Slashdot Mirror
Iceland Considers Internet Porn Ban
Onymous Hero writes "With the printing and distribution of pornography already banned in Iceland, further measures to stop internet porn are being considered by Iceland's Interior Minister Ogmundur Jonasson. From the article: "Iceland is taking a very progressive approach that no other democratic country has tried," said Professor Gail Dines, an expert on pornography and speaker at a recent conference at Reykjavik University. "It is looking a pornography from a new position — from the perspective of the harm it does to the women who appear in it and as a violation of their civil rights.""
How exactly did this gentleman become an expert on pornography?
Prof. Gail Dines is actually a she, but her credentials on pornography are suspect at best. Do a Google search for "Gail Dines" "Penn and Teller Bullshit."
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Just a quick FYI, people:
This ban is aimed at violent porn, not porn (as in naked people having sex). So, just to be clear, images depicting naked people having sex will be a-ok, whereas images depicting, say, women being raped or abused would not. It's the consenting adults principle, if you will.
How do I know this? Well, first of all, it's in the article: " "We have to be able to discuss a ban on violent pornography, which we all agree has a very harmful effects on young people and can have a clear link to incidences of violent crime," he said. " The "he" here is Ögmundur Jónasson, the Interior Minister. Also, he's discussed this on his homepage (which is in Icelandic, but here's the link: http://www.ogmundur.is/fra-lesendum/nr/6571/) where he specified that his concern is violent porn, NOT porn itself.
That said, I'm pretty skeptical about this being possible in practice, but I'd love to hear Slashdot's opinion about if people here think it is.
I am not a vegetarian werewolf.
The article says this is a "very progressive approach".........which means it can only be for your own good.
It's a rather strange statement, because it is not progressive at all. The people I know who are most opposed to porn and would like it to go away, might shoot someone if they were called progressive.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I do my job because of economic difficulty. I am sure that most do.
If I would not be doing it, I would be pretty hungry.
I rather would be doing something else, but I do my job because of the money.
The real issue is that you cal it 'sad' that they do the job that they do. There is nothing 'sad' in it. It is a job like any other job. I would not want to do it, but then I would not want to be a policeman either. That does not make the policeman 'sad'.
The real problem is the view that the general public has of the job. That people think it is sad and degrading.
Make it legal (and acceptable) and the abuse will stop, because then these people can go to the police and tell them that somebody hit them and something will actually be done about it.
Stop the abuse not by hiding it. Stop the abuse by showing it and embracing the victims. Show them that they are part of humanity.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.