted on 02/14/2013 6:08:31 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o

The government is considering introducing internet filters, such as those used in China, in order to stop Icelanders downloading or viewing pornography on the internet.

The unprecedented censorship is justified by fears about damaging effects of the internet on children and women.

Ogmundur Jonasson, Iceland's interior minister, is drafting legislation to stop the access of online pornographic images and videos by young people through computers, games consoles and smartphones.

"We have to be able to discuss a ban on violent pornography, which we all agree has a very harmful effects on young people and can have a clear link to incidences of violent crime," he said.

Methods under consideration include blocking access to pornographic website addresses and making it illegal to use Icelandic credit cards to access pay-per-view pornography.

A law forbidding the printing and distribution of pornography is already in force in Iceland but it has yet to be updated to cover the internet.

The proposals are expected to become law this year despite a general election in April.

"There is a strong consensus building in Iceland. We have so many experts from educationalists to the police and those who work with children behind this, that this has become much broader than party politics," Halla Gunnarsdottir, a political adviser to Mr Jonasson told the Daily Mail.

The proposed control over online access...is justified as a defence of vulnerable women and children.

"Iceland is taking a very progressive approach that no other democratic country has tried," said Professor Gail Dines, an expert on pornography and at a recent conference at Reykjavik University. "It is looking a pornography from a new position - from the perspective of the harm it does to the women who appear in it and as a violation of their civil rights."

(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: assault; child; internet; littlewomen; moralabsolutes; porn; sm; woman; womenmeannothing
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-117 next last
To: Mrs. Don-o

The problem is, as always, what is porn and what is art? Opinions vary. Nudes (female) are fine with me, sex is not.


41 posted on 02/14/2013 9:39:08 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
...overlook the mountains of Aspen from the deck of your expensive yacht.

....that's sitting in your driveway?........

42 posted on 02/14/2013 9:47:20 AM PST by Red Badger (Lincoln freed the slaves. Obama just got them ALL back......................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: don-o

There are people who lack porn. Let us work together to help them!


43 posted on 02/14/2013 9:50:02 AM PST by Lazamataz (Republicans have the same policies as the Democrats, except for the part where they win elections.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative
Well, for one thing there's hard-core porn available on the internet-access computers in the Public Library, and the ACLU is pushing to make it illegal to block it under the First Amendment.

They've already got that in place --- the exceptionless legal protection of porn on Public Library internet --- in California and, I presume, elsewhere as well.

So if I'm a home-schooling parent, it's my job to keep my children out of the Public Library? And all other children as well, because sick memes run through groups of kids like a virus?

What right has the ACLU to make Public Libraries unusable by the very part of the public to whom they are indispensible: parents with kids? Am I a threat to democracy because I don't want my kids to "open any door" and stumble upon an inches-away zoom shot of a well-hung male f*cking a well-hung male?

Are you saying, as well, that during all those decades when porn WAS suppressed by interstate commerce laws, everybody had the law wrong, but now that the mind-adhesive filth is everywhere, we've finally got what the Founding Fathers wanted?

And are you not familiar with Communist aims for breaking down society, or do you think that's some sort of Conservative canard?

18. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

19. Break down culture standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and T.V.

20. Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity, as "normal, natural, healthy."

I would be a tad more satisfied with the Free Republic if it would make a clean break with the ACLU.
44 posted on 02/14/2013 9:50:28 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
There's no doubt that salacious literature and graphic sexual display has been with us since ancient history. An ancient pedigree does not make a thing either good or bad. The ancients had servile pederasty, courtship by bride-capture, castration of boy sopranos, sex-slave recruitment by abduction, and abortion by toxic poultice and pointed stick. That doesn't make it right. And it doesn't make the suppression of those practices unreasonable.

Second, note well this simile:

16th century nudes: internet pornography :: 16th century beer: IV heroin.

What we have today is corrosive beyond compare; there's not been anything like it ever in the history of the world for technical production values, universal instant accessibility, and rank perversion.

Although whatever was going on on the threshing-floor of Baal-peor (Hosea Chapter 9) might be comparable in terms of an abomination that stinks to Heaven and pollutes the earth, and a spectacle that pleases the Slayer.

45 posted on 02/14/2013 10:03:44 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Durus
"The child pornography issue is raised only to muddle an otherwise crystal clear 1st amendment issue."

You have made a reasonable point that in child pornography, there is the additional problem of child (what do they call them? actors? stars? models? rapees?) being utilized in the production. The Japanese have solved that particular problem with child rapee CGI's.

But there is the additional problem that, as I said in #35, the First Amendment was arguably intended to protect all controversial speech and publishing, i.e. the conveyance of ideas. Cognitive content. That did not include, even then, sedition, which is a form of treason; and I would argue it did not include porn, which is arousal-based (which is to say, comparable to the purveying of a harmful drug) --- and not communication-based.

I think it could be objectively defined, too. And on a more objective basis than, "I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it."

I don't think the "prurient interest" criterion is utterly useless, but going a step further, surely some University can monitor the sexual arousal patterns of experimental subject-viewers, program that basic info into a computer, and thereafter use the computer make a reasonable assessment of whether the material in question is physiological-arousal oriented rather than intellectual-cognitive oriented.

46 posted on 02/14/2013 10:24:58 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
I am glad we have a 1st Amendment to protect us against this silliness.

Actually, you've got it backwards. We had laws against pornography for 180 years until some idiot judges decided that the First Amendment covered things like gay sex videos. Sorry, but once a noble idea like the First Amendment is expanded to protecting disgusting obscenity, it ceases to have any meaning.

But hey, enjoy watching your gay sex videos in your post-Christian totalitarian society.
47 posted on 02/14/2013 10:38:11 AM PST by Antoninus (Sorry, gone rogue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
We are not. Children lack the maturity to consent to sex.

When do they gain that authority? Who gets to decide? That's the sticking point for Libertine-arians. Does the government have the right to set an age of consent?
48 posted on 02/14/2013 10:41:40 AM PST by Antoninus (Sorry, gone rogue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
"Children lack the maturity to consent to sex."

That's interesting, and of course I agree with you.

But why is sex special? Why does it require a greater degree of maturity to legally consent to sex, than to consent to a foot-massage or a shoulder-rub or even a ride in a tilt-a-whirl?

With children pre-puberty, the unwanted-pregnancy risk does not exist, nor does it exist for an older child if the sex is confined to the usual sterile copulatory perversions; and if the adult perp is either infection-free or condom-equipped or otherwise shrink-wrapped for freshness and quality assurance, the STI risk does not exist either.

(But excuse my use of the disrespectful "perp". Now they call themselves adepts at intergenerational love, sexuality mentors, or even activists for children's sexual rights.)

So, prescinding from pregnancy and infection, what reasons are there for protecting children from sexual access? And if those reasons are not really compelling, will they not necessarily be dropped in favor of equal rights, the liberty interest, and (no doubt somebody will call this a means of free expression) The First Amendment?

Conversely, if sexual exposure really IS harmful to children -- as these scrupulously agnostic Icelandic "experts" say it is --- wouldn't that justify curbing the universal (including childrens') access to adult porn, which is the Internet status quo?

49 posted on 02/14/2013 10:42:45 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
I would be a tad more satisfied with the Free Republic if it would make a clean break with the ACLU.

Seriously. There has always been a faction on FR that think Larry Flynt was one of the Founding Fathers. It's long past time for them to wise up and realize that they've been played.

Addiction to sexual vice = slavery.
50 posted on 02/14/2013 10:50:48 AM PST by Antoninus (Sorry, gone rogue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

What’s interesting here is that Iceland want to be the first country to allow for totally anonymous leaks.

It is already against the law for a journalist to reveal a source.

So in Iceland, you can get arrested for looking at a nekkid set of boobs, but you may very well be able to expose national security secrets with no repercussions.

(Maybe they’ve inhaled too much volcanic ash)


51 posted on 02/14/2013 11:04:54 AM PST by KosmicKitty (WARNING: Hormonally crazed woman ahead!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I think this is a very interesting discussion, because it involves both liberty and morality. The First Amendment is not absolute, and I don’t think the founders would have permitted what’s freely available today. They would have said we’re crazy to think the First Amendment protects any kind of speech or expression, including perverse sex.

I prefer community standards, letting groups decide what is best for themselves. However, I also see the liberty point of view, that adults should be able to choose to see what they want to see, and I worry about a government strong enough to ban whatever it thinks is obscene (Are guns obscene? Some libs would probably say so!).

I can only imagine what’s available online these days. I don’t see myself as a prude. I’m not offended by nudity or natural sexual relations between a man and woman, although I prefer it be kept private (seeing a nude woman doesn’t mean I must lust after her, but it could lead to that. Therefore, it’s better to avoid even mild stuff). However, I think we’re way, way past that.

So where do we draw the line? Who gets to decide?


52 posted on 02/14/2013 11:06:33 AM PST by CitizenUSA (Why celebrate evil? Evil is easy. Good is the goal worth striving for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
The constitution was not written or intended to limit the rights of the people. The concept is foreign to the entire philosophy of the constitution. It was designed to define and therefore limit the powers of government. Government only has the legitimate powers that are enumerated, the states and people reserve all other powers.

You can theorize that the first amendment doesn't protect speech that is intended to arouse, you can even invent a "cognitive test" but neither are supported by a textual or historical analysis of the 1st amendment. Further even if you could demonstrably prove without a shadow of a doubt that it is not protected speech, that does not give government the legitimate power to ban it.

Please note that your argument is directly analogous to that of the liberals anti 2nd amendment arguments of "The founders never intended the 2nd amendment to protect assault weapons". Further it forwards the premise that government has any power except for those specifically curtailed, which while wildly popular amongst democrats, turns constitution principle on it's head.

The only legal way to ban pornography is via constitutional amendment and even that would be dubious considering the 1st amendment which does not grant a right but recognizes a natural right.

53 posted on 02/14/2013 11:13:51 AM PST by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz; Dr. Ursus; Red Badger; don-o
Oh, Laz!

Porn will torture your appetite, defraud your instincts, disorder your reactions, frustrate your spouse, and make marital contentment impossible. It will make you nominate RINO's, vote for Democrats, and canonize Kennedies.

Porn will harden your heart, scar your spirit, and encourage you to stay on the couch diddling yourself when you should be making a marinade for a standing rib roast.

Porn tells lies about girls.

Porn makes hearts hard and unresponsive, and minds soft as fresh excreta. Porn is the culmination of a once-decent, large, nearly hairless mammal's imbecility. Porn will take up permanent residence in a boy's mind and turn it into a place he wouldn't want to share with Jesus.

Porn makes other self-respecting vertebrates back off from you, looking for a way to make a final, definitive break with your trashcans, your celluloid, and your civilization.

Porn conjures the spirit of the Marquis de Sade and exposes middle-schoolers to painful confusion and frightening dreams.

Porn makes a summer day smell strange. Porn sours your spirit and makes filthy remarks to your soul. It makes a good, wise, loving lady distrust you.

Porn angers the angels: it makes Michael the Archangel reach for the sword of wrath.

Porn is Amsterdam in dogppop without the cleansing rain, San Francisco fog with an underlay of diesel and urine. It's Bishop Gene Robinson. It's Hugh Hefner, Charlie Sheen, Lindsay Lohan, and the ugly Anti-America they constructed on top of the America we loved.

It is Out and Proud Anal-Americans.

It makes you feel like you got something foul in your mouth that you can't get out with Listerine.

Porn is your brother's bright and pretty daughter addicted to Quilts or whatever sedative-hynotic drug they give these girls to keep them (temporarily) non-suicidal.

It’s like a parade with free purple Koolaid and cheerleaders with gonorrhea.

Porn shames the people you love the most, and the people most worthy of your love.

It's a girl named Annie who had her need to trust and be trusted, delight and be delighted, love and be loved, buried under a avalanche of callousness, cruelty and stink. Porn reeks of Money, Mammon, and Moloch.

Porn is incredibly bad people getting incredibly rich and giving the money to Barack Obama.

Porn is Madonna and Lady Gaga making an absurdity of their bodies and telling people to vote for Ms Candidate (D-Sodom) who is enlightened, progressive, and a cretin.

Porn makes you stupid.

Porn enables divorce lawyers to buy mansions built on the three continents of Lies, Spiritual Nullity, and Liberalism. Porn pushes old people so far into loneliness they can't find their own soul.

Porn is telling God He was wrong: the good embrace He invented for life and love, has been twisted and turned into an insignificant itch, a loveless twitch and a dead end.

54 posted on 02/14/2013 11:51:50 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Stet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Big, BIG drop in marriage and in marital childbirth, too. Men unable to be satisfied by real women; women unable to be satisfied, period. Couples unable to form a lasting pair-bond.

Porn mainstreams the deviant: it's a consciousness-cheat and a social deformer. It is created by bad cultures and it creates bad cultures. It changes people's reaction to the question, "What is sex for?" and even "What are people for?"

It dehumanizes what was once the most precious, intimate and creative activity on earth. And video stuff that used to be "corrupting the morals of a minor" is now state-subsidized University course material --- or dorm activity.

55 posted on 02/14/2013 12:03:32 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Stet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
True, they couched it in feminist (Catharine MacKinnon-influenced) language. And if it's lesbian porn, they'd be unable, probably, to figure out how that hurt women, girls, or children viewing.

But it's a start.

56 posted on 02/14/2013 12:09:53 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Stet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Porn will harden your heart, scar your spirit, and encourage you to stay on the couch diddling yourself when you should be making a marinade for a standing rib roast.

Wow, this is crazy talk.

Men look at porn occasionally, it rarely ruins their lives but you make it sound like the worst thing on earth!

57 posted on 02/14/2013 12:22:22 PM PST by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Durus
I take all of your concerns seriously: as I mentioned before, I'm opposed to blasphemy laws, and in the hands of the Obamunists, any restriction on expression, publication or broadcast would be twisted into another way for the Obamunists to control absolutely everything.

OTOH, porn was restricted in the USA for many decades, without, I think, deleterious results.

The Icelanders will be facing identical questions. It will be interesting to see how they deal with it.

58 posted on 02/14/2013 12:24:56 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Stet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Jean S
I was riffing off of Lazamataz.

And yet...

It does do all those things. It's not just a matter of men looking at porn occasionally. It's a matter of the ubiquity of this perverse, penetrating and persuasive junk-sex propaganda, which, like drugs, loses its effectiveness unless the dosage is ramped up.

It's getting hugely more perverse, and, for the kids, almost unavoidable.

Not talking about nekkid ladies and people getting all jiggy and conjugal. I'm talking about foul stuff I can't even describe here.

59 posted on 02/14/2013 12:34:29 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Stet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz; Dr. Ursus; Red Badger; don-o
My spell-checker turned "Quaalude" into "Quilty."

Other than that, Laz, this is all true, as you know.

60 posted on 02/14/2013 12:38:21 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Stet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-117 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson