Slashdot Mirror
European Parliament Decides Not To Ban Internet Porn
An anonymous reader writes "The European Parliament passed a proposal Tuesday which included a blanket ban on pornography, including Internet porn, in European Union member states. However, Members of European Parliament (MEPs) removed explanatory wording from the porn ban section, essentially limiting the ban to advertising and print media. The proposal, titled 'Eliminating gender stereotypes in the EU,' was put to a vote in Strasbourg. MEPs passed it 368-159."
Many European governments are deep into repressive practices already. From suppression of Nazi paraphernalia to various modes of speech, they emulate the worst leaders of past repressive regimes in a misguided effort not to become like them. Pretty sad, really. Of course, I'd be more concerned about it if we weren't showing all the signs of repeatedly trying to go down the same path here in the US.
The worst US citizens are coming to believe -- and being quite up front about it -- that they have a right not to see and hear things they don't like in the public space. There could hardly be a more dangerous mode of thought for a country that supposedly honors freedom of speech.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The worst US citizens are coming to believe -- and being quite up front about it -- that they have a right not to see and hear things they don't like in the public space. There could hardly be a more dangerous mode of thought for a country that supposedly honors freedom of speech.
I believe I've seen a comment posted on this very site to sum this up: "The antithesis of free speech is the perceived right to never be offended".
Who are you (or them) to define what are "positive" and what are "negative" stereotypes. You seem like the 16th century puritanists censoring everything they thought unfit accordingly to their beliefs. Just the religion now is the politically correct.
I am all for giving people equal rights regardless of any difference they may have among themselves, but that has already been achieved. What you are trying to do is exactly the same the religious extremists did centuries ago. To enforce your moral standards upon others.
Surely, with the law on their side, Europe would've never seen porn again!
Right?! This would have been an even bigger failure than the war on drugs. How in the fuck did they think they could stop it?
Better yet, how do morons of this caliber get to be so high up in government?
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
Wrong. What is Orwellian is the belief of the EU that it has the right to regulate the thoughts of its citizens, for any purpose. This is utterly wrong on a fundamental level, and should be opposed. I hope you see that now that it has been pointed out.
Banning porn, like drugs, alcohol, weapons only profits the criminal element and their exorbitant prices. This is also a two-edged sword, make money from an illicit trade and then prosecute the users for more money. The government has learned well from the criminal element. Most bans are for behavior modification, do this but not that, or else. Cha-ching. What is needed is an understanding of why something is banned. Answers like it's for the children or national security are just jingoistic catchphrases which may or may not have credence. If you cannot understand the logic of a situation, then follow the money, you may be surprised where it leads.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
I think the world would be a better place if porn weren't ubiquitous
I browse a number of websites all day and none of them ave porn.
Readily accessible is NOT THE SAME AS ubiquitous.
It wouldn't help the earth, or the people on it, one bit if porn were less easy to find.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Or you may simply recognize that men and women are biologically different both in the brain and in the rest of the body, and consider attempts to force people to believe otherwise can only succeed through an increasingly totalitarian supression of what our sense and our rational thinking tell us.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Speech, in this context, is anything that conveys an idea. A drawing or cartoon can be speech. Your right to fly the flag is covered under free speech. A picture can be speech. Art can be speech.
Imagine banning great works of art like Venus emerging from the sea or David by Michelangelo, just because genitalia is visible. Books have been banned from some libraries because these images were included and classified as "porn". [Citation]
The only time I saw porn on the tubes is when I went looking for it! And as every modern citizen I use the net daily...porn is not "in your face"!
Now, regarding the fact that every product in this world seems to be promoted by half-naked women - on this I agree with the legislation - it is in my face and I won't miss it if it's gone. The same for the models advertizing clothes that have less meat on them than prisoners in concentration camp...ugh, that is ugly and in my face daily!
Conclusion - the porn business is the least "in your face" compared to almost every other business when it comes to throwing naked flesh on billboards, newspapers, magazines and the internet.
the EU bans books ("print media") and nobody cares because they read everything on the Internet now.
Just remember folks, when you're reading an actual book, nobody is recording how long you spend on each page for later analysis.
Porn isn't "freedom of speech". "Speech" implies that words are communicated. Speech is important for political communication, for discussing ideas, for rational thinking, for debating. Porn isn't..
Oh you are so wrong. Even the US supreme court agrees with me on this one. Porn, like any other expression (verbal or not) is protected free speech.
When you speak or write, you communicate. Most people agree on this one. But a lot of communication is non-verbal. Everything non-human usually is. There's chemical communication (smells, odors etc.), gesture and motion communication (sign language, mating dances etc.), color communication (flowers and insects, 'dangerous colors' etc.). Maybe you don't understand what's communicated but it doesn't change that it is communication. As it doesn't make sense to limit the free speech to just words and maybe sign language, the freedom is usually called "Freedom of Speech and Expression".
So sorry, buddy. Porn is fully covered by this freedom - and rightly so. It's just communication using more or less naked bodies, a few words and some gestures. Nothing wrong with this by the way. If you don't like what's communicated, walk away. You have the implicit right to 'listen' to any communication (the other half of the freedom of speech) and you of course also have the right not to. Nobody forces you to watch porn. If you don't like it, switch channel or throw that magazine away. But don't think that because you don't like it, the right of others to 'listen' should be taken away, or the right to make it. Likewise, if you don't like what I write here, either argue against it or go away. That's your right.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
A problem though: If you decide porn isn't real speech, then it becomes possible for opponents of 'real' speech to argue that their opponents arguments are pornographic and should be banned. For example, the old Comstock laws in the US forbade using the US post to send any information relating to the use of contraceptives, on the grounds that the devices themselves were obscene in nature, as was any information relating to their use, for it undermined the social order by allowing sex outside of marriage. Similarily, in some countries not only is homosexuality illegal, but arguing that it should be legal is also illegal - on the grounds that such arguments are so offensive as to be obscene.
Hyperbole much?
We know lots of you guys and gals in America are all into radical free speech and everything, which is nice and we love you for it.
And yes, most European governments AND their citizens believe it's perfectly fine in imposing some limits on free speech.
So does your own government I might add. And I'm pretty sure most Americans, conscious or not, are also in favor of limiting Free Speech.
Like, for example, limiting free speech for that guy which is making indecent proposols to your 6 year old daughter or son. Or not allowing someone to publicly threaten you with death. Not allowing random slandering. Heck, you should try to shout 'I'm going to kill the president' in front of the white house once and tell me how you like it.
Please educate yourself on your own country, thank you. Following link might be a nice starting point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."