Porn Ban Being Considered In South Africa

krou writes "Deputy Minister of Home Affairs Malusi Gigaba has gone to South Africa's Law Reform Commission to see whether the law can be changed to allow a complete ban of digitally distributed pornography. Gigaba has also been in discussion with The Justice Alliance of South Africa, 'a coalition of corporations, individuals, and churches committed to upholding and fighting for justice and the highest moral standards in South African society,' which has written its own draft bill regarding the issue, which covers the banning of pornography on television, mobile phones, and the Web. Using a car analogy, Mr. Gigaba said, 'Cars are already provided with brakes and seatbelts.... There is no reason why the Internet should be provided without the necessary restrictive mechanisms built into it.' Related documents and the JASA's proposed bill can be found online, one of which has the wonderful title 'A reasonable and justifiable limitation on Freedom of Expression and Right to Privacy.'"

Comments

The brakes model

[aapold]

if they use that model, that would be fine.

Because I can choose to hit the brakes or not as I see fit. If harm comes from my failure to use them, then I suffer the consequences. If not, no problem.

Thus, I expect them to implement a filter than can be applied or not applied as the user sees fit, and leave it up to them to apply it judiciously.

I have no problem with this model, if so applied.

Re:The brakes model

[biryokumaru]

But couldn't the people who want the filter just, you know, not look at porn?

Re:The brakes model

[noidentity]

I think the brakes model is great. In fact, the Internet already has them. If you don't want to see porn, JUST DON'T LOOK. That's equivalent to hitting the brakes.

Re:The brakes model

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as they can just swerve around other cars instead of braking, yes. ;)

Re:The brakes model

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but we're talking about Africans.

Re:The brakes model

[S.O.B.]

While I don't believe that trying to ban porn on the internet is practical neither is telling people to just not look at it. There are popups, browser hijacking and unfortunate search results that could subject people to porn even though they did not actively seek it out. I remember hearing a story a few years ago of a public school teacher showing kids how to use Google and she suggested typing in "Spice Girls" and at the time one of the top results had nude photos of Geri Halliwell.

If we take the example of how porn is handled in the non-virtual world, porn content is segregated into specialized stores, that dimly lit room at the back of your video rental shop or the top row of the magazine rack.

The controversial .xxx domain, if it ever gets approved, would allow people and countries that do not want to see porn to have a way to ensure that they will never see it unless they intentionally go to those sites. That is assuming that porn sites agree to migrate. After all, migration would be in their best interests as a way of heading off eventual government regulation that would likely be more restrictive. They likely wouldn't lose any money since porn always sells.

Re:The brakes model

[Anonymous Coward]

The brakes model seems to work well. When you're out in public, you can't drive around unless you have brakes and a seat belt on. Similarly, when you're out in public, you can't go around naked or show porn on a big screen TV in a public area..

But when you're on your own private property, it's completely legal to drive around without a seatbelt on, and to drive around without any brakes on your car. Similarly, it should be completely legal to look at porn or be naked.

        Tim

Re:The brakes model

[flyneye]

Give up on wishing for any common sense. South Africa has a rich history of legislating the wills of the ignorant, the misguided and the boneheaded.
        This gentleman is probably to the point where he is able to Google for what he wants, so he obviously knows more about the internet than all the stupid countries out there who just aren't doing anything about the sinful smutty internet. Well, by golly he will and he knows just how to fix it.
I prefer to sit back and watch this unfold like a 3 stooges episode that I've seen over and over and over.

Re:The brakes model

[mrsteveman1]

"Subject" people to porn. Right.

The .xxx domain is not going to lead to freedom of choice, it will lead to censorship.

The spice girls google example is a lesson, teachers should not randomly type things into google in front of students, if they want kid-safe search results they need to use a kid-safe search engine. That is not just cause for censorship.

The answer is to stop catering to the moral objections of people who don't want to see things. Being offended by something doesn't actually mean someone else did something wrong that would justify orchestrating complex systems and requirements to suit peoples personal beliefs.

Re:The brakes model

[Jawnn]

But couldn't the people who want the filter just, you know, not look at porn?

Erm..., no. Of course not. They would rather convince themselves that they don't need or want to ever look at porn, and having done that, the cognitive dissonance set up by their envy of those choose not to would be unbearable. So..., everyone must suffer.

Re:The brakes model

[Luckyo]

I can see two possible uses for such a filter.

1. Families where children have better computer skills then their parents.
2. Overly religious (often falsely called "moral") people who want to prevent their partner/family from watching what they deem immoral.

Considering the large amount of such families, I'd suggest that if they could implement such a filter, it would have quite a few people who'd opt to use it.

Re:The brakes model

[Anonymous Coward]

There are popups, browser hijacking and unfortunate search results that could subject people to porn even though they did not actively seek it out. I remember hearing a story a few years ago of a public school teacher showing kids how to use Google and she suggested typing in "Spice Girls" and at the time one of the top results had nude photos of Geri Halliwell.

But nude photos aren't porn. Even *erotic* nude photos (which I suppose is what you're talking about) aren't porn.

Pop-ups for porn sites only happen if you go to unsavory sites in the first place, too. When was the last time you got any of those on a respectable site?

Browser hijacking? An urban myth that you swallowed hook, line and sinker. What would porn site even gain from that?

Finally, "unfortunate search results" still require you to click on them. If you search for "Gerri Halliwell", to pick up your example, and then get a link that says "nude photos of Gerri Halliwell!", you can still refuse to check it out.

The controversial .xxx domain, if it ever gets approved, would allow people and countries that do not want to see porn to have a way to ensure that they will never see it unless they intentionally go to those sites. That is assuming that porn sites agree to migrate. After all, migration would be in their best interests as a way of heading off eventual government regulation that would likely be more restrictive. They likely wouldn't lose any money since porn always sells.

The IETF disagrees with you.

Re:The brakes model

[Anonymous Coward]

While I don't believe that trying to ban porn on the internet is practical neither is telling people to just not look at it. There are popups, browser hijacking and unfortunate search results that could subject people to porn even though they did not actively seek it out.

Yes, and what's the consequence? "Oh no, I saw something I didn't like!"

The horror! I'm damaged for life!

Re:The brakes model

[tverbeek]

Do you honestly believe that creating .xxx would do anything at all to solve the pop-up and hijacking problems you mention in your first paragraph? People who engage in such underhanded tactics are not going to willingly restrict themselves to a porn domain.

Re:The brakes model

[Johan Welin]

Good analogy. But I still do see this as a introductory step into a world of censorship where governments and alike like to enforce ban-of-the-day legislation on any issue that's locally uncomfortable. By applying the "porn" taxonomy of whatever level of nudity and physical activity is highly personal, and/or offensive for that matter, this is in general not compatible with everyones' (the world population) view of what's negative or generally bad for society. IMHO. Banning is bad. Classification and general distribution of classified material to any authorized audience is compatible with managed democracy in general is a good thing. [Isn't this regulated by US constitution and implicit common sense ..]

Re:The brakes model

[ThinkingInBinary]

The controversial .xxx domain, if it ever gets approved, would allow people and countries that do not want to see porn to have a way to ensure that they will never see it unless they intentionally go to those sites.

A "country" cannot decide for its people that it "doesn't want to see porn". I can assure you, at least some people (of legal age) in that country probably want to see it, and it's not (morally) up to the country to make that decision.

Re:The brakes model

[rvw]

I think the brakes model is great. In fact, the Internet already has them. If you don't want to see porn, JUST DON'T LOOK. That's equivalent to hitting the brakes.

I think a better analogy is sitting in the car, realizing that you should brake, then put your hands in front of your eyes. And then peek between the fingers. (Although I'm quite confused as to what this analogy is about.)

Re:The brakes model

[Reziac]

Probably would make it easier to find if desired, too -- type in anyrandomshit.xxx and chances are it'll be *some* porn domain. I don't see a downside for the legit porn industry.

As to finding it unwanted... never in all the time I've been online ('net since '96, BBSs before that) have I tripped over porn by accident. When I have encountered it unasked, I was already in some rather shady corner of the web. I have to wonder how many of the anti-porn types are doing "I typed in 'sexy girls' and there it was! see how much porn there is!!" That's kinda like making people go naked, then complaining about indecent exposure.

Re:The brakes model

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA and you will see that is not the model they want to use. The JASAs bill is much more like a "tie-you-blindly-to-a-chair" kinda of thing than brakes model.

Re:The brakes model

[Anonymous Coward]

The controversial .xxx domain, if it ever gets approved, would allow people and countries that do not want to see porn to have a way to ensure that they will never see it unless they intentionally go to those sites. That is assuming that porn sites agree to migrate.

Nonsense -- DNS is not a content classification system.

I'd like to see a simple (as in usable, unlike PICS), voluntary content classification system for the web. Delicate petals can then use it to filter things they find objectionable and stop trying to impose their personal views on everyone else (usually by leveraging some nebulous third party as justification). Now consider the real reason why certain religous and "family" groups have opposed .xxx...

Re:The brakes model

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd think the MPAA and RIAA would fight a ban, as it would mean less money for them. They'd only like a filter on unpaid for movies and recordings, and banning "bad words" or R or X rated movies would hurt their profits tremendously.

Re:The brakes model

[daemonc]

I find this car analogy confusing... could someone explain it using another car analogy?

Re:The brakes model

[twidarkling]

Well, you see, it's like this. You can either use your car's turning signal, or you can use hand-signals to indicate if you're going to turn. Either way ends up with people knowing you're going to turn. Same with this: either you arrest your speed, or you move your car around, either way, you avoid your vehicle intersecting with the space occupied by another vehicle. More than one way to accomplish the same ends!

Re:The brakes model

[slick7]

if they use that model, that would be fine. Because I can choose to hit the brakes or not as I see fit. If harm comes from my failure to use them, then I suffer the consequences. If not, no problem. Thus, I expect them to implement a filter than can be applied or not applied as the user sees fit, and leave it up to them to apply it judiciously. I have no problem with this model, if so applied.

No matter how safe you make a "vehicle", you still have a loose nut behind the wheel. how do you fix that?

Re:The brakes model

[slick7]

That is not just cause for censorship.

When the religious zealots invoke G-D, it is.

Re:The brakes model

[ultranova]

The spice girls google example is a lesson, teachers should not randomly type things into google in front of students, if they want kid-safe search results they need to use a kid-safe search engine. That is not just cause for censorship.

Even better, understand that kids aren't going to be harmed by seeing naked women, or even people having sex. Those who are too young will simply ignore it, and those who are old enough will get more fuel for their fantasies. That's all.

Doesn't mean that you should go out of your way to show porn to children, but if they see it, it's not the end of the world, so stop overreacting.

Re:The brakes model

[zach_the_lizard]

I would suggest equipping all drivers with rather large wrenches. That might solve the loose nut problem. Either that, or make it so only women and eunuchs can drive.

Re:The brakes model

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Yeah but still, you'd have to admit that if anyone wanted to be on the internet and not "get" to look at a boatload of porn ... that'd be kinda hard.

Let's be honest here.

Re:The brakes model

[Anonymous Coward]

Google does have a safe search option, porn still can leak through. If I recall correctly image search is defaulted to a safe search. The image shouldn't have been there. I do think it would be nice if schools, or persons who do not wish to view porn on the internet had that option without forgoing Google search and the other major tools of the internet.

Re:The brakes model

[andymadigan]

Use a modern browser with a pop-up blocker and install an ad blocker. I don't see porn when I'm browsing unless I go looking for it.

Re:The brakes model

[S.O.B.]

Absolutely a country has the moral right to decide that it's citizens are not allowed to see porn just like it has the moral right to make any other decision to protect and provide for it's citizens. That's the very definition of government. Just because you disagree with the decision does not make it immoral.

If there was a .xxx domain I'm sure there are more than a few countries that would consider a nationwide block. I'm not saying I agree with it but it's not immoral for a country to attempt to do it.

I'm going to assume you're an American and suggest you peek outside the borders of your country and you'll see that there are many different shades of morality around the world.

Re:The brakes model

[S.O.B.]

I didn't intend to suggest that .xxx would be a silver bullet. It's more of a 90/10 rule. If .xxx would take care of say 90% of the porn then it's easier to deal with the 10% that's left.

The point I was trying to make is that having a .xxx red light district makes it easier to avoid for people who want to avoid it but at the same time not infringing on the right of those who do want it.

Re:The brakes model

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution gave up on niggers eons ago when it became apparent that niggers were a waste of time. Since then niggers have been stuck in time as a sub-human species, chosen for extinction by natural selection. Niggers have injected themselves into countries and societies around the world where they do not belong and are not wanted. For niggers, this is the only way they can survive, by demanding gibs muh dat everywhere they go and never contributing to that support or that society. For humans, natural selection can’t wipe niggers from the face of the Earth fast enough.

Niggers like to claim they have made important additions to society wherever they have gone. But humans don’t count quadrupled numbers of murder, rape, robbery, and all violent crime as valuable additions. Welcome to nigger logic.

When humans seek to decrease crime there are a few ways to go about it. Decrease the number of niggers in an area, and crime will decrease massively across the board. This is proven with DOJ statistics. The cities in the U.S. with the lowest crime are cities with the lowest number of niggers. Legally carrying a concealed weapon has helped to lower crime rates too even in cities with high percentages of niggers. Shanequa or Tyrell don’t want to git done kilt an sheeit while takin’ whitey’s wallet, gnomesayin?

In Detroit, nigger ground zero, they look at things a bit differently. Instead of learning from whitey and helping natural selection along by getting rid of themselves, niggers think banning TV news crews will prevent crime. Since niggers always blame anything other than themselves, and Detroit is more nigger fuxated than South Africa, the mayor has no choice than to blame TV crews and their cameras. Because a nigger mayor blaming niggers would make no sense at all. Nigger logic must be applied.

http://deadniggerstorage.org/

Re:The brakes model

[Pharmboy]

Absolutely a country has the moral right to decide that it's citizens are not allowed to see porn just like it has the moral right to make any other decision to protect and provide for it's citizens.

Here in America, our constitution was designed specifically to NOT allow the government to do those things. While they have whittled at those things for years, some of us believe that it is NOT the governments (any government) job to decide what is moral and what is not. Certain crimes such as murder, rape, burglary and such are illegal not because they are immoral, but because they victimize other individuals. Even the existing laws in the USA that have no victims should NOT be allowed under our constitution (suicide, for example).

We do understand that other countries do have governments that decide what is moral or not, and many citizens in those countries are ok with that. We just think it is insane to allow a bureaucrat to decide what your poor little mind can handle.

Re:The brakes model

[Golddess]

Are you really trying to say that looking at pornography is damaging to the person doing the looking, even when they want to look?

And no, there really aren't multiple shades of morality. If you take event X, it's morality changes only from other events surrounding and/or leading up to it (for example, the sequence of events leading up to killing someone would have a say in if that killing was moral), not from the geographic location in which it occurred.

However, I will concede that, for any event X, humans are piss poor at being able to determine if X was indeed moral or not.

Re:The brakes model

[S.O.B.]

Browser hijacking? An urban myth that you swallowed hook, line and sinker. What would porn site even gain from that?

Try doing a Google search. It's not a myth.

Finally, "unfortunate search results" still require you to click on them. If you search for "Gerri Halliwell", to pick up your example, and then get a link that says "nude photos of Gerri Halliwell!", you can still refuse to check it out.

Google search results often include images at the top of the page without having to click on them.

The IETF disagrees with you.

Well, I disagree with the IETF. None of the technical issues are show stoppers and seem to be a smoke screen to sidestep the legal and philosophical issues which I agree are non-trivial. However, it's just a classic case of decision paralysis, "I can't come up with a perfect solution so I'll do nothing".

Re:The brakes model

[Garrett Fox]

Well, it's like what we hear out of China. "The Chinese people don't want the freedom to look at dissenting political opinions. That's why there needs to be a massive censorship filter and widespread intimidation and oppression to stop any specific Chinese people who disagree." If there were really a consensus, there'd be no need for such a law.

Re:The brakes model

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

It must be clear to anyone that it would be supremely stupid for a government to mandate (or outlaw) a popup blocker, so I don't think it's a good option for .sa to start "advising" people on using popup blockers (besides, if a govt. started doing that, that blocker would become totally ineffective before you can say "imvu")

And can one read your post accurately that for a regular user, using just his normally bought windows pc with ie7 (or 8 in the best case), avoiding porn online isn't possible ?

I would agree with this government that the de-facto forcing of porn on users exists and it is not at all very nice, in fact I would quite like it for that to become a crime. Does that mean I'm in favor of a country-wide ban on pornography ? No, I'm perfectly content for people to watch whatever they want, however they want, in the privacy of their own home.

I do not think anyone on the internet really gets the choice whether to watch porn or not. It would be great if that *was* the case.

Make commercials for movies, sunglasses, whatever, and force me to watch them in trade for "content" all you want. But not porn, nor anything that could be understood to be porn. (so porn-like things like the imvu "instant messenger", or the generally less-than-subte commercials for "dating sites")

Re:The brakes model

[NotBornYesterday]

I do not think anyone on the internet really gets the choice whether to watch porn or not.

Not anyone? Really? Here's a partial list: My wife. My kids. My parents. Me, unless I'm looking for it. Millions of people on work PCs.

I know dozens of people, not computer experts, using regular PCs without pop-up blockers, who are not assaulted with internet porn. If you think someone can't venture online without encountering porn, you're doing it wrong. Furthermore, your incompetence is no excuse to prevent consenting adults from accessing legitimate adult-themed content.

Re:The brakes model

[NotBornYesterday]

And I'm going to assume that you aren't American by your fundamental misunderstanding of the proper role of government and the natural rights of citizens. I'd suggest you read some Thomas Paine before looking down your nose at us and inferring that we don't understand others.

I'd suggest starting with Common Sense, and then reading The Rights of Man. The Gutenburg Project has them. To sum up, The rights we enjoy (including the right to view what we please) are natural, they are part of our being. They are not conferred upon us by government, and therefore cannot be withdrawn at the government's whim. Rather, government is erected by the people to secure these rights, not the other way around..

Re:The brakes model

[skine]

While they have whittled at those things for years, some of us believe that it is NOT the governments (any government) job to decide what is moral and what is not.

A lot of people don't realize that the purpose of law (and government) is to create a successful society, and not for the protection of the individual (though individuals do benefit from a successful society).

Murder may be morally wrong, but that's not why it's illegal. It's illegal since a society which allows murder will likely not function very well.
Seatbelt laws are in place because healthy, living people are much more beneficial to society than those that are injured or dead.

From some points of view, pornography is immoral. The real questions that should be asked are whether it is detrimental to society, what the effect of banning/regulating porn will provide any benefit, and whether the ban will actually cause more problems than benefits.

Re:The brakes model

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell the Australian government that.

Re:The brakes model

[InfoJunkie777]

Absolutely a country has the moral right to decide that it's citizens are not allowed to see porn just like it has the moral right to make any other decision to protect and provide for it's citizens. That's the very definition of government. Just because you disagree with the decision does not make it immoral.

I could not disagree more. NO government has a right to make "moral" decisions for me or anyone else. Porn is victimless. It harms no one, even those to whom porn is disgusting suffer no hard in looking at it, willingly or not. Censorship is in no way the "very definition of government.

If there was a .xxx domain I'm sure there are more than a few countries that would consider a nationwide block. I'm not saying I agree with it but it's not immoral for a country to attempt to do it.

Sure they would. It would not be right, but is technically feasible. Better to allow a mechanism for individual to decide if they want ".xxx" domains blocked - like changing the Google search to "resticted" vice "off" in viewing images.

I'm going to assume you're an American and suggest you peek outside the borders of your country and you'll see that there are many different shades of morality around the world.

From what I hear and know first-hand, if anything Europe is much looser in this regard. Asia is pretty conservative and restrictive - although there are exceptions (Japan). In any event, morality should not and cannot be legislated.

Re:The brakes model

[S.O.B.]

Are you really trying to say that looking at pornography is damaging to the person doing the looking, even when they want to look?

My previous comment said nothing of the sort. I was commenting on whether it was moral for a government to decide what pornography, if any, it's citizens are allowed to see.

And no, there really aren't multiple shades of morality. If you take event X, it's morality changes only from other events surrounding and/or leading up to it (for example, the sequence of events leading up to killing someone would have a say in if that killing was moral), not from the geographic location in which it occurred.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. When I referred to shades of morality outside the U.S. border I meant that other societies may have a different moral code, not that a given person's moral code changed as they changed locations.

What you may think is moral someone from a different country or culture may think is immoral and vice versa. But if you think that for every event X there is only one moral interpretation then I believe you are mistaken. You may have only one interpretation but that does not mean that someone else's different interpretation is any less valid. How we define ourselves as a society is how we resolve those different interpretations.

However, I will concede that, for any event X, humans are piss poor at being able to determine if X was indeed moral or not.

No argument here.

Re:The brakes model

[zuperduperman]

> the purpose of law (and government) is to create a successful society

It may be true at a practical level, but I find this kind of rationalization very scary. You are saying that the needs of the collective universally outweigh those of the individual. Which for example (sorry to Godwin the thread) would mean that if we genuinely come to believe that Jews negatively affect society then it is quite OK to discriminate against them, perhaps even ship them out on trains or enslave them and put them in camps because, hey, making 'society' better is a higher purpose than protecting the rights of individuals.

> From some points of view, pornography is immoral. The real questions that should be asked are whether it is detrimental to society

I have to disagree. We are not here to serve 'society', 'society' is here to serve us. We are individuals who agree to participate in 'society' because it serves our own interests. If we all choose masturbating to porn as a great thing to do then it is not the business of government to make a judgement that 'society' has been negatively affected. If you want to make this argument then you have to drive it down to how it negatively affects individuals, and then address a solution at the most granular level possible to help those individuals. It is only in the most extreme and rare cases that this should rise to the level that all 'society' has to be controlled.

Re:The brakes model

[Anonymous Coward]

Most politicians would disagree. So vote them out.

Re:The brakes model

[S.O.B.]

I could not disagree more. NO government has a right to make "moral" decisions for me or anyone else. Porn is victimless. It harms no one, even those to whom porn is disgusting suffer no hard in looking at it, willingly or not. Censorship is in no way the "very definition of government.

Governments make moral decisions every day. Our laws, passed and enforced by the government, are a reflection of the moral code of society in general. For example, abortion laws (for or against) are going to be considered immoral by one group and moral by the opposing group. If you are in the opposing group then the government has made a moral decision that you disagree with.

And governments censor things all the time. Hate speech is censored. Nudity and swearing is censored (on network not cable TV). Those things are censored because society collectively thinks that they are wrong. What if a society collectively thinks that porn is wrong? Well, the government would censor it like hate speech and nudity on TV.

And all porn being victimless is not necessarily true. Child porn is not victimless.

Sure they would. It would not be right, but is technically feasible. Better to allow a mechanism for individual to decide if they want ".xxx" domains blocked - like changing the Google search to "resticted" vice "off" in viewing images.

It depends on the attitudes of society as a whole. In some countries they may prefer that it is filtered at the border. You may not agree and if your country decides to do that then you can protest but don't criticize another country for their choice.

From what I hear and know first-hand, if anything Europe is much looser in this regard. Asia is pretty conservative and restrictive - although there are exceptions (Japan). In any event, morality should not and cannot be legislated.

Morality can be and is legislated all the time. Prostitution, murder, theft, rape, abortion, child abuse, to name a few. These are all moral issues with laws that define what people are and are not allowed to do.

Re:The brakes model

[InfoJunkie777]

I agree with child porn being a crime. It is NOT victimless. The children are victims. As for murder, theft and rape, child abuse: they are illegal because the harm others - they have victims. Maybe some moral issues ARE legislated. Doesn't mean they should be.

Re:The brakes model

[Golddess]

I do not believe that my moral code is the absolute correct moral code. Just want to say that up front.

Absolutely a country has the moral right to decide that it's citizens are not allowed to see porn just like it has the moral right to make any other decision to protect and provide for it's citizens.

So yeah, you're saying they have the right to "protect" other people from pornography, which in the context of the topic (complete and utter banning from letting anyone see it) implies that looking at pornography is damaging, regardless of if the looker wants to see it.

And no where did I say a person's moral code changed on their geographic location, only that the morality of any given event does not change on the geographic location in which it occurs. Again, I agree that there is no way humans can come to a consensus on what is and is not moral, but as a firm believer that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", there are also certain unalienable immoralities, making Event X just as immoral in Country A where it is against the law, as it is in Country B where it is allowed.

Re:The brakes model

[DarkEmpath]

The controversial .xxx domain, if it ever gets approved, would allow people and countries that do not want to see porn to have a way to ensure that they will never see it unless they intentionally go to those sites.

You're living in fantasy land.

For example, a few years ago when my cousin first heard of the .xxx TLD she thought it was great idea. She's into tattoos, gothic clothing (corsets and stuff), and although she's not gay, she likes artistic nudes of women. Every time she searched for the stuff she likes, she was always being bombarded with porn. She loved the idea that all that "porn" would disappear to .xxx and leave her to look at naked women in peace.

I pointed out that my (fundamentalist christian) mother would consider the stuff she subscribes to on DeviantART as porn - should it be moved to .xxx? "No! Of course not, it's not porn!" "How about Suicide Girls?" "No! That's not porn, either!"

While it may be hard to justify the opinion that Suicide Girls isn't porn, my cousin genuinely doesn't see it as such. And DeviantART is full of artistic nudes that a lot of prudes would consider porn. Now, there is a point where something becomes obviously and undeniably porn to any honestly objective observer (e.g. "Backdoor Sluts 9"), but there is a massive grey area where it's debatable. And who's standards should we use? My mother's? My cousin's? Ted Haggard's? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's? Ron Jeremy's?

Re:The brakes model

[melikamp]

I kind of agree with GP.

the purpose of law (and government) is to create a successful society

If this is not a major goal, then one day your society may find itself at the very end of the pecking order in what now is a world-wide playground. If your country gets into a war and looses badly, or buckles under the economical pressure, or runs out of a vital natural resource, then all of your social welfare proves to be completely useless. You cannot pick up your check if you are dead.

I have to disagree. We are not here to serve 'society', 'society' is here to serve us.

Well, then, we have a huge problem, because the society is a gigantic, super-intelligent hive-like organism. We are like gigantic ants. Your country dwarfs both your intelligence and your power, when considered as a single living entity. If you consider how much smarter an anthill is than a single ant, you will get a fair impression of how much your adversary is ahead of you on every level. The society wants to watch out for its own survival, and the reason is the one I gave above: its own adversaries are not mere individuals, but other societies, and it knows that it cannot rely on just the good will of people like you and me when shit really hits the fan.

We are individuals who agree to participate in 'society' because it serves our own interests.

Society cannot help but feel shortchanged when it hears people say that.. It does, after all, afford to us a lifestyle that any other mammal would literally kill for. And how fair and ethical is it to declare that something that intelligent should be your slave? I think we need to befriend the society and recognize that the right distribution of power is some kind of consensus which makes the society sufficiently strong, autonomous, mentally agile, while keeping all (or as many as possible) individuals reasonably happy.

Re:The brakes model

[jesset77]

I think we need to befriend the society and recognize that the right distribution of power is some kind of consensus which makes the society sufficiently strong, autonomous, mentally agile, while keeping all (or as many as possible) individuals reasonably happy.

If you are suggesting that individuals and large conglomerate organizations (companies, governments, cultures, etc) should learn to cooperate and recognize one another's sovereignty then I think I'll agree there. Neither is the individual master while the society is a meaningless tool, nor is the society the only important factor while the individual is a meaningless cog. Either viewpoint raises the survival instinct of whichever species is being maligned and ruins the whole project. Individual and Society should learn about and respect one another, and treat each other with dignity.

That being the case, individuals require uncensored access to publicly available empirical data in order to make healthful decisions for themselves. Some individuals subscribe to superstitions and taboos which make them seek to avoid certain kinds of data and stick their heads in the sand. This is their choice, and I look forward to my end of the gene pool winning against such strategies which I personally see as inferior.

Still, whenever a society sees fit to censor publicly available information based on moral objections (pornography, violence, blasphemy, images of Mohammed) or political objections (copyright, governmental criticism, swastikas) without the voluntary cooperation of those who get the wool over their eyes, this amounts to intelligence fraud against the citizen. In place of the real data that is available on any given subject, individuals get a picture of the world with elements Photoshopped out of it and replaced by fabrication.

The citizen can only assume the elided elements benefit them or their social contract, while the very nature of removing data is that the user cannot reliably know what the data is that was removed or why. Is the user in danger? If pornographic emails to a citizen get discreetly blackholed, does that mean the citizen is being stalked and will soon be attacked in the street? If a video is removed from Youtube citing copyright complaint from Warner Music, does that mean it was a pirate copy of a Warner song or simply a very popular track from an up and coming independent artist that someone at Warner hopes to gag?

In order to censor you must replace the censored data with something. You must replace the "ugly" or "scary" thing with an image of calm. It's like driving down the road with an intelligent windshield that can show anything as a head's up display, that chooses to censor out certain things that might distract the driver. If there is a pretty deer, the windshield covers the view of the deer with a repeating pattern from the side of the road so that the driver does not rubberneck. This spells doom for the driver when the elided deer darts in front of the car.

Re:The brakes model

[skine]

You are saying that the needs of the collective universally outweigh those of the individual.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that the collective's sole responsibility is to perpetuate itself. Also, I never said that a society should supersede those of the individuals. While I'm not saying it's possible, I find it hard to conceive of a society that is both successful and fails to meet the needs of its citizens.

In fact, your example of Nazi Germany is an excellent example of a failed society.

[...]if we genuinely come to believe that Jews negatively affect society then it is quite OK to discriminate against them, perhaps even ship them out on trains or enslave them and put them in camps because, hey, making 'society' better is a higher purpose than protecting the rights of individuals.

But the truth is that the Jews were not negatively effecting society, while their actions ultimately provided only a temporary benefit for the society.

If you want to make this argument then you have to drive it down to how it negatively affects individuals, and then address a solution at the most granular level possible to help those individuals.

Again, I find it hard to think of any situation where the individuals in a society are significantly harmed, and yet the society as a whole is not harmed. Note that not all effects are immediate, nor do they necessarily lend themselves to saving/destroying the society.

I'll admit, morality does often get included in legislation, but it should be noted that public unrest can be incredibly detrimental to a conducive society.

Re:The brakes model

[Hurricane78]

You don’t look like you were joking. So...

How the fuck does seeing naked people or sex harm children? Hm?
Instead of not seeing it, which actually is scientifically proven to hinder their development.
Go on... explain it to me. In terms of the physics of actual reality. Or at least in terms of proper neurological/psychological science. Not in terms of religious-schizophrenia-based reality distortions parroted around.

Re:The brakes model

[Anonymous Coward]

a few years ago when my cousin first heard of the .xxx TLD she thought it was great idea. She's into tattoos, gothic clothing (corsets and stuff)

Pic's or GTFO!

Re:The brakes model

[Hurricane78]

your incompetence is no excuse to prevent anyone from accessing legitimate adult-themed content.

There, fixed that for ya. I have no interest in anyone harming the development of my children with their perverse religious-schizophrenia-based delusions.

Re:The brakes model

[Anonymous Coward]

when I was a 9 year old girl, seeing sexually suggestive pictures made me feel unconfortable. I saw them in posters wlaking by a movie theather, or going to a restaurant with my parents with a big poster of a woman showing lots of skin. Sexually suggestive movies upset me too, and made me feel really bad. Not explicit hardcore or softcore, just movie plots where prostitutes where given as gifts to men, for example. I ended crying one time, because I found it to be horrible, and complained (while crying) to my mother about how disgusting all that stuff seemed to me. All that sex stuff. Yep. I turned out allright later, no sexual hungups whatsoever, but at that time, those images made me suffer.

Maybe it had something to do with my parent's reaction more than the images itselves, maybe they got nervous and felt awkward because I was there and that is what made me feel bad, who knows? Anyway, that is my experience and memories as a child.

Re:The brakes model

[Jedi Alec]

To sum up, The rights we enjoy (including the right to view what we please) are natural, they are part of our being. They are not conferred upon us by government, and therefore cannot be withdrawn at the government's whim. Rather, government is erected by the people to secure these rights, not the other way around..

Which is a very nice philosophical point of view...right up to the point where reality rears its ugly head.

You have no rights, be they given by an invisible man in the sky or wherever else from. Zip, nada, zilch. The rights we enjoy we have because the people with the guns allow them. And so long as the people with the guns consider themselves to be in the employment of we, the people, that'll remain the status quo. We have collectively decided that these are basic rights for human beings...yet when 2 countries in Africa start sending children at one another with machetes...does that still apply?

When push comes to shove, you can have all the fancy constitions, bills of rights and other wonderful documents written by very enlightened men. When the tanks roll through the streets...none of that matters anymore. Well, I guess that isn't entirely true. You're free to think of yourself as being in pursuit of happiness, but life and liberty might turn out to be quite hard to maintain under those circumstances.

Re:The brakes model

[slackbheep]

My country and it's government has about as much right to decide for me that porn is immoral as it does to decide music is immoral.

Re:The brakes model

[Anonymous Coward]

What is a society but a collection of individuals? Protecting society boils down to protecting individuals from each other, and allowing all of those individuals to exercise their rights to the fullest extent they can without negatively impacting another individual. Being immoral is a right that individuals do have because morality is chosen by an individual for that individual and nobody else. The US Supreme Court has upheld this multiple times.

Take Roe vs. Wade for example: the abortion debate is essentially a question on the beginning of life, which is not a legal or scientific question, it is a religious/philosophical/moral question. Therefore individuals must be allowed to exercise their freedom to choose their own morality and basis thereof, and all individuals must be legally allowed to have an abortion even though some individuals will follow a morality that disallows *them* from having abortions. The issue is when those individuals think that their morality should apply to everybody else.

So, to get back on topic, is the watching of recorded consensual intercourse immoral? Different people will have different moralities, and while every individual will have their rationalizations/justifications for their morality and their choices, the rights of everybody to watch consensual intercourse must be protected even though some individuals will not exercise those rights because of their chosen morality.

Re:The brakes model

[Hurricane78]

Except for the designers of that mind-virus: The power-greedy churches.
They know it’s all lies, and know that you just fake it all anyway.
That’s why they see fucking kids as such a normal thing.

Re:The brakes model

[Vlado]

I don't think it's a good option for .sa...

Domain extension for South Africa is .za

Re:The brakes model

[Anonymous Coward]

> > the purpose of law (and government) is to create a successful society

> It may be true at a practical level, but I find this kind of rationalization very scary.

Well, he is partly right. The law is the reflection of a societies morality, it's that easy. Just imagine we would be another species, we might find it just to eat children at liberty until age 4, some spiders do that. We are human, so we don't.

But anyway, it is up to a country to decide on their own view on things. On porn, in the Netherlands we just aired it on public national television a few times. I don't think anyone cares. To each his own.

Re:The brakes model

[Asmodaie]

>> the purpose of law (and government) is to create a successful society
> It may be true at a practical level, but I find this kind of rationalization very scary. You are saying that the needs of the collective universally outweigh those of the individual.

I don't find it a rationalization. The law of a society reflects its own morality. Just imagine we were another species. We might find it just to eat all children up to age four, some spiders do that. We are human, so we don't.

>> From some points of view, pornography is immoral. The real questions that should be asked are whether it is detrimental to society
> I have to disagree. We are not here to serve 'society', 'society' is here to serve us.

The law is societies common morality. Each society has its own right to establish its own laws. In the Netherlands, some porn was just aired on public television. We even have a television show on drugs and sex. I doubt anyone cares here. To each his own.

Re:The brakes model

[tverbeek]

Moving 90% wouldn't do any good, because it's the sleazy 10% who would never comply that are the problem in the first place.

So let me get this straight...

[History's Coming To]

So the cars without seatbelts have to drive in one set of tubes, and the cars with seatbelts drive in different tubes, and some of those tubes aren't allowed to go into SA airspace? Ok, I think I get it.....

A reasonable precaution

[Vinegar Joe]

Who wants to see Winnie Mandela nude?

Re:A reasonable precaution

[Anonymous Coward]

Not Mr. Mandela, it would certainly seem.

yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

"A reasonable and justifiable limitation on Freedom of Expression and Right to Privacy."

I agree with this. Porn is everywhere and it's damaging the family. Especially with all the perverted bat shit they have out there now. Ban it so I won't be tempted into the darkside

Re:yeah

[Vinegar Joe]

Ban it so I won't be tempted into the darkside.

Racist.

Re:yeah

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Ban it so I won't be tempted into the darkside.

Racist.

Go and blackmale him. That'll teach him.

Re:yeah

[Shakrai]

You are calling racism over a Star Wars reference? Are you working for the DNC or something?

Re:yeah

[twidarkling]

I believe you missed the joke there. May wanna get your humour detector checked out before you go running around the internet again.

Re:yeah

[slick7]

Ban it so I won't be tempted into the darkside.

Racist.

Go and blackmale him. That'll teach him.

Come to the darkside, we have cookies and Tracy Lords.

Re:yeah

[couchslug]

"Ban it so I won't be tempted into the darkside"

If thine eye offend thee, have the balls to pluck it out. You won't need it in Paradise.

Comic book guy says...

[Anonymous Coward]

..."worst

car analogy

ever."

See, this is why...

[schmidt349]

There is no reason why the internet should be provided without the necessary restrictive mechanisms built into it.

He's exactly right. This is why we print newspapers and books on flash paper, for instance, in case the ideas they contain are found to be dangerous and need to be restricted. The same logic also explains the censors who sit in on university classes to cover students' ears and hum loudly when the professor expresses views which are not in the mainstream.

Gigaba?

[Anonymous Coward]

'Gigaba' sounds too close to 'giggety' for me.

Re:Gigaba?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds a lot mor like Jigaboo.

Re:Gigaba?

[Anonymous Coward]

And Jigaboo sounds a lot like Gig-a-loo...

Attention to other important stuff...

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't they be concentrating on more important stuff?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_South_Africa

http://www.avert.org/aidssouthafrica.htm

Re:Attention to other important stuff...

[biryokumaru]

No, don't be absurd, that only affects the poor.

Re:Attention to other important stuff...

[dogmatixpsych]

Why can't they do both? I don't see how they are mutually exclusive categories. If South Africa wants to filter porn that does not exclude them from also working on the AIDS problem. Governments can focus on more than one thing (usually).

Re:Attention to other important stuff...

[M. Baranczak]

The problem is, the SA government is not working on the AIDS problem. Their minister of health, for several years, was a woman who claimed that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, and that eating beets and garlic can protect you against it. You can't make this shit up. This minister is gone now, but the people who hired her are still in power.

Re:Attention to other important stuff...

[mrsteveman1]

You [i]really[/i] don't see the connection between banning porn and attempting to reduce the AIDS problem? No, you can't actually do the former while trying to do the latter.

Re:Attention to other important stuff...

[Shakrai]

Their minister of health [bbc.co.uk], for several years, was a woman who claimed that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, and that eating beets and garlic can protect you against it

Did anybody check her campaign account for donations from big garlic?

Re:Attention to other important stuff...

[phoenix321]

There is obviously a relation between looking at porn and actually having sexual intercourse with other people.

An INVERSE one.

Every /.'er knows that.

Account and geek card please.

Re:Attention to other important stuff...

[koreaman]

That was exactly his point.

Re:Attention to other important stuff...

[fafaforza]

That's the point. A ban on porn will most likely result in people engaging in more intercourse. If you're aware of the AIDS problem and risks, and you're able to relieve your urges in a safe manner, then you're lowering your risk/exposure. But if you can't relieve those urges, then you'll go out to find a partner to help you.

If there's one place that doesn't need a ban on porn, it's Africa.

Re:Attention to other important stuff...

[Nexus7]

A minister? The rot goes up much higher... their President didn't think that HIV cause AIDS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thabo_Mbeki#AIDS_denialist_connections). Hopefully he's changed his mind by now...

Re:Attention to other important stuff...

[flyingfsck]

SA needs AIDS to keep the population growth down. If you combat every gawddamm illness in Africa, then many more people will die worse later.

Re:Attention to other important stuff...

[ultranova]

SA needs AIDS to keep the population growth down. If you combat every gawddamm illness in Africa, then many more people will die worse later.

Bullshit. The population growth rate in every industrial country is around zero. AIDS, by disturbing economy and thus keeping the quality of life down, is making the problem worse, not better. Also, you really can't die much worse than from AIDS.

The whole "population explosion" scare has been debunked by reality; it turns out that humans simply expand to whatever their environment can comfortably support and then stay there.

Re:Attention to other important stuff...

[zach_the_lizard]

I can attest to the power that garlic and onions have in preventing AIDS. You see, ingesting these magical foods in large quantities eliminates the possibility of intercourse (or anything else that involves being with 3 meters of a member of the opposite sex), thus staving off the terrible scourge that is AIDS. The risk of getting it becomes very low. Don't you see how much of a forward thinker this minister was?

Re:Attention to other important stuff...

[Mashiki]

The answer to that is no. I had a buddy who owned a major pest control company in SA before and after apartheid ended. His words were: "We're getting the fuck out now." And so they did, the place is going to hell faster then you can pave the road. The guy is pro-racist, anti-mix, anti-white. SA is moving back to apartheid, just another colour the same as most of Africa. Whatever, the entire continent could be the bread basket of the world but they'd rather stab each other in the face over tribal affairs.

Re:Attention to other important stuff...

[Barrinmw]

I was actually thinking of this. Lack of porn would increase people's desire for sex and since Africa is already mostly torn with HIV everywhere, this would just cause the spread of HIV to increase.

Porn Saves Lives!

Re:Attention to other important stuff...

[sirlark]

Actually, no the people who hired here are not still in power, same political party maybe, but very different faction, in fact the guys who stabbed her former boss in the back are in power. Not saying the current lot are any better than the last lot, but they certainly are different with respect to their attitudes regarding HIV/Aids

Re:Attention to other important stuff...

[sirlark]

hired *her*, there fixed that for me

Pornography ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... is still (adult) Free Speech, isn't it? Well, perhaps not in SA, who knows.

Re:Pornography ...

[krou]

I had a brief look at the opinion piece on the JASA website, and its argument is basically "think of the children", which (according to them) trumps free speech:

Internet pornography is such a readily accessible evil for children, that the Constitutional Court, if the Bill were challenged, would be bound to hold that the section 28 obligation to protect at all costs the best interests of children would trump the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.

Section 28 of the Bill of Rights states "A child's best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.". Previous court rulings have said that the state 'must provide the legal and administrative infrastructure necessary to ensure that children are accorded the protection contemplated by S28.'

The Bill of Rights also notes that 'The rights ... may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors', which include things like the nature of the right, its purpose etc. So, while they recognise pornography as free speech etc, they also "think of the children", which as we all know overrules any other concern.

Re:Pornography ...

[c_sd_m]

What about the child's right to be exposed to parts of the world that aren't perfectly safe, so that they grow up before they're 30? Keep someone from skinning their knees or hearing "dirty" words until they're 18 then see how "productive" or mature they'll be at 22.

Re:Pornography ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I missed the part where South Africa had already banned firearms and knives - after all, think of the children!

Re:Pornography ...

[mjwalshe]

ironic as one of the justifications for apartheid was that the "Bleks" where like children and couldnt handle modern concpets like democracy. Does any one one to bet this has been got up by some of the nasty evengalicals that are behind the anti gay legislation for example Scott Lively, president of Abiding Truth Ministries, an American conservative Christian group from California, and a Holocaust revisionist who is behind some of the push for anti gay laws in various African countries.

solved all other problems, I see?

[roman_mir]

So I guess they solved all of the other societal and economic problems in South Africa now, that they are considering this porn ban.

I don't know of any other single thing that can rile up the masses as much as this nonsense, this including killing of kittens and puppies and eating little babies with some tomato sauce. Well maybe not the masses, but I sure would be quite irritated.

Re:solved all other problems, I see?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're going to ban societal and economic problems in near future.

Re:solved all other problems, I see?

[Shakrai]

and eating little babies with some tomato sauce

That's absurd. Everybody knows that babies go better with a white wine sauce. Red sauce just overpowers the flavor of the meat.

Re:solved all other problems, I see?

[Vinegar Joe]

Everybody knows that babies go better with a white wine sauce. Red sauce just overpowers the flavor of the meat.

Ha! Another Neo-colonialist trying to impose their western tastes on the downtrodden victims of imperialism!

Re:solved all other problems, I see?

[roman_mir]

babies with white wine sauce? You elitist bastard!

Re:solved all other problems, I see?

[tverbeek]

So I guess they solved all of the other societal and economic problems in South Africa now, that they are considering this porn ban.

See, that's just it. Since the dismantling of Apartheid, South Africa has made such progress on human rights and social justice (still far from perfect, but way better than it used to be) that they have to take measures like this to try to fsck the place up again.

Re:solved all other problems, I see?

[shutdown -p now]

Since the dismantling of Apartheid, South Africa has made such progress on human rights and social justice (still far from perfect, but way better than it used to be)

I guess that's why their crime rates have soared since then, and life quality has decreased on average?

Let's face it: the people who took over the country in post-apartheid era fucked up in a major way, and that is largely due to violent ignorance of the newly found electorate. Not saying that apartheid was a good thing, mind you - it was a travesty, and good riddance! - but for all the good things that its downfall had brought, there were just as many bad ones; and those still keep coming...

Re:solved all other problems, I see?

[Hurricane78]

Actually, seeing how people down there just have a much bigger need for sex... (I know, because half of my genes also raise my standard horniness level. So I’m not judging here.) ... and the whole taboo shit already has made rape numbers go up... I fear that banning porn will massively raise rape numbers even more. :(

They are healthy human beings. They NEED sex. Because that is the reason we exist in the first place.
So I say: Let people blow off steam with porn! Give them as much as they want! For a happier community!

Fucking churches fucking up things for everyone (you know this is a invention of churches, right?), while themselves fucking children! They are the genuine original black-hat mind hackers, terrorists and dictators. They are the genuine centers of all evil. (Yep, 9/11 is just as much their work as the inquisitions, the whole Israel thing, lots of wars and torture, the whole dark ages fuckup, and the recent mass kiddie fiddling.)

Re:solved all other problems, I see?

[Hurricane78]

And you expected what from a tortured society?
First they have to process the whole times of horror in their minds and communities.
Then things can become normal again.

It’s similar to how in post-war countries, parents beat their children more, or are overprotective (or both).

Give them time and support. The community still has to heal. Do what you would do to a human that you want to heal.

Re:solved all other problems, I see?

[shutdown -p now]

And you expected what from a tortured society?

I expected that when they were talking about reconciliation and peace, they meant just that, and not that the oppressed simply switch places with their oppressors. The latter simply continues the cycle of hate and violence with no real hope to ever see its end. The way it is, I don't see how SAR is going to get any better. It's divided more now than it was in 1992.

Why not?

[Hijacked Public]

Once you've climbed the hill past every other questionable component of human behavior, why not ban porn? You're past racism and oppression and outright murder of whatever race isn't the one in power. And starvation. And everyone has enough water. And you can grow all the food you need. And you haven't sold everything under the ground to companies that will burn everything above making room to dig.

No one is actively raping and pillaging their neighbors. People's homes aren't being burned with government approval. You won't be murdered and your gold teeth pried out if you ride a Kombi outside Johannesburg. Not everyone you meet has aids and does nothing to prevent its spread.

So yeah why not tackle porn?

Re:Why not?

[Kjella]

Not everyone you meet has aids and does nothing to prevent its spread.

So yeah why not tackle porn?

It's the catholic solution. No porn = no dirty thoughts = abstinence and monogamy = no AIDS problem. No points for finding flaws in that logic, even WoW or slashdot would be more effective.

Re:Why not?

[Znork]

It's the catholic solution.

A Catholic solution? Won't somebody (apart from the priests) think of the children?!?

Re:Why not?

[phantomfive]

It sounds similar to California......we have a big problem that is so obviously a problem, and yet the legislature seems to want to ignore it, it's too scary.

Of course the problems in S Africa are much worse

Re:Why not?

[schlunk]

. . .

No one is actively raping and pillaging their neighbors. People's homes aren't being burned with government approval. You won't be murdered and your gold teeth pried out if you ride a Kombi outside Johannesburg. Not everyone you meet has aids and does nothing to prevent its spread.

. . .

Wait, is this sarcasm? I thought that rape and murder were still big big problems in S.A. Am I mistaken?

Re:Why not?

[houghi]

I think there is to much logic in your thoughts. I think it is more like: if we do not see it, it does not exist. This goes for porn, child molesting, murder, abortion, ...

A sort of universal Don't ask, don't tell.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

because pornography doesnt exist. killing a human being is an act clearly defined in all cultures. pornography is visual representations of the human body or human sexual behavior, that people find offensive. there is simply no clear dividing line. computer generated animations of children having sex? paintings by great artists? robert mapplethorpe photos? movies with nude scenes? photos taken by couples for private use? ideally, laws are created to stop or reduce harm. when we pass laws banning things that are not inherently harmful (not having an id, sex with consenting adults, believing in certain ideas), we are guilty of an offense as great as any harmful act. Now, there is obviously some representations of nudity/sexuality that are documentations of harm (images of children having sex with adults), and there are huge problems with women being exploited, and with people being caught in cycles of addiction/obsession. Exploitation is illegal, so prosecute that. addiction is a medical/psychological/social problem, not a legal problem. just remember: if its not hurting someone, it shouldnt be illegal.

Re:Why not?

[Sarcileptic]

The Catholic church also demonized the use of condoms, further spreading HIV.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to be clear - you mean that encouraging the use of WoW or /. would be effective at promoting abstinence, right?

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Once you've climbed the hill past every other questionable component of human behavior, why not ban porn? You're past racism and oppression and outright murder of whatever race isn't the one in power. And starvation. And everyone has enough water. And you can grow all the food you need. And you haven't sold everything under the ground to companies that will burn everything above making room to dig.

No one is actively raping and pillaging their neighbors. People's homes aren't being burned with government approval. You won't be murdered and your gold teeth pried out if you ride a Kombi outside Johannesburg. Not everyone you meet has aids and does nothing to prevent its spread.

So yeah why not tackle porn?

oh yes life's a peach in South Africa .. they have solved all their problems,they completely eradicated racism stopped hunger all over the world and cured cancer.... now they are onto the biggest scourge of all ....

anybody who puts porn in the same class with murder is either a brainwashed religious loon or simply stupid. Apparently Malusi Gigaba is both.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because porn is not harmful to unconsenting innocents.

Because people like porn, want access to it, and can do so without harming others.

Because porn creates jobs and helps the economy.

Because the law should not legislate morality.

Because, in a free world, there should be porn.

Re:Why not?

[drac0n1z]

Some RSA news: http://censorbugbear-reports.blogspot.com/2010_05_28_archive.html http://censorbugbear-reports.blogspot.com/2010_05_21_archive.html Make up your own mind: http://www.news24.com/Tags/Topics/crime Why waste resources on this bill and not on real issues?

In unrelated news...

[that IT girl]

...a mass exodus of the male population of South Africa is beginning to occur.

Re:In unrelated news...

[IANAAC]

...a mass exodus of the male population of South Africa is beginning to occur.

In a few weeks, probably not before.

Re:In unrelated news...

[phoenix321]

No. They will just leave the Internet cafes, WiFi hotspots and mother's basements.

I think we should buy stock from makers of alcoholic beverages, condoms, morning-after pills and AIDS drugs. And bolster funds for rape recovery therapy.

Banning online porn in a country where half the males have HIV. What a brilliant idea.

Re:In unrelated news...

[mjwx]

...a mass exodus of the male population of South Africa is beginning to occur.

I live in Perth, Western Australia. I can assure you that this has been happening for some time.

Re:In unrelated news...

[howzit]

Yea, isn't that called The Chicken Run?

Re:In unrelated news...

[that IT girl]

Yeah, that has the potential to be a complete disaster.

Surprisingly honest assessment

[Dragoniz3r]

The summary tries to drum up angst about the title of the bill, but when you think about it for a couple seconds, it becomes evident that it's actually just the most honest bill title you'll ever see. I'm not saying anything about whether their "reasonable and justifiable" limitations are reasonable and justifiable in my opinion. Clearly they are in their opinion however, and they have entitled their bill thusly. Here in the USA, if this same bill was attempted, it'd probably have a cryptic title with lots of numbers in it that don't tell you anything about what it does/says/means. At least this bill TELLS you that it's fucking with your freedoms.

So Bravo, I say, to whoever penned the title to this bill. Good to see a government not hiding behind the curtains of obfuscation.

PS: Let's not forget that there're more than a couple bills in whatever land you're hailing from that likely could be titled similarly, because when it gets right down to it, some limitation of "freedom of expression" is needed. We just tend to call them murder laws instead, but there's no reason why they have to be called that.

Re:Surprisingly honest assessment

[Daengbo]

In the US, it would be named the "Save the Children" bill, or be given some stupid acronym like "the CHARGE (Chidren Have A Right to Gain Equally) Act," even though the acronym had little to do with the bill's content and didn't even make sense, really. No senator could be seen to vote against the "Save the Children" bill, so it would pass after lots of pork got tucked in between its pages.

Re:Surprisingly honest assessment

[elewton]

The US generally goes for irony in naming its laws. Genital Preservation Act? Anti Salaried Sex-Slave Legislation?

Re:Surprisingly honest assessment

[masmullin]

so it would pass after lots of pork got tucked in between its pages.

hahahaha

Yeah, cuz that'll work

[Anonymous Coward]

Rape is illegal in South Africa too and those obscene statistics can speak for themselves. Perhaps porn shouldn't be the priority here?

Re:Yeah, cuz that'll work

[Anonymous Coward]

Andrea Dworkin published a peer-reviewed paper stating there's incontrovertible evidence that rape causes pornography and pornography causes rape. Surely those rapists are overwhelmed with pornography in their daily lives, downloading it on their iPads, sexting each other, amassing enormous collections of porn on DVD among other deviations.

So porn equals immoral?

[AffidavitDonda]

That's something that could be questioned. But of course not, if your organization includes "churches". Sex (as long as all participants are of full age and voluntary) is only immoral in the eyes of religious fanatics. Porn equals pictures and movies of sex, So you can apply the rule here too. It's not a matter of "moral" but of a certain belief system.

More car analolgies

[camg188]

Using a car analogy, Mr. Gigaba said: 'Cars are already provided with brakes and seatbelts... There is no reason why the internet should be provided without the necessary restrictive mechanisms built into it.'

Cars come with steering wheels that let me go where ever I want, even if it is an off road adventure in some nasty, sticky muck.

Cars come with radiator caps so if too much pressure builds up, the hot fluids are released into an overflow tank.

Re:More car analolgies

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Cars are where most teenagers experience their first sexual adventures.

Cars come with radiator caps so if too much pressure builds up, the hot fluids are released into an overflow tank.

Finbarr Saunders (and his double entendres) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finbarr_Saunders: "Fnarr! Fnarr!", "Warf! Warf!", "Tsssk Tsssk", "Chortle Chortle" and "K-Woo! K-Woo!"

Re:More car analolgies

[Larryish]

You should SOOOO register sexyradiatorcaps.com

Re:More car analolgies

[__aasqbs9791]

That's a good point. My cable modem already comes with brakes for the internet. There's this blue bottom on top that puts the modem into standby. If I 'accidentally' run into some porn, I can always hit that to prevent my sensitive eyes from seeing too much. So that's all they need in SA if they want 'brakes for the internet'. Works for the whole house, too. And there's a reason it sits on my desk and not my wife's. ;^)

Re:More car analolgies

[SamSim]

Cars come with steering wheels that let me go where ever I want, even if it is an off road adventure in some nasty, sticky muck.

Cars come with radiator caps so if too much pressure builds up, the hot fluids are released into an overflow tank.

And children are not allowed to drive them!

Re:More car analolgies

[shentino]

Which also prevents you from going to another site.

Brakes prevent you from driving in reverse just as effectively as they prevent you from going forward.

Re:More car analolgies

[__aasqbs9791]

Not really too bad though, since you can then close that tab or pres back and press standby to return it to operation.

I'm with them...

[Kikuchi]

... because nothing wrong ever rises from people who are "committed to upholding and fighting for justice and the highest moral standards". They obviously know what is better for everyone, moral value being an objective one. I cant' wait until a representative of my country begins thinking "Hey, they're doing it, why wouldn't we?".

I guess they want to increase their birth rate

[Anonymous Coward]

Less porn means more obstacles for people who want to pleasure themselves. Which in turn will lead to more people having sex, some of which will be unprotected (quite a good proportion actually. Unless I'm mistaken, they are not that big on contraception)... which will lead to more births in the long run.
Sounds like a plan... way to go SA.

Re:I guess they want to increase their birth rate

[Anonymous Coward]

And only 1 in 4 of the kids will be born HIV-positive.

Arrogance!

[Anonymous Coward]

I realize that it's quite hard (har har) to avoid porn completely on the web, mainly because a) there's so much that could be considered 'porn,' depending on your definition; and b) most folks don't have a problem with it, so it's pretty freely available.

But should I therefore propose limiting EVERYONE'S access to pornography because I have a problem with porn? Just because their group is called the "Justice League of South Africa" or whatever it is, doesn't mean they have the right to speak for every person who lives there.

captcha: neighbor

Brilliant plan

[slasho81]

Block porn in the most sexually abusive country in the world. What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Brilliant plan

[dogmatixpsych]

Let me just put forth a hypothesis: What if porn consumption is a significant factor in sexual abuse (i.e., the viewing of porn leads to an increase in sexual abuse)?

I'm not saying this is the case but it is possible. Anyone have research data either for or against this hypothesis?

Re:Brilliant plan

[unkiereamus]

I'm not saying this is the case but it is possible. Anyone have research data either for or against this hypothesis?

Here you go.

Quite extensive, so I'll just pull a paragraph for you:

Within Japan itself, the dramatic increase in available pornography and sexually explicit materials is apparent to even a casual observer. This is concomitant with a general liberalization of restrictions on other sexual outlets as well. Also readily apparent from the information presented is that, over this period of change, sex crimes in every category, from rape to public indecency, sexual offenses from both ends of the criminal spectrum, significantly decreased in incidence.

Now obviously, this discussion is solely of Japan, which has a number of other factors going on that should be considered before trying to extrapolate, but frankly, I don't care about and am too lazy to look for any more data. If you're really interested, this study cites a few other studies which apparently had similar results.

Re:Brilliant plan

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I can answer this. I'm South African , and before 1994 pornography was banned. You couldn't get it anywhere in any form. After the 94 elections it was made available , and the rape rate increased to such an extent that South Africa now has the highest rate of rape in the world. These are all presented as facts and I'm not expressing an opinion for or against pornography. Go and look up the stats if you want to.

Re:Brilliant plan

[Barrinmw]

Wait...isn't 1994 the year that Apartheid really ended and Black people could run for office and everything?

Re:Brilliant plan

[SakuraDreams]

Not very accurate. You could get access to porn before 1994. Various pornographic magazines had stars on nipples though but even in high school in the early 90s kids would exchange BBS/internet porn (on floppy disks).

SA was pretty much a police state before 94 and like in Eastern Europe violent crime outside of politically inspired crime was pretty low because of the large numbers of police. Then again one could attribute this to surge in rape after 94 to an increase in reporting.

Re:Brilliant plan

[HvRooyen]

Another one, perhaps more user friendly: http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/57169/

Free Speech is Either Free or it Isn't

[CodeBuster]

While I am sure that these corporations, individuals and churches mean well, the problem comes when one tries to actually write laws that only limit the "wrong" sorts of speech. As Justice Potter Stewart once famously said, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it". If a law is worded strongly enough to limit "pornography" then it can probably be used to limit other types of speech as well; speech which the original authors perhaps didn't intend to limit, but have silenced all the same. I hope that these South Africans would consider carefully how this sort of law might be used by future authorities. What if their intentions in using the "anti-speech" law are not as noble as the current authors? IMHO, the bar for restricting speech should be very high and narrow indeed and if that means that we have to put up with "Internet porn" to have truly free speech then I would call that a bargain.

Re:Free Speech is Either Free or it Isn't

[JaredOfEuropa]

Their intentions are irrelevant. The government has no business banning porn, period. It is reasonable to limit access of minors to porn, or to ensure porn models are of age and participate voluntarily. And most countries have reasonably effective laws to accomplish that. To use a (bad) car analogy, banning porn to prevent abuse and exploitation is like banning cars to prevent driveby shootings.

About the morality issue I have two words for political and religious leaders who seek to ban porn or other activities that are victimless and harmless: "fuck off". Seriously. And do not presume to take responsibility for my soul, or my mental well being. They are in very good hands thanks. If anyone is going to answer for any transgressions I might have committed, it'll be me.

Re:Free Speech is Either Free or it Isn't

[Reziac]

"It is reasonable to limit access of minors to porn"

I'd rephrase that as "It is reasonable FOR PARENTS to limit access of minors to porn". No need to involve the government or gov't censors.

Otherwise -- at what point does gov't interference in parenting stop?? Tho from the info quoted in this post, http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1669582&cid=32397048, it appears that in S.A. gov't interference is allowed to go as far as it sees fit.

Re:Free Speech is Either Free or it Isn't

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

When it comes to the internet, the architecture arguably matters even more than the law. Any internet censorship apparatus is either an utter joke or a fairly comprehensive re-working of the structure of the internet in that jurisdiction. Once such a thing is in place, it can block just about anything as easily as it can block porn(which is to say, it won't be perfectly effective; but an imperfectly effective filter for some flavor of dissent will differ only in a few lists and regexes from the one for porn).

Once you've created a general-purpose internet censorship apparatus, other purposes will invariably come out of the woodwork. Either by law, or just by lobbying whatever opaque entity is created to sysadmin the censorship system.

Re:Free Speech is Either Free or it Isn't

[ultranova]

But I know it when I see it". If a law is worded strongly enough to limit "pornography" then it can probably be used to limit other types of speech as well; speech which the original authors perhaps didn't intend to limit, but have silenced all the same.

I assert that the kind of people who want to censor pornography also want to censor anything else they don't agree with. Therefore, this ambiguity is not accidental but entirely intentional: it allows them to stop anything they dislike by simply claiming it's "obscene". So it's entirely intentional.

Re:Free Speech is Either Free or it Isn't

[Imrik]

If the government isn't involved to some extent it is extremely difficult for parents to limit access. However, if parents don't care it is easy for them to allow access regardless of government regulation.

Outrageous..

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the most retarded analogy I have ever heard. Porn doesn't kill innocent people, cars without seatbelts and brakes do. That kind of ignorance really annoys me, no one is that stupid. Which leads me to believe there is a greater purpose for this outrageous situation.

Let's not forget ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... that enacting this bill will also mean that all foreign pornography will go away instantly. The internet will become the heaven of peace and quiet it should be rights always have been. Brilliant, why haven't they thought of this earlier?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Maybe they should be addressing POVERTY and SAFETY

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been to south africa and let me tell you, if I can't walk the streets alone then you have serious problems. I was in Cape Town, a shining star of the country but I still could not walk safely on a Sunday afternoon! I had bags stolen from me and my personal safety threatened multiple times. I don't think banning pornography is the way to handle SA's problems. Deal with what's important: POVERTY and PERSONAL SECURITY.

Why does the middle class all live behind huge fences and pay big $$$ for private security?

The economic crimes of apartheid need to be addressed and this is just a waste of time.

Good luck!

[Pig Hogger]

They'll need it!

Rape Capital of the World

[Iyonesco]

South Africa is the rape capital of the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#South_Africa

Why are the more worried about porn than actual crimes? Any logical person can see that banning porn would likely make the rape situation even worse. I'm glad to see they've got their priorities straight.

The whole world seems to be in a state of insanity regarding porn at the moment. We've got the Australia's small breast ban and cartoon laws, Canada's Cartoon laws, the UK's Extreme Pornography laws, the US's Obscenity Laws and Agnes Chan leading the lunacy in Japan. Could I ask these moral crusaders to kindly fuck off.

Re:Rape Capital of the World

[Anonymous Coward]

South Africa is also the violent crime capital of the world. The brutality of SA crime will make you vomit. Even babies and old women are targets. Unsurprisingly, most crime is committed by blacks. Killing is a happy pastime, with the government looking the other way.

Whites in particular are a soft target. The cunts in government have already tried to disarm the whites. I'm sure they'll try again.

Re:Rape Capital of the World

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are the more worried about porn than actual crimes? Any logical person can see that banning porn would likely make the rape situation even worse.

Citation please. Common sense is often wrong. I prefer scientific evidence.

Re:Rape Capital of the World

[ultranova]

Why are the more worried about porn than actual crimes?

Because implementing a filter is easier than stopping actual crimes.

Any logical person can see that banning porn would likely make the rape situation even worse.

Any logical person would see than banning porn is completely pointless, since there's no way to stop people from getting what they want. For reference, see: any attempt to ban alcohol ever, any attempt to ban drugs ever, MAFIAA.

Laws only work when most people agree with them. Legislation does not define morality, morality defines legistalition.

I'm glad to see they've got their priorities straight.

The cynic in me says that the priority is for various morality groups make it seem like they're doing something, possibly to themselves.

Re:Rape Capital of the World

[Macrat]

If it is on wikipedia, it must be true.

Re:Rape Capital of the World

[Barrinmw]

There are certain places in the world, we will call them uncivilized places, where a different brand of law should be enforced. Even in Democratic countries. Rape should probably be a capital crime in these countries. Hell, Rape was a Capital Crime in early America. Not saying that I support the Death Penalty in any 1st World Country, but 3rd and 4th world countries have to get out of the gutter and have their populace start following the laws somehow.

Re:Rape Capital of the World

[Phroggy]

Any logical person can see that banning porn would likely make the rape situation even worse.

Not necessarily. You're assuming rape is about sex. It's often about power. Porn isn't a substitute for that.

Re:Rape Capital of the World

[seeker_1us]

South Africa is the rape capital of the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#South_Africa

Why are the more worried about porn than actual crimes? Any logical person can see that banning porn would likely make the rape situation even worse (emphasis mine).

Do you have actual data to back up that last bit? Are you sure that porn doesn't objectify women and increase the rape problem?

Re:Rape Capital of the World

[Anonymous Coward]

http://censorbugbear-reports.blogspot.com/
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica

Whites are on level 5 of 8 on genocide watch list.
Yet the bread winner's money (a 1/3 of the government's income is paid by 4 million whites' income tax, look at income distribution, there are 50 million people we support)and they waste money on things like this, they also go to court to oppose a ban on genocidal hate songs 'Kill the Boer'.

89 deaths a day, every other rape is a HIV infection which is a death sentence yet they waste their time with an anti-porn bill.

Re:Rape Capital of the World

[Anonymous Coward]

Half of South Africa's young have AIDS from rape
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/264771

Re:Rape Capital of the World

[drac0n1z]

Half of South Africa's young have AIDS from rape:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/264771

Re:Rape Capital of the World

[SakuraDreams]

The cynic in me says that the priority is for various morality groups make it seem like they're doing something, possibly to themselves.

The problem is that if ANC actually listened to some morality groups then SA would be in a better shape. This has absolutely nothing to do with morality groups but is a about copying what everyone else is doing - China, Germany, Australia etc. Even Japan is considering banning cartoon porn. This is just an easy way out. Most people in SA do not have access to internet. The real problem in SA is a deeply misogynist society where women only recently discovered they could say NO to sex and what rape is. SA's HIV problem stems also from a culture of multiple sex partner concurrency - http://www.harvardaidsprp.org/research/halperin&epstein-why-is-hiv-prevalence-so-severe.pdf yet the government's way of controlling HIV was merely handing out condoms. The problem is that people don't want to wear them - and not for religious reasons but for cultural ones - men mostly have last say. Even outside of SA condoms in long term relationships tend not to be used consistently but that's another story.

Re:Rape Capital of the World

[Degro]

Actually it's on half a dozen sources like the BBC, guardian and time articles that are all clearly cited and linked.

Black South Africa failed....

[Simonetta]

Sure, apartheid was evil and cruel. Yeah, we all cheered when Nelson Mandela was elected President. They had our hopes, investments, and prayers. We all waved our plastic lighters when Paul Simon brought all those beautiful black Zulu singers on stage in the Graceland tour. We all believed.

    Then we woke up. We found that South Africa has become the rape capital of the world. We found that most people there are superstitious and ignorant, and violent. Where most people still believe that drinking the blood of 13-year-old virgin cures AIDS. (It doesn't, guys, just in case you were wondering) Where the few remaining whites running productive farms in the countryside are hunted down, tortured, and murdered by the new South African police that just look the other way and call it justice. Where most international investments are skimmed by corrupt and incompetent government officials. Where no blacks outside of the government are better off than they were under apartheid. Where the whites have reestablished semi-segregated quasi-homelands with their own police and self-defense forces that mirror apartheid. Where nobody in their right mind is going to spend thousands of dollars to fly to this dangerous and remote part of the world just to watch a soccer game.

    Africa is a giant mess. A half-assed collection of 'daylight democracies' and nighttime tribal savageries. South Africa is no different. And how do they deal with their problems.

    Banning internet porn. Fucking buffoons. Bring back the Boers.

Re:Black South Africa failed....

[Anonymous Coward]

The Boers are still here, simply trying to survive. We also drank the cool-aid, believed, were and are fucked. Hard.

The whites (and blacks, mind you) that can afford it live behind electric fencing or gated communities. These are not apartheid mirrors, as you imply, they are simply frightened white communities trying to fucking survive, not be murdered, raped, tortured, robbed, abused by blacks.

You know what's ironic? These are the same whites who voted Yes in the referendum to change the country's future, free Mandela, and try and start again.

I voted Yes. I now have children who's future is uncertain. I decided a long time ago not to emigrate like so many of my peers, but I now *must* for my children.

Re:Black South Africa failed....

[Anonymous Coward]

My dad worked in Botswana for a couple of years and they sometimes had to go into SA for supplies. He's a pretty hard left democrat who was forced out of the Navy after 10 years) because he stuck up for a guy who he believed was bing railroaded because he was black. So he is about as far from racist as you can get, and he said there are intersections in SA where whites don't have to stop. Being confused, I asked why, thinking it was some sort of racial law. He informed me because if you stop, you will be killed. For being white, nothing more. Too many people there just don't care. This was over 10 years ago, but it doesn't sound like things have gotten any better.

Re:Black South Africa failed....

[couchslug]

DON"T bring back the Boers. It would just be an excuse to blame White Folks for the choices locals make.

There is no utilitarian reason for one not South African to care what happens to the place. It bears relentless reminding that the locals don't give a shit what foreigners think nor have they reason to.

South Africa belongs to SOUTH AFRICANS, not me, not you (unless you ARE one), not Slashdot. If they wreck it, that's their choice. All cultures are equal, so the PC thing to do is cheer.

Re:Black South Africa failed....

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess she was born there.

Re:Black South Africa failed....

[Mashiki]

Considering all they do is blame white folks now it's a moot issue. SA is breaking down into a Somalia--II, people who had businesses are fleeing and have been for the last 3 years so they don't get murdered in their beds and their businesses 'requisitioned'.

Re:Black South Africa failed....

[Anonymous Coward]

I takes many years for countries to recover if they can. Multiple generations. look as some of the eastern European countries after the end of the soviet union, they are still struggling to be on par with the western europe countries and stability is hardly present. At least eastern europe has decent stable neighbors. Not the same in South Africa. Even china is still a mess. After many years of growth some regions are no better than they were in the 1950s. I find the ending of your post quite idiotic, how would bringing back the Boers fix this? Unless you only think about stability from the outside and ignore the suffering of the people who live in those countries. Most of those daylight democracies can be directly link to instability brought in by your friendly colonists. Africa was not always like this. Stable empires existed way before the Europeans came.

Oh and lets not forget this is only a proposal and that many other "civilized" countries are already putting in place filtering of the web. But your little bullshit post doesn't care. You just wanted to talk crap about a country that is still in it's early years of existence post apartheid.

Re:Black South Africa failed....

[Anonymous Coward]

I realise I'm about to be modded as a troll, but should the parent be +5 Informative when the only statement that isn't hyperbole (or wrong) is the rape stat? Nice.

I'm also ignoring the bigotry: that's a different topic altogether.

Re:Black South Africa failed....

[shutdown -p now]

If you don't like it here, kindly fuck off and let people who're positive about the future live in peace.

You have an interesting definition of "living in peace", if the picture GP has painted (rapes and murders - and it's rather objective - there are plenty of sources backing that) matches it.

Re:Black South Africa failed....

[sourcerror]

And clearly Canada is controlled by racists as well, isn't it?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1210281/South-African-man-refugee-persecuted-white.html

Re:Black South Africa failed....

[nroets]

I don't disagree with everything you say.

Where no blacks outside of the government are better off than they were under apartheid.

But clearly you are wrong on this. I live in South Africa, so I know the facts. They are richer. Their live expectancy declined (due to AIDS), but that was partly due to bad timing and NOT bad government policies. Most children received enough scientific information at school during the last 15 years to make informed choices. They knew there was some risk, yet they proceeded with risky behaviour. So it's comparable to the way that Western societies dealt with smoking during the larger part of the 20th century.

Africa is a giant mess... South Africa is no different.

South Africa is a lot different. GDP per capita is 20 times higher than in neighbouring Zimbabwe*. South Africa will continue to draw the most talented Africans to it's factories, mines and construction sites.

*: Gapminder.org is a nice tool to explore these differences.

Re:Black South Africa failed....

[howzit]

That's bullshit and you know it....or you don't live here.

Re:Black South Africa failed....

[howzit]

I agree with all you say, EXCEPT "Stable 'empires' existed way before the Europeans came". In Southern Africa the Xhosa fled south, the Swazi north, the Matebeli even further north, over the Limpopo...all to escape Shaka. In the rest of Africa the murder, rape and plunder is what drove the Zulu (and ultimately Shaka) down here in the first place! Ethiopia was never colonised, is it a stable 'empire'?

Re:Black South Africa failed....

[codeButcher]

Where most people still believe that having sex with a virgin of any age, even if she's still on diapers cures AIDS. (It doesn't, guys, just in case you were wondering)

There. Corrected it for you. Though I doubt that the "guys", if they can read this, are going to be swayed.

Where the few remaining whites running productive farms in the countryside are hunted down, tortured, and murdered by the new South African police that just look the other way and call it justice.

Parties interested may google for "farm murders" or "boer genocide" or start at the wikipedia article.

Banning internet porn. Fucking buffoons. Bring back the Boers.

It's not about "protecting morality" or any such nonsense. The SA regime prides itself on having the "most liberal constitution in the world" (homosexuality, sensorship, etc. etc.) but then does it damnedest to circumvent it (mostly in the name of anti-racism) to get more and more control over the population. It's a liberation movement with thorough communist and marxist underpinnings, after all.

Re:Black South Africa failed....

[HvRooyen]

"Dangerous and remote part of the world..." Hang on there. I am the last one to say that everything is rosy in SA, but please keep your examples rooted in reality. Most of what you mention is wildly exaggerated, which does nothing to fix our problems. Most people believe drinking the blood of virgins - dude! Farm attacks are a major problem, but "Hunted down and tortured and murdered by SA police" is nothing short of emotional BS. "No blacks are better off than... under apartheid" - when last were you here?

Re:Black South Africa failed....

[master_p]

Hasn't it ever crossed your mind that you don't belong there? you have no fcsking job being in Africa. Africa is black man's area.

If the natives want to exterminate themselves by endless wars, let them be. It's their land.

Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly - just give everyone a state-subsidised WoW subscription, bingo.

Re:Exactly

[dcollins]

I quote SMBC: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=584

Car analogy... a must

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that the car analogy is ALWAYS badly flawed !

I get an impressive number of customers that started to compare my softwares with their cars (ie it works when I start it, and ..., and ..., and), only to realize that they need to service it, that they spend a lot of money putting gazoline in it and so on.

However, I did not get such a biaised opinion as Mr Malusi Gigaba.

Nice start for a new nation. If needed, Mr Malusi Gigaba should consider to submit his resume to China. He will be welcome.

Learned well from us...

[Anonymous Coward]

I see they have learned well from the United Corporations and Churches of Amercia [U.C.C.A.]
where the real product is the stock
and the true customer is the stock holder
in god we trust all others pay loan shark interest.

So they are now the U.C.C.S.A. [United Churches and Corporations of South America]

Notice here churches are first over corps as the UCCA has Imaginary Property rights on Corporate power over churches.

If porn gets banned

[Anonymous Coward]

rapes with inevitably go up.

Re:If porn gets banned

[Rallias Ubernerd]

... and one person mastribation goes down.

Ulterior Motive?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's one way to make sure no one sees that "student" film you made in college.

Re:Maybe they should be addressing POVERTY and SAF

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does the middle class all live behind huge fences and pay big $$$ for private security?

because if they dont pay security big money then the local gangs will
i asked a customer of mine why he moved out of the country, he said he was fed up of waking up worried that his own security was going to rob him (apparently its common)

the wealth disparity is massive in SA and the poor are desperate, uneducated, angry and lazy

when a man has nothing to lose he has everything to gain

Just depends...

[Rallias Ubernerd]

What exactly is there definition of porn? As long as it excludes bikini model pictures, i'm happy.

But seriously. Many people in the country probabily look at porn on a daily basis. In America, it is considered freedom of press to publish any photo you wish to whatever audience you want (other than the so-called "undeveloped" minors of the nation, which I feel is unconstitutional to keep certain rights from, but I may be biased), and freedom of accociation to view these images as long as you follow the rules the publisher sets down. No harm is truly done. Only studies that show it is addictive cause issues with congressmen.

And it is well known that there is always good free porn in the world, you just have to look for it. Google Images with safe search turned off is a good starting point. Just make sure to keep it in something like coLinux, Mac, or Linux so that you don't get viruses.

Re:Just depends...

[tivoKlr]

As if the populous of slashdot needs instruction on finding internet porn pppft...

Obligatory bad car analogy

[PPH]

So cars should be banned because 1)kids play in the street and 2)some child might attempt to drive one, resulting in an accident.

Perhaps we should go back to the rules ARPA set up for the network: No users under 18 allowed.

Re:Obligatory bad car analogy

[phoenix321]

No, because every idjit voter will recognize the fallacy and dare to speak up against it.

But who will speak up in favor of online porn without fear of being ostracized? Will honored members of society that DO look at porn please raise their hands and say "Yes, I do look at porn out of my own free will"? Probably not.

That is the usual hypocrisy behind all those "immoral" things: drugs, prostitution, pornography - "nobody uses that, or better: nobody should" - all while it's a multi billion dollar market with millions of customers.

And it's another attempt at banning "free speech that might offend someone", ie. killing the "free" part. Popular opinions don't need much protection, after all.

Re:Obligatory bad car analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps people don't want to admit to doing it because its wrong?

Re:Obligatory bad car analogy

[Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki]

People don't want to admit to doing any of those things because they are generally frowned upon, not because they are wrong. The fact that they are frowned upon does not make them wrong, as that would make anything that is frowned upon wrong, and being a witch was at one point frowned upon.

Diversion?

[gweihir]

Shouldn't they be dealing with their crime problem instead? That would actually be useful and not ab attempt to ram "morality standards" down the throats of their citizens. This whole thing reeks of a diversion attempt to cover up their own incompetence when it comes to solving true problems.

Meanwhile in this corner

[Anonymous Coward]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7509357.stm - "Plans to legalise prostitution for the 2010 football World Cup in South Africa have been criticised by religious groups and opposition parties."

Laws and Morals

[Nall-ohki]

Are separate things. Don't confuse the two, or you end up with the following annoying conversation:

"You got your laws in my morals!"
"You got your morals in my laws!"

Self solving problem

[Anonymous Coward]

WIth all the disease and murder in South Africa, it seems strange to me how there is still even a population there. You'd think it would be a problem that solves itself. They're so god damned stupid down there that they keep killing themselves, hopefully soon there wont be any left.

Best car analogy ever??

[Anonymous Coward]

This dance song has the best car analogy ever in it.

True story!

Tax

[Andy Smith]

Why are they only talking about _digital_ porn? If it's an ethical issue, does the delivery method really matter?

But I would guess that a lot of the money from digital porn never gets within the taxman's grasp. Porn sold through the usual distribution channels can be more easily taxed.

So maybe the thinking is: Ban digital porn and porn will go back "above ground", where the taxman can get his hands on it.

Badcaranalogy in progress ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Car = unfiltered internet
Bike = filtered internet
You reach 18 get your 'licence' unlock the unfiltered version.

I jerked off

[Anonymous Coward]

while reading the article. I think we should ban it.

huh

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. Gigaba said: 'Cars are already provided with brakes and seatbelts... every one I've ever stolen had them'.

P.S. Is the G pronounced as in goose, or as in George? Because if it's the latter...

Soon to be a thriving business

[RobertLTux]

Merge a Sun "blackbox" with a support trailer and then figure out a way to transport it to some deep area in South Africa. rig the trailer as a datacenter/ sat com link and then tell like everybody that you have FREE PORN (donations accepted of course)

What is the goal?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the goal of this law change? How is it supposed to help citizens?

Cars are dangerous. Porn is not.

[linebackn]

'Cars are already provided with brakes and seatbelts... There is no reason why the internet should be provided without the necessary restrictive mechanisms built into it.'

There is no line of thinking that would make a reasonable person make this direct comparison. Cars are dangerous tools. They can physically injure or kill you. Porn will not. Despite what some people may believe, porn is not dangerous. People are dangerous. People who seriously make this kind of comparison are dangerous.

Good on them

[Thraxy]

Yes, online porn is clearly the biggest problem in South Africa. I hear it kills a lot of people down there and steals their cars at unwatched intersections...

Porn is Evil!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Porn is Evil!!!

I live in South Africa...

[Hermanas]

I live in South Africa, and I know for a fact that at most 20% of the population have semi-regular access to the Internet, as can be seen from this handy graph on Google http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=it_net_user&idim=country:ZAF&dl=en&hl=en&q=internet+users+in+south+africa (it estimates 4.187 million internet users, where we have a population of between 40 and 50 million). This is a country where the absolute maximum internet speed is 4Mbps (on average most users have 384kbps), and it is literally cheaper to go buy a dvd in the shop than it is to download the 4GB illegally. This is just to bring the internet situation into perspective. I know that you do not need an internet connection to have porn, it could be a video, dvd or even just copied from someone else, but this is just an indication of the kind access we have here. A recent study found that as many as 50% of high school boys in SA have watched at least one porn movie. I don't know, but the only shocking thing about that is that so many people have had access to it (we only have 4 public TV channels, and only one of them shows porn after 12 on Saturday nights). This is just some background information. A ban on porn would be just another ill-directed attempt to improve the morals of a society where politicians (the role models of the people) routinely threaten other races with death, partake in tender fraud and tax evasion, are charged with rape and watch porn during congress. On second thought, maybe it will at least help the politicians concentrate on what's really going on in the country.

Re:I live in South Africa...

[howzit]

I too am South African and have two questions: How come porn is available over the counter in printed form but they want to ban it on the internet? How much is made in taxes on the sale of porn mags and how much on internet porn?

Re:I live in South Africa...

[Lando]

4 million is what percent of 40 million? Seems more like 10% not 20%.

This could be very good or very bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Human rights, or rather privleges, aside. I have to wonder how this will affect the rampant raping that occurs, spreading AIDS like wild flowers.

Will it reduce the craving for sex following the line of thinking "The more sex you have, the more you want", thus the less you have..

Or will it increase frustration, causing the rape incidences to sky rocket?

This is hurting HIV+ prostitutes

[PDX]

The industries oldest profession is hurting form online sales. They even give it away for free!(shudder) They also evade taxation.

Here is a better idea.

[3seas]

require all porn in Africa to have attached front and back end and commercials within, information on the prevention of unwanted children and aids.

They really need to learn about this stuff.

Who needs porn when there's rape

[Dj_fishlover]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1906000,00.html

Don't rely on case studies !

[nroets]

Did his company actually loose money for the new owners in the 15 years that has passed ? If so it was the exception rather than the rule. South Africa's share market have made decent returns in real term under the ANC. And those returns look even better after converting to USD. Compared to the Dow which has been stuck at 10,000.

Yes, there is racial tension and tribal affairs. But slow and steady progress is being made: Yesterday tens of thousands of white rugby descended on the predominantly black township of Soweto to watch the Super 14 Rugby final. Afterwards many Whites partied in Black owned bars without incident.

South Africa, ahead of the curve.

[foxtrot.bravo]

Porn is for weenies, but if they really need it there should be a separate "open" network so that, for example, if my 12 year old daughter Googles "eating bananas" she's not subjected a picture of a pair of losers getting and giving a blow jobs. South Africa, for once they're ahead of the curve.

South Africa wins an award...

[Xveers]

from the Cervantes Institute of Reality Ignorance. The award, called "Tilting at Windmills" is awarded to the most impossible and pointless decision regarding governance.

Idiot politicians...

[jcr]

One thing there's no shortage of, anywhere in the world.

-jcr

Moral Relativism is Bullshit

[linzeal]

Moral relativism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. It is also I suppose morally right for a country to execute homosexuals, whip adulterers and sell children as sex slaves as well?

that's OK, there's always rape

[dartmongrel]

who else can picture the number of rapes to skyrocket if there was suddenly no porn?

Another white SA male reply

[mvniekerk]

Wow people, if I would have read this then I would have gotten a very grim outlook on South Africa. There is ~4mil white people in South Africa controlling 48% of the country's income. That means, white South Africans are rich and is really benefitting from the country. I am extremely rich when comparing myself with the rest of my fellow countrymen. I bought a new Honda Jazz (Fit in the US) last year, I stay in a 3 bedroom house in a relative middle income area (Melville, close to Johannesburg CBD). I went to Germany for 6 weeks last year to integrate our company's cool new IS Voip Android phone. I'm turning 24 on next Sunday. Saturday afternoon I've picked up a black man near Kempton Park (the predominantly white area) trying to hitch-hike. He is ~40, he ran a street shoe repair and sandal making business and has a wife with 2 daughters. He told the gruesome tale of how he was mugged, stabbed and his lifelyhood taken away from him (they stole his phone, money and tools). That day he hitch-hiked with smart office clothes on (tie, leather shoes, white shirt, chinos) because he was turned away as shelf packer. He was on his way to Klerksdorp (190 km away from where I've picked him up) to get food and money from his uncle so that his family can stay alive. Whites are more protected from crime because of the money they pay to stay safe. In my middle class area I can walk safely at night. He, staying in Thembisa, cannot say the same. So in terms of me and my own (white) story, South Africa is a wonderful place full of opportunities. We as a country are growing, we are cleaning up our communities, we are trying to lift our moral standards. Yes, we have a (black) corrupt government that is not out for the upliftment of the (black) populance (but only for their own bank accounts), but the people are savvy'ing up to the fact. Give it 4 years and we may see a change in government. There are a more than just a few non-corrupt ones in government that is trying to make a positive change. And yes, explisit material exposure is a moral cancer. You do not even have to leave your TV room to watch a strip show, just watch MTV. Sexting, trafficking, prostitution is even entering our schools where children even at the age of 11 (I'm talking about boys, not girls) get sexually active. Girls even at the age of 7 gets pimped out by their families. I for one am support the minister's call for an end to porn and will even support her for the end of the adult material industry in South Africa. If you want to watch it, import and watch as you please but this shit needs to stop in my country. http://www.sagoodnews.co.za/ http://www.statssa.gov.za/ http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article472923.ece/DA-takes-Gugulethu