Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

31 of 240 comments (clear)

  1. The brakes model by aapold · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    "Waste not one watt!" - CZ
    1. Re:The brakes model by biryokumaru · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    2. Re:The brakes model by S.O.B. · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    3. Re:The brakes model by Jawnn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:The brakes model by ThinkingInBinary · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:The brakes model by daemonc · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      --
      All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
    6. Re:The brakes model by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    7. Re:The brakes model by andymadigan · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    8. Re:The brakes model by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    9. Re:The brakes model by zuperduperman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > 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.

  2. Re:yeah by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    Racist.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  3. Why not? by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    --
    "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    1. Re:Why not? by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Why not? by Znork · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's the catholic solution.

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

  4. Re:yeah by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    Racist.

    Go and blackmale him. That'll teach him.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  5. More car analolgies by camg188 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Pornography ... by krou · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
  7. Re:solved all other problems, I see? by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 3, Funny

    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!

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  8. Rape Capital of the World by Iyonesco · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Rape Capital of the World by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  9. Black South Africa failed.... by Simonetta · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Black South Africa failed.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Black South Africa failed.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Black South Africa failed.... by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Informative

      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'.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  10. Re:Attention to other important stuff... by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  11. Re:Attention to other important stuff... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  12. Re:Brilliant plan by unkiereamus · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    I needed a sig so people would know who I am, but I was too drunk to make something witty, so you get this instead.
  13. Re:Free Speech is Either Free or it Isn't by Reziac · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  14. I live in South Africa... by Hermanas · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  15. Re:Attention to other important stuff... by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  16. Re:solved all other problems, I see? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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...