EU To Vote On Proposal That Could Ban All Online Pornography

An anonymous reader writes "The European Union is voting on a proposal next week that could lead to a blanket ban on porn in member states, and it seems the measure may well be approved. The proposal, called 'Eliminating gender stereotypes in the EU,' mentions issues such as women carrying a 'disproportionate share of the burden' when raising a family, violence against women as 'an infringement of human rights,' and gender stereotypes that develop early in life. From the proposal: "Calls on the EU and its Member States to take concrete action on its resolution of 16 September 1997 on discrimination against women in advertising, which called for a ban on all forms of pornography in the media and on the advertising of sex tourism." Update: 03/07 19:05 GMT by T : Pirate MEP Christian Engström writes on his blog that citizens writing to the European Parliament about the proposal are not necessarily being heard: "Before noon, some 350 emails [on this topic] had arrived in my office. But around noon, these mails suddenly stopped arriving. When we started investigating why this happened so suddenly, we soon found out: The IT department of the European Parliament is blocking the delivery of the emails on this issue, after some members of the parliament complained about getting emails from citizens."

Comments

The Dworkin Agenda!

[Anonymous Coward]

Up next: EU proposes new law that says all sex is rape.

Re:The Dworkin Agenda!

[hairyfeet]

Ya know, I USED to argue against that "feminists are all man haters" stereotypes...until I saw the widely praised Vagina Monologues. Anybody else notice that the plays says quite clearly pedophilia is okay as long as its a woman doing the raping? And yet at the time all I saw from feminists was praise for the play. I mean how fucked up in the head do you got to be to say being a pedo is okay as long as its woman on girl? For those that don't know what I'm talking about look up the original play and the dialog for "little coochie snorcher" which I swear to God even has the line "If it was rape it was a good rape"". I mean can you imagine how crucified an author would be if they came out with a play where a woman praised her male rapist for "giving it to her good"? Feminism got hijacked by the nutbags and passed the exit for sanity a few miles back.

As for TFA this is another trend I've noticed from the militant feminists, that all non lesbian sex is rape. Its kinda funny how much they actually sound like the old Victorians, how women couldn't possibly WANT to have sex or ENJOY sex in any way, the only real spin they put on it is that lesbians are the exception to the rule since there are no dirty rapist men involved. Kinda ironic that they refuse to acknowledge that one of the most profitable genres in porn these days is so called "chick porn" where they use exotic locations and hunky guys to appeal to a mostly female audience.

But of course just like how the founder of MADD don't want anything to do with them anymore and PETA went from treating animals ethically to actually arguing that antibiotics were murder because you are killing germs and fish should be called "sea kittens" so people wouldn't eat them (I swear, look it up) the feminist movement got hijacked by the nutballs awhile back and have gone so militant I doubt the original feminsts, who from what I saw simply wanted equal pay and to be treated equally in the workplace, would scarcely recognize it anymore.

Re:The Dworkin Agenda!

[Requiem18th]

I reccomend you pay a visit to GirlWritesWhat's channel. What her old videos basically explaining feminism from a evo-psych point of view.

Thi gist of it is that humans have a natural drive to pamper cute things like women and babies, just like we have a drive to seek sugars and fat. And just like uncheked appetite drives us to obessity, unchecked protectionsim for females drives humanity to feminism and misandry.

if it's all about women's protection...

[Anonymous Coward]

then gay male porn is all good, yeah?

Re:if it's all about women's protection...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they discriminate against women by excluding girls...

Re:if it's all about women's protection...

[TheRaven64]

a load inside her inside her insides

Recursion porn?

Re:if it's all about women's protection...

[SuricouRaven]

The porn industry thrives on variety and niche. People usually end up seeing roughly the type of pornography they seek. If they like seeing women bound, subjegated and abused, that is what they get. If they like romance and cuddling, they get that too. If they want story, they can have it - and if they don't, they won't. Hah, with the right search terms I could ask the internet to bring me pictures involving My Little Pony, dubstep, machines of some type and a sandwich - and there's a good chance that exists, somewhere.

Re:if it's all about women's protection...

[interkin3tic]

Anyone know of any of those "pray away the gay" camps that will allow me to take the treatment in reverse order?

Re:if it's all about women's protection...

[rk]

Oh no, then it would be about sex discrimination. "I'm sorry, you may be making gay porn, but that doesn't allow you to discriminate against female porn actors." So one department will force them to hire females, and then another will shut them down and jailing them for demeaning and degrading women.

I'd like to think what I just wrote is satire, but when you look at the bending and twisting of legal interpretations by The Powers That Be that are enough to make yoga masters wince, I'm afraid I am probably wrong.

Re:if it's all about women's protection...

[tom17]

I challenge you to find that one lol.

Re:if it's all about women's protection...

[Samantha Wright]

Feminists are a very diverse bunch. Every now and then you find a radical misandrist—or, more likely, someone who has lost sight of their objective and can no longer tell the difference between defending women's rights and assaulting men—who does say something appalling or across the line. As a result a lot of women and men, who espouse essentially egalitarian ideals, avoid the feminist label and find sexism uncomfortable (most of whom would picket for, say, suffrage) avoid the "feminist" label.

...for the sake of it, though, those arguments have been made; in the late sixties and early seventies, the GLF (Gay Liberation Front) was faced with feminists who believed that, by disengaging the other sex, gay men had deemed them unworthy of their attention and were trying to exclude women entirely. This is less of an argument against gay porn than it is about male homosexuality entirely. As an example, the author Susan Brownmiller apparently believed this. (The reality, of course, is that the gay rights movement has always been in solidarity with women's rights, and only in ancient Greece do we see cultural acceptance of the kind of chauvinism that was being claimed.)

For what it's worth, I expect that the porn industry generates sufficient economic activity that it will be spared by an unwitting accountant.

Re:if it's all about women's protection...

[Anonymous Coward]

As I recall, Canada tried this maneuver, with Dworkin advising on the law.

Of course the issue of lesbian porn came up, with the same people, in a truly awe inspiring display of mental gymnastics, explaining how lesbians couldn't possibly be exploitive when their porn was banned.

The law was quietly withdrawn.

I expect the same the same level of hypocrisy with yet another attempt at the same, forgetting exactly who is exploiting whom with porn.

Re:if it's all about women's protection...

[Anonymous Coward]

Try using http://e621.net/ and don't say I didn't warn you...

Re:if it's all about women's protection...

[davester666]

Equal opportunity.

Women need to be able to try out for the parts, and get to wear strap-on's.

So you'll get two women with strap-on's making gay male porn...

Re:if it's all about women's protection...

[fustakrakich]

Ah, but turning porn into contraband will produce wild profit margins, like with drugs and weapons. Somebody is looking for a great opportunity here.

Re:if it's all about women's protection...

[s0lar]

OK, so would femdom be OK? Affirmative action and all?..

Re:if it's all about women's protection...

[Penguinisto]

We'll just start here...

(OTOH, I find it hilarious that I get more calls when I declare my race as "Other" (as though the HR machinery seems to completely ignore the fact that I put "Human" in the descriptor field. Go figure.)

Re:if it's all about women's protection...

[newcastlejon]

Ah, but turning porn into contraband will produce wild profit margins...

People pay for porn?!
Well, live and learn I suppose.

Re:if it's all about women's protection...

[darth_borehd]

Because science instruction belongs in school and religious instruction does not. Please stop pretending these things are equal.

Re:if it's all about women's protection...

[RazorSharp]

WASP means White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. It doesn't mean white. Usually it references upper or middle class white New Englanders because they tend to be of Anglo-Saxon descent, and until the twentieth century they mostly didn't mingle with Irish (Celtic descent), Italians, Jews, etc.

While I agree that white males do in fact have less rights than any other class in America, your post does nothing to back up that claim. White males have less rights because there are less opportunities for financial aid and scholarships for white males. Basically, a lot of time and paperwork could be saved if financial aid forms just had a single question: "Are you a white male with no disabilities and parents who aren't completely destitute?" As long as you can answer no to that question, there's tons of financial aid available.

White males are also oppressed by social stigma and cases of over-reaching affirmative action (I actually do support some forms of affirmative action, but in some cases it's taken too far). Hate-crime legislation is basically punishing white males more for being violent to minorities than to each other. White males are also discriminated against when it comes to welfare -- and even if they weren't, white males are much less likely to take advantage of assistance because among most accepting help is culturally unacceptable.

There is, however, one major advantage of being a well off white male: cops are afraid of you. This country still battles racism, and will continue to do so as long as 1) the police and court systems treat the poor, blacks, and Hispanics unequally 2) our education system provides more opportunities for the wealthy. However, I'd argue that direct racism is a pretty minor issue. Nowadays the issue is class, which leads to an indirect racism because blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately poor.

But punishing white males for being white males isn't the solution. The thing that women and minority races tend to overlook when they claim that white males have it made is that they're only looking at wealthy white males. Poor white males are probably the most disadvantaged class of people in America. WASPs have it made -- that term is reserved for the elites who have run this country since its inception.

Re:if it's all about women's protection...

[Samantha Wright]

That's what I meant by "lost sight of their objective." But you must be careful to realise that feminism is a confused movement. To borrow your notation, you will often see feminist sources use F1 language without realising it isn't F2 language. Layers upon layers of manifestos and treatises have transmitted F1 ideas and terminology until it (essentially) subverted egalitarian-oriented feminists into using it like Newspeak. Sometimes the line is crossed, usually by women feminists, simply because they have no frame of reference for addressing sexism; they don't know where F2 ends and F1 begins, or what actually constitutes misandry. Men, on the other hand, have been the target of such for years, and everyone is very good at spotting most forms of genuine misogyny.

This is an innate human problem, though, found in all populations who feel repressed. (The easiest example that comes to mind is Malcolm X.) There's a very easy analogy to the physical senses—when you've been cold for a long time, it's hard to tell when something's so hot that it is likely to cause pain. Both have the same source, in fact; it's a fundamental flaw in how nervous systems work and not something to get upset about, though it does need correction. We are good at measuring change, but not status quo, and beyond a certain magnitude, we cannot measure change either.

Good luck finding a party that both sides will regard as neutral, though. Maybe a bunch of transgendered people?

Re:if it's all about women's protection...

[thomasw_lrd]

They are not asking for equal rights in the case I stated, they are asking for the first amendment to be suspended for Christians. In the specific case I am referencing, they were given the opportunity to place their own display on the courthouse lawn, but they didn't want to do that.

Therefore a right was suspended for the Christian, this equates to more rights for the atheists.

Re:if it's all about women's protection...

[Hatta]

Does it? Why can a teacher not take a group of students to see A Charlie Brown Christmas at a church, but can take those same students to see a lecture on evolution at the science museum?

In what way are those two things at all analogous? A christmas story is just that, a story. Evolution is a well supported scientific theory. The first is indoctrination, the second is education. There's nothing about the theory of evolution that implies the presence or absence of any god or gods.

Separation of church and state protects christians just as much as it does atheists. If a biology teacher were to say to his class "Evolution is proof that God does not exist", that would be good cause to sue the teacher and/or the school under the 1st amendment.

Re:if it's all about women's protection...

[Samantha Wright]

I am simply shocked, shocked, that I was misled by a copyright lobby.

Re:if it's all about women's protection...

[tqk]

... a lot of women and men, who espouse essentially egalitarian ideals, avoid the feminist label and find sexism uncomfortable (most of whom would picket for, say, suffrage) avoid the "feminist" label.

"Feminist" == "for females, to the exclusion of pretty much everything else", so it's no surprise that many consider it a distasteful concept. It's hardly fair. Perhaps, it's somewhat justified to make up for milennia of (percieved?) wrongs, but it's still not right.

I like females who consider me their equal, and I prefer them to consider themselves my equal (or better; that's cool!). I do not understand face-painting Barbies who think their cleavage will get them anywhere any more than I understand First Squad football quarterbacks who think the same. We're all just people. If you can think, you're my kind of person; full stop. You've got some odd physical configuration stuff going WRT me (and vice versa) and we should just enjoy the difference. That's what Nature intended.

Re:if it's all about women's protection...

[Hatta]

I'm with you on most of those points. Except for this:

Since the cost of bearing a child falls mostly onto the woman, the father could then basically "freeload" by walking away: the child is there, the woman is now responsible for the cost of raising the child.

You forget that a woman also has the ability to "walk away". If she chooses not to do so, why should that fall on the man?

Re:if it's all about women's protection...

[Samantha Wright]

I believe feminist theory uses the term "intersectionality" to describe the problem of dealing with other issues and how they react with women's rights. Usually this is couched in terms of racial disparities (for example, intersectional feminism purports that black women in the US face face more challenges than black men and white women combined, and even if they don't, that's a heckuva lot of challenges.)

Transgender (I hesitate to say "transgenderism" as though it's some kind of movement—too bad "transsexual" is no longer vogue, or I could say "transsexuality" and avoid it altogether, so I'll just reify "transgender" as though that makes sense) is an interesting problem for feminism, because it tangles with the boundary between sex and gender. Early feminism was built on cultural assumptions about what was female, which were unmovable and positivist in their foundations. A major priority was on demoting cultural ideas that were harmful (by branding them stereotypes) and isolating them from the rest of what it meant to be part of the female sex. This was done without concern for the value (socially, personally, and so on) of these stereotypes—or the value of what was being accepted.

The conceptual threat of TG is as follows: here are newly-remade women and men who are not merely a little across the line, but far across the line. All of them are outliers, because the people who are only a little TG never admit it to themselves, or come out, or go through changes, mostly because the social stigmas are strong enough to keep them in their assigned genders and sexes. The people who do own up to their status then go on to reveal that, surprise, the stereotypes of their new position are natural consequences of their real psychology. Or, at least, they manifest easily under the right pressures.

Residual traits from childhood caused by early socialization are then mistaken for an underlying nature. For transwomen, it's often an analytical or militaristic leaning (because of the bias in education and children's toys), and for transmen who are more consciously tomboyish when young, it might be a dependent attitude (transmen are much less likely to self-treat before visiting a doctor than transwomen.) These traits are (wrongly) vital social cues to gender, and they end up being assigned more importance than they deserve.

And this is essentially the content of the Reconsideration of Gender Slumming: to someone hypersensitive to gender boundaries, but unequipped with real data about how gender identity develops in children, it looks like a grotesque media-fuelled parody, even though the psychology of the transgendered is actually desperate and deeply personal.

...and it would be nice if that were the only barrier facing transgender acceptance by feminists, but unfortunately you can still find a number who are socially conservative in other respects and only consider their own cause worthy. These are dying out, but their legacy can be seen in those who grew too narrow-minded and unwittingly adopted F1 views.

Re:if it's all about women's protection...

[Samantha Wright]

Feminism has officially always espoused gender equality as its primary goals. The movement was persistently subverted by radicals starting in the sixties. If anything, it's a victim of bad planning—when the movement was introduced, it was taken for granted that "giving women all the legal and social rights that men have" was equivalent to "gender equality." It is largely because of the success of the healthier parts of feminism that many educated people now assume by default that the partners in a heterosexual relationship (romantic or otherwise) should treat each other with equal respect. We're all inside the bubble now (at least in English-speaking, urbanized North America); that's why the only thing you can readily identify as "feminism" is crazy radical crap.

Re:if it's all about women's protection...

[dgatwood]

No, that's recognition of the reality that a woman has a lot more at stake in a pregnancy than a man.

Up until the moment of birth, yes, but that's only 9 months out of the 18.75 years in which the parents are responsible for that child. For the other 18 years, both parents' roles are equal, and given that statistically, men make more money than women (even in the same jobs at the same companies), you could even argue that the father plays a greater role for the remaining 18 years. You can't just look at the first nine months in isolation, because the decision of whether to abort a child, give that child up for adoption, or keep that child continues to shape the lives of both parents for a lot longer than that.

From an ethical perspective, there's actually something to be said about giving the father the right to terminate child support if the father objected to the mother keeping the baby prior to its birth. Here's why: There's a small minority of women who, when a relationship is on the rocks, stop taking birth control pills in the hopes that having a baby will fix the relationship. If the father had a legally enshrined right to say, "Give the baby up for adoption or I won't be obligated to pay any child support," those sorts of pregnancies would be significantly rarer, and the abortions that often follow a few months later would also be significantly rarer.

Indeed. One person cannot force another to undergo an invasive and traumatic medical procedure. Truly they are being oppressed ! On the flipside, a woman who does not want children cannot force her husband to have a vasectomy or be castrated, so it seems that balances out.

Not really a fair comparison. One is a procedure that ends a single pregnancy, the other is a largely permanent procedure that ends the possibility of future pregnancies. For that matter, non-surgical abortions (RU-486) have been legal in the U.S. for more than a decade, so it's more on the same scale as forcing a man to take Viagra.

Not that I'm advocating abortion, mind you—personally, I think it should be avoided to the maximum extent possible—but if you're going to make an argument from a safety perspective, it ought to at least be a valid argument. For example, there's a much stronger case for allowing a woman to abort an child without the father's consent, given that there are very real safety risks associated with having a baby, and very real safety risks with telling some men (the abusive kind) that you're going to abort their baby.

i think the 'porn' thing

[Anonymous Coward]

has to do with topless women peddling orange juice in adverts on television.. not "porn" in general.

Re:i think the 'porn' thing

[Joce640k]

Yep, it says "in the media".

They may have a point. It's hard to turn on the TV in Spain after 11pm without seeing women in a state of undress or being "sexualized" in some way (even if it's only getting some bimbo to express her views on society so they can mock her).

I'm all for pornography/eroticism, but there's no need for that...

Re:i think the 'porn' thing

[operagost]

Media is everything! TV, DVD, Blu-Ray, Internet, paper!

I'm all for pornography/eroticism, but there's no need for that...

Says who? Oh, you. And them. I'm sure that your personal opinion is not censorship.

Re:i think the 'porn' thing

[Joce640k]

Flipping through Spanish TV channels in the hope of seeing naked women is the most mind-numbing way I can imagine of finding 'porn'.

Who are you trying to fool? Just admit to yourself you really want is porn, then watch porn. It's not difficult. You might even find something to your own personal taste.

What of violence against men?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that so few leaders are willing to ignore violence against men, one form of which is the forced circumcision and genital mutilation of boys which remains legal in many countries that protect girls from similar. Can't violence just be opposed in all it's forms without regard to sex?

Re:What of violence against men?

[SuricouRaven]

Because... it's a cultural thing. It doesn't have to make sense! It's only mutilation if the other tribe does it. If we do the same, it's a perfectly respectable practice.

Re:What of violence against men?

[Anonymous Coward]

The American Association of Pediatrics believes the benefits of circumcision outweighs the risks.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/27/health/aap-circumcision-recommendation

Keep in mind that this is a trade organization looking out for the interests (profit) of its members. They also are willing to conveniently overlook the fact that performing surgery on non-consenting minors to remove normal, healthy, functional body parts violates medical ethics. The vast majority of the world's men have their entire dick and aren't in poor health as a result. Regardless of whether you buy into the circumcision hype, the bottom line is that men should decide for themselves what happens to their OWN penis. After all, they are the ones who are going to live with ramifications.

Child Circumcision: An Elephant in the Hospital

Re:What of violence against men?

[mattventura]

Religious freedom is not bullshit.

Using it as justification to perform a not-easily-reversed medical procedure on someone else who may not actually want it is bullshit.

Good luck with that...

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Next on the lawmakers' agenda: requiring all politicians to be honest, and banning all people from eating junk food.

Re:Good luck with that...

[sycodon]

Back in 1993, the European governments got together and said, "we don't have enough politicians making up useless, feel good, and inane laws. So let's create a ginormous bureaucracy that can do it for us." And then they created the European Union.

Re:Good luck with that...

[BasilBrush]

Same as the USA did two hundred and odd years ago.

And if the USA hadn't done that. If they'd been independent states, they'd never have become a world superpower. So much as it's very fashionable theses days to be libertarian and hate the federal government, you Americans wouldn't have had the success you have had without it.

Re:Good luck with that...

[cayenne8]

And if the USA hadn't done that. If they'd been independent states, they'd never have become a world superpower. So much as it's very fashionable theses days to be libertarian and hate the federal government, you Americans wouldn't have had the success you have had without it.

We don't so much hate it, as we want to contain and control and limit it better, so that it is more answerable to the people, and that states have MORE of a say in things, much like it was originally designed, and allowed for such rapid growth and power.

Growing beyond its constitutional bounds is a major contribution to our decline currently

Preventive measures needed!

[jmsp]

I'm quickly downloading the Internet before it becomes contraband here.

Expect a rise in sex crimes if this passes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Porn is a release, not an inspiration.

Re:What word is translated "Pornography"?

[alphaminus]

I understand that it is a legal document that exists in several languages including english, i guess I'm just wondering if the EU definition of the term is any less nebulous that the US's "I know it when i see it."

First step is to agree on a definition

[It doesn't come easy]

I travel in Europe occasionally and some of the commercial billboards I have seen in airports would be considered pornography in the US...

Re:First step is to agree on a definition

[Anonymous Coward]

> I travel in Europe occasionally and some of the commercial billboards I have seen in airports would be considered pornography in the US...

I don't believe you. Please post examples.

Re:All this technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Because power isn't about taking enlightened logical decisions for the greater good.

Also banning impure thought, donuts.

[gestalt_n_pepper]

And speaking of women's rights, are they going to ban Berlesconi too? I mean, I'm in favor of banning him, but not for that reason.

Setting aside the porn thing for the moment...

[neiras]

I'm getting tired of "Violence against women" being portrayed as a special case worthy of special laws at the expense of everyone else.

Violence in general is the problem. All violence has victims. Violence typically occurs where society needs new rules and new norms. Right now there is lots of violence against against women, more in some cultures than others. It's ugly.

Still, when we start getting laws designed to combat violence against group X that end up doing violence to the rights and freedoms of people outsideof group X, we're doing it wrong.

By all means, let's make rules that discourage violence against everyone - childredn, the elderly, women, men, pets, gingers, neckbeards. Short of widespread deployment of G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate, though, humans will keep bashing each other. There's a limit to prevention.

Re:Setting aside the porn thing for the moment...

[Ardeaem]

I'm getting tired of "Violence against women" being portrayed as a special case worthy of special laws at the expense of everyone else.

Violence in general is the problem.

Eh, yes, but it is not very productive to ignore that different kinds of violence have different causes and thus probably different solutions, and that some kinds of violence are more pervasive than others. I'm not defending the specific policy in question here, but your knee-jerk "all violence is bad response" is a sign that you might want to consider more nuanced ways of thinking about the world.

Re:Setting aside the porn thing for the moment...

[operagost]

Even if violence against women were the most important issue today, this resolution is lacking some sort of reference to actual SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that pornography is the cause. For years, people have been blaming games, movies, and TV for everything with no actual reasoning behind it.

Re:Setting aside the porn thing for the moment...

[SuricouRaven]

And yet the countries where women are most unequal are also those which have heavy restrictions on pornography,

Saturday nights for Euro nerds looking bleak

[Grayhand]

Xena reruns only go so far.

Consolidation of power

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly why consolidation and centralization of power is so dangerous: it leverages the injustice that inevitably results from coercive authority. Whatever flavor of injustice is currently in fashion will be extended and compounded by orders of magnitude. Instead of the isolated cases of injustice that result from small independent states, what you get with consolidation of political power is a nuclear explosion of injustice.

Of course, for the elite few at the top of the pyramid, consolidation of power is the road to riches.

From the article

[phantomfive]

The propsal to ban pornography already passed in 1997, according to the first link in the summary. This one merely calls on the states of the EU to actually take concrete action towards that goal. Also, it's not clear that this proposal is binding at all, even if it passes; it seems more like a 'call to action', encouragement, than anything else. Someone who has deeper knowledge of the EU than I do can clarify. Here is the quote from the proposal:

17. Calls on the EU and its Member States to take concrete action on its resolution of 16 September 1997 on discrimination against women in advertising, which called for a ban on all forms of pornography in the media and on the advertising of sex tourism

I'm not sure anything at all will change even if this passes.

Re:What word is translated "Pornography"?

[operagost]

Does it matter? It's censorship. Why do we think any intrusion on people's private lives is OK?

Falkvinge and Engstroem

[SgtChaireBourne]

Rick Falkvinge of the Swedish Pirate Party has a good summary of the attempt to ban porn as well as a call to action. Apparently getting e-mail through to the parliamentarians is not as straight forward as one might wish. Christian EngstrÃm, MEP, also of the Swedish Pirate Party has a good analysis of the attempted ban. Basically it's a grab at control and censorship under another guise.

Impossible to enforce

[magic maverick]

Two words only are needed to show why any attempt to ban anything on the Internet is doomed to fail. Both words are proper nouns. The first is "Tor", an onion routing system that means it can be virtually impossible to connect an end user with a particular server. Moreover, there are "hidden" services that do not even show on the main web. The second is "Freenet", the distributed peer-to-peer encrypted network (with built in darknet for those who want or need it). A third word, "Bitcoin", allows a thriving marketplace, and when proper laundries are in place, an effectively anonymous marketplace.

The mere fact of countries like the USA, where pornography cannot be banned, means that any attempt to ban it in another freeish place will be quite difficult.

But that's technical stuff.

While I can understand the desire to eliminate gender stereotypes, and it is something I fully support, I don't see how banning pornography in the media can help. I also think that it's a wrong-headed move from a free speech point of view.

Pornography is not just men fucking women for the pleasure of other men. Human sexuality is so broad and varied, and porn is, as a consequence, broad and varied. Personally, I see porn as a positive thing in society, allowing people to experience their sexuality in the privacy of their own bedroom. A young teenage boy wondering whether it is really wrong, as his class mates, teachers, parents, and community say, for boys to like other boys, can find solace in the Internet. And jack-off to gay porn. And that's a good thing. Maybe a young teenage girl is wondering if her feelings towards some of her friends are normal. She can find lesbian, bisexual, and varied other porn on the Internet to help her confront her feelings. And that's a good thing. And the stories can be much broader than those as well.

I do object to a lot of porn out there. The degrading humiliating porn. The stuff where it looks like the female actor is actually not enjoying herself at all. But that does not mean the answer is to ban all porn.

Enforced With Kinect

[FrankDrebin]

No need to monitor the internet, just monitor the users. Apparently Kinect can now detect a clenched fist.

Re:What word is translated "Pornography"?

[mcgrew]

"Porn: anything the powerful doesn't want plebes to have." And here I thought Europe was civilized and we Americans were the dummies. How could they ever enforce this, have a Chinese style firewall around Europe? Do they think all the porn comes from Europe?

Idiots. Just like us, passing totally unenforceable laws.

RTFA

[AmiMoJo]

The proposal is not calling for porn to be banned. It is saying that mainstream newspapers should not contain porn, like the Sun in the UK does. For those that don't know the Sun, Britain's most popular newspaper, has a picture of a topless women on page 3 of every edition.

Porn is also used extensively in marketing, even of children's products and during daytime TV viewing hours. Banning ads for sex tourism should be a no-brainier I would hope.

Internet porn will not be banned. That is absolutely not what this is about. It is merely trying to remove negative stereotypes from everyday media. The media has been given countless opportunities to clean up, to stop using stick figure models and heavy photoshopping, to stop using porn to sell things, but it has largely failed to do so. If anything it has become more mainstream now.

It isn't about being puritanical, it is about protecting people from well understood psychological harm.

Re:RTFA

[Hatta]

Banning ads for sex tourism should be a no-brainier I would hope.

Not at all. The no-brainer is that sex tourism should be legal and regulated, just like any other industry. Tax them and use that money to enforcefair working conditions. Problem solved.

It is merely trying to remove negative stereotypes from everyday media

Negative according to who? And why do they get to decide what is negative?

It isn't about being puritanical, it is about protecting people from well understood psychological harm.

Exactly what sort of harm are you talking about? How is sending the message that sex is positive and desirable more harmful than sending the message that sex is dirty and should be hidden?

Re:Cookie Law mk2?

[sycodon]

You can have my pr0n when you pry it from my dead, hair covered hand.

Re:All this technology

[amiga3D]

You know they can't even get rid of the child porn out there and somehow they think they'll succeed with porn in general? Luck with that.

As usual

[Vinegar Joe]

"the dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe." - Tom Wolfe

Re:What word is translated "Pornography"?

[phantomfive]

It's not about 'think of the children.' Read the article. It's about protecting women's rights. It comes from the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality. Some feminist groups oppose porn, for various reasons. The Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality is one of those.

Among other things, if you read the article, they feel pornography encourages the culture that allows women to make less money than men.

Re:What word is translated "Pornography"?

[HornWumpus]

The internet wasn't built for children.

It is the parents problem, period.

The net is an adult destination, simple as that. Don't let your kids lose here unsupervised. It's not that hard, most just don't want to know.

I would no more leave a kid on an unfiltered net connection then I would leave him at a titty bar for babysitting.

The Big Picture

[SirGarlon]

Just from TFS, the headline of the proposal is "Eliminating Gender Stereotypes in the EU." I am not sure that is even a goal that is worthy of support. Are they trying to say that the gender roles that developed over the last 2500 years of European history are without value and need to be expunged from 21st century civilization?

I'm all in favor of correcting historical inequities like giving women equal pay and practical equality before the law. I also will go so far as to admit it's possible that women as a population might benefit from certain changes in workplace culture or other aspects of society.

What I don't accept is that everyone is supposed to pretend women are indistinguishable from men. I embrace my role as the bug-squasher and fix-it man, and my wife embraces her role as the cook. Social equality is not the same as mathematical equality. The language of "eliminating stereotypes" is worrisome for that reason. What we need is not a world without differences, but a world where the norms are inclusive of differences.

Nothing else to fix?

[dittbub]

I guess all the other problems facing EU have been solved?

Re:What word is translated "Pornography"?

[Applekid]

It's not about 'think of the children.' Read the article. It's about protecting women's rights. It comes from the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality. Some feminist groups oppose porn, for various reasons. The Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality is one of those.

Among other things, if you read the article, they feel pornography encourages the culture that allows women to make less money than men.

Thankfully, there are nations that have already banned pornography and are hailed as beacons of Woman's Rights, like Saudi Araba, Egypt, China, North Korea, Guyana, and Botswana.

Re:What word is translated "Pornography"?

[BasilBrush]

And libertarians and child pornographers are in agreement that an unrestricted internet will make the world better.

See how stupid it is to associate people based on one particular thing they agree on?

Do it, make everyone a criminal overnight

[elucido]

Then let's build enough prisons (concentration camps?) to put those scumbags in.

Re:What word is translated "Pornography"?

[cayenne8]

And libertarians and child pornographers are in agreement that an unrestricted internet will make the world better.

See how stupid it is to associate people based on one particular thing they agree on?

You know...an unrestricted internet is what we started out with, and that un-restriction is what allowed it to grow and thrive in such a short period of time (look at the vast difference between about say 1993 and 2013).

Why should we try to restrict it now, just as it is becoming pervasive enough that so many in the world now can connect and express their view points.

This is mostly govt.s trying to put the genie back in the bottle because they didn't see this coming when it started.

Thank God For Govt. Control

[clam666]

"Calls on the Member States to establish independent regulation bodies with the aim of controlling the media and advertising industry and a mandate to impose effective sanctions on companies and individuals promoting the sexualisation of girls;"

Thank God. I was worried because we hadn't had a strong government control over the media since the 1930s in Europe. I look at this as positive signs of a strengthening EU, and the champion of this should be Germany, what with them having the only sound economic basis.

I wasted time reading the whole "proposal". I'm not sure why they couldn't have just used the word "citizens" or "people" instead of micromanaging it to "girls" and "women". Next you'll need every other damn subgroup there is. Why the hell can't they just say "We seek to limit discrimination and sterotyping of citizens based on religion , national original, gender, whatever"...why do they always have to divide and conquer? Other than the obvious reasons.

This proposal sucks. Not the least of which they keep spelling it "Labour". They sound like a bunch of damn Canadians.

Re:What word is translated "Pornography"?

[PraiseBob]

I think the difference is that libertarians usually acknowledge the negative impacts, but provide a weighted argument that the overall freedom is worth the cost. Are the feminists acknowledging the negative impacts of imposing censorship on broad segments of the populace?

Drat

[roc97007]

Scanned the report. No pictures.

Re:And this is why we came to America.

[SomeKDEUser]

Actually, people came to America because they couldn't properly oppress the people back in Europe that did not have quite their exact brand of puritanism...

Re:What word is translated "Pornography"?

[cayenne8]

--Don't let your kids lose here unsupervised. It's not that hard

As I predicted, the old pass the buck to the parents nonsense. Yes, it is that hard. Technically, logistically, and time wise.

--I would no more leave a kid on an unfiltered net connection

As I also pointed out, a net nanny on a PC isn't enough. Even if the kids can't find their way around it, they have consoles, smartphones, their friends houses, free wifi all over the place.

So, exactly when did parent 'lose' the ability to control their children? My parents did quite a good job of it...they told me what I could and could not watch on TV, the TV being in all public rooms. I didn't get a phone in my room or a tv till I was in High School.

What is the world is so difficult in keeping the computer the children access in a room where they are easily observed while on it? Who says you have to give a child a fucking cell phone?!? Don't give them on till they're old enough for one.

Seriously, when exactly did we switch from the parents having 100% authority and responsibility for the raising of their offspring and start to unload it on the public in general. When, exactly did parents lose the ability to control their children, and instill in the kids the fear of God (so to speak) of the repercussions if they broke the rules?

And yes, when I grew up, both my parents worked....I knew where the loaded guns were in the house, I had been taught how to use and fire the weapon, but I never once even THOUGHT about going to get it out to play with it or show it off, etc. WTF happened since I grew up....are kids more stupid or are they not parented properly? This is just an example and carries over to anything.

The parent can control who's house the kids visit...they can control what and how much TV they consume, same with video games and computer/internet time.

This should not be a problem, it wasn't in the past, why is it such a "burden" now?

If you are going to fuck and have kids...you have to be prepared to make the sacrifice of $$ and TIME that you have to devote not to yourself as a human being, but use that time as a fucking PARENT, and spend whatever time and set whatever rules and enforce the rules on your children.

Internet time and access is one more that is added on in the modern world

Be a parent....and also remember...you do not have to give little Johnny or Susie or Shenequa everything they ask for, and just because a friend has it, doesn't mean THEY have to have it too.

"Don't do it," sighed Mr. Wonka

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

We in the US tried to warn you -- we have experience with states creating a federal government, giving it limited, well-defined powers, and no others, and seeing it grow, expanding its power over the centuries, until it fancies itself the one and only government, with the states being historical curiosities.

If that can happen with an "iron clad" Constitution, how much moreso without one?

"Long stream of words", and it grabs more power it didn't use to have. Repeat ad collapse.

You were warned. God help you, you were warmed.

Re:What word is translated "Pornography"?

[Agent0013]

Among other things, if you read the article, they feel pornography encourages the culture that allows women to make less money than men.

The really ironic part of that statement is that pornography is one of the fields where women make much more money than men.

"complained about getting emails from citizens"

[dunkelfalke]

Excuse me? Hello!? How they bloody dare to complain about getting emails from their employers?

ROFL-worthy

[argStyopa]

The story just gets funnier as you read it:

"...The IT department of the European Parliament is blocking the delivery of the emails on this issue, after some members of the parliament complained about getting emails from citizens."

EU Parliament is a triumph of democracy, clearly.

Really, the moment I start to think that nothing could be more ridiculous than the US Congress, there I go, proved wrong again.

Re:ROFL-worthy

[Somebody Is Using My]

What's not so funny is that you have to do 95% into this discussion before anyone even mentions this important point.

Yes, talking about sex is popular but these attempts at restricting pornography come and go. They are usually thrown down because it is difficult to define and as difficult to enforce.

Blocking messages because "members of the parliament complained about getting emails from citizens" is something I find altogether more interesting - and abhorrent. It is a behavior of a professional ruling caste that no longer feels obligated to its citizenry; in fact, they consider those citizens a nuisance or threat to their profession.

Dear EU members of parliament (or any politician in a representative democracy): you are supposed to REPRESENT us, assholes! That means you need to listen to what your electorate says, which in turn means reading any messages sent to you. If you get a lot of messages because of a particular issue, that's probably because it is an important issue to them. Your job - the reason you were put into power, and the reason you get a salary at the taxpayer's expense - is to read those damn messages,

None of this is news, of course. Politicians have always screwed over the common man. What /is/ new is how, increasingly, the politician caste is blatantly, /obviously/ open about ignoring its responsibilities. They make no attempt to hide their own corruption, that they are either serving only themselves or some other master than the citizenry they swore to represent. /This/ is a topic that needs far more discussion than the titillating sexual mores that have inspired this proposal and so far otherwise dominated the conversation.

Re:What word is translated "Pornography"?

[Opportunist]

And how on earth is YOUR kids more important than MY liberty? If you want to protect your kids, then do it yourself and leave me out of this!

I'm fed up with the whole "thinkofthechildren" crap. You wanted kids, now deal with it!

Re:What word is translated "Pornography"?

[Rene S. Hollan]

Seriously, when exactly did we switch from the parents having 100% authority and responsibility for the raising of their offspring and start to unload it on the public in general. When, exactly did parents lose the ability to control their children, and instill in the kids the fear of God (so to speak) of the repercussions if they broke the rules?

About the time when a child could injure themselves in some minor way, and tell someone "Daddy did this to me" because they were denied some toy they wanted.

Been, there, done that, spent four days in jail because my nine year old didn't want new shoes, and I failed to observe what he was doing with the seatbelt buckle (jabbing it into his abdomen to leave a bruise).

These days, a child calling 911 and saying they're scared becaue they don't get some treat is taken as probable cause of abuse (the child's purported fear, that is). Add to that laws that establish a child under 13 lacks the ability to know right from wrong, and therefore mens rea to commit a crime, and you have children, not parents, in control.

Media hype... isn't it?

[jopsen]

Until confirmed by a serious news outlet, this is all hype.

Read the interesting section

17. Calls on the EU and its Member States to take concrete action on its resolution of 16 September 1997 on discrimination against women in advertising, which called for a ban on all forms of pornography in the media and on the advertising of sex tourism

It calls on the EU to do something, which means more talk and talk :)
This, sounds like a call for concrete action, not an actual concrete action. There's a huge difference... Calls for action usually leads to discussion..

Whilst, I wouldn't be surprised if "the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality" wanted to take action against to ban porn, at least partially or in public spaces.
I seriously doubt European countries such as Denmark, the first country to legalize porn is going to ban it...
(One of the few things I can take "pride" in as a Danish citizen).