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."

37 of 397 comments (clear)

  1. well... by iamnobody2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    the internet is for porn

    --
    nobody's perfect
    1. Re:Well... by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    2. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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".

    3. Re:well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I never seen porn unless i go looking for it.

      The world would actually be a far worse place. Do you understand the amount of rape and child molestation that took place in the days before easily accessible porn? Before the early 20th century, rape was a constant. The majority of women experienced it at least once in their lives, many as adolescents. That is the consequences of a chaste society, a hell hole where people are hurt and no one talks about it.

    4. Re:well... by CaptQuark · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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]

    5. Re:well... by Evtim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:well... by readin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nearly everything conveys an idea including punching someone in the face, refusing to pay taxes, refusing to rent an apartment to a nice black family, driving without a seatbelt, insider trading, killing puppies, and burning crosses.

      In America,the founders explicitly protected word media like "speech" and "the press". They knew about art and sculpture but said nothing about it.

      Now I agree that banning some great works of art, including the ones you mention, would be bad, but that's a policy decision, not a question of "free speech". Just because you or I like something doesn't mean it is necessarily a right.

      Off on a tangent, one of the reasons America is so divided is too many people have tried to turn every question of policy into a constitutional issue and thus an issue for the courts. When the courts step in rather than letting the legislative process play out, the debate is taken away from the people and placed in the hands of a very few. Even worse, the decision is final. This has the effect of removing the impetus for compromise that legislatures produce. It removes the feeling that people have some control over how they are governed. And it raises the stakes in every battle because the outcome is seen as permanent.

      --
      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.
    7. Re:well... by xenobyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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) --
    8. Re:well... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:well... by JockTroll · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wrong. Porn is a metaphor. When you see stuff like "Massive gangbang triple penetration XXX 24" you basically see what's being done to taxpayers.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    10. Re:Well... by YeeHaW_Jelte · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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."
    11. Re:well... by mog007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I can't remember the name of the study, but a study was conducted which showed a correlation between lack of high speed internet access and number of cases of rape.

      It was broken up by state, and the states with higher rapes were also states with lower broadband access.

      Granted, it's just a correlation, and there's no reason to believe it's a causative relationship.

    12. Re:well... by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since we're well off in the realms of the hypothetical...

      Why not just let it happen? What is so terrifying about human sexuality that that our precious snowflakes must be protected from learning about it?

      Past generations had the kids in the same room - sometimes in the same bed - with their parents whilst the latter were involved in coitus (separate bedchambers for the younglings is a fairly new invention). And - as the majority of Americans were rural until just a few generations back - imagine what they saw the animals doing on the farm! I'd wager most of those kids grew up just fine.

      So two people want to start fucking near a kindergarten? I say fine, let them. Let the kids stand, stare, point and snicker at the odd poses and noises the adults are making. Odds are it'll be far more traumatic for the adults than the children.

    13. Re:well... by bitt3n · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nearly everything conveys an idea including punching someone in the face, refusing to pay taxes, refusing to rent an apartment to a nice black family, driving without a seatbelt, insider trading, killing puppies, and burning crosses.

      That the fact these acts are prohibited has anything to do with free speech is a peculiar interpretation, and not at all in keeping with how the First Amendment is generally understood. Punching someone in the face isn't prohibited on the grounds of the message it communicates. It is prohibited on the grounds that the medium through which one communicates the message produces a deleterious effect unrelated to this message. Likewise I could shout "give me Liberace or give me death" outside of a concert hall, but I could not sear this message into the backside of a passerby and claim this is protected speech merely because I am using words, rather than communicating my meaning in some other way.

      Works of art almost never produce secondary consequences related to medium, and insofar as one does, it is prohibited based on the consequences of the medium, and not based on the message. (The only such work that comes to mind is Christo's exhibit of giant umbrellas, which crushed someone, and was shortly thereafter dismantled.) What you are proposing (that some works of art ought to be prohibitable based on their message alone, and first amendment be damned) is radically different from prohibiting assault, etc.

      Now I agree that banning some great works of art, including the ones you mention, would be bad, but that's a policy decision, not a question of "free speech".

      That such a work of art is not a kind of protected speech is an idea far from mainstream in current American jurisprudence.

      It removes the feeling that people have some control over how they are governed

      Your post demonstrates why isolating this control is not necessarily a bad idea.

  2. Members of Parliament said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Wait, if I support this then I can't watch porn on the internet!"

  3. A disturbance in the force by Grayhand · · Score: 4, Funny

    As if millions of Eurogeeks breathed a sigh of relief.

  4. thought police by fche · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "The proposal, titled 'Eliminating gender stereotypes in the EU'..."

    What an Orwellian purpose.

    1. Re:thought police by fche · · Score: 5, Informative

      "They are concerned about the uneven usage of sexuality to sell products, and the message that sends."

      They do much more than that.

      "... In order to tackle the problem of the lack of women at the higher levels of economic and political decision-making, the persistence of gender stereotypes in all levels of society need to be addressed. ..."

      IOW, affirmative action at the "decision-making" level, accomplished by thorough social engineering, by e.g. deliberate suppression of traditional ideas. That's pretty drastic stuff, not just about commercial speech - i.e., advertising with attractive models.

    2. Re:thought police by fredprado · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:thought police by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:thought police by ohnocitizen · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apparently we are all incorrect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian. Yay.

      Looking at the actual law, can you point out how they are regulating thoughts? K, thanks. Because it looks like they are regulating advertising.

    5. Re:thought police by readin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    6. Re:thought police by dunkelfalke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Calling someone a racist just because you don't understand their point of view is an 'easy out'.

      but calling someone a leftie apparently isn't.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  5. why are stereotypes so bad? by epyT-R · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They are based on elements of truth, and while basing judgments solely on them will result in incomplete understanding, purposefully avoiding them by whitewashing the media with contrarian examples also denies reality. In many cases, it'll end up denying more of it! Ideology is not reality no matter how much the society is filtered.

    If you read the latter link from falkvinge, it becomes obvious very quickly that this is a white knight feminist power grab. Only they would push for such draconian demands to prevent 'the sexualization of girls', whatever that means. There are segments of the legislation that scare the shit out of me, and should scare anyone potentially living under its influence. Frankly, the fact any politician in the supposedly 'free' west would draft such a thing at all should be cause for concern. No amount of 'suffrage' or other outdated 1950s era rubbish justifies a police state. None. This kind of thing is a perfect example of ideology going so far as to eat its own tail.

    I actually read TFA and these thoughts were running through my head the whole time. American or European, we gotta stop voting these idiots into office.

    1. Re:why are stereotypes so bad? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It is imperative that people be judged based on their individual characteristics. It is a simple undeniable fact that variation within large groups of people FAR exceeds the variation between the means of the groups. It is the idiocy of stereotyping that ignores this fact. It is appalling that people do not understand this basic truth.

      Let me give you an example of how this stupidity affected me, personally.

      My wife is a Hispanic immigrant. She came to the US as an English medieval lit PhD candidate on a Fullbright scholarship to an elite university after studying in Europe for 3 years. She graduated from university at age 17. At one time she held the highest score ever achieved in the Oxford English Competency exam by a South American.

      That ethnic background meant my children were automatically stereotyped by the schools they attended. In particular one of them was misdiagnosed as having an English deficiency when in fact he had Asperger's.

      This diagnosis was done on the basis of my wife's ethnic background despite the fact she speaks English better than 99.99+% of US citizens.

      The harm done to my son from of this cannot be undone.

  6. I'm glad this got resolved so quickly... by sootman · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... because I remembered a joke after reading the last story, too late to post it. :-)

    "I'm fairly sure if they took porn off the Internet, there'd only be one website left, and it'd be called 'Bring Back the Porn!'"
    -- Dr. Cox, Scrubs

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  7. In other news... by hawks5999 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The European Parliament also decided not to rescind gravity.

  8. Re:Well, thank goodness! by pitchpipe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  9. Haven't you learned anything? by slick7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  10. The very definition of "Liberal Fascism" by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The problem with a very liberal way of thinking is, that if the state knows better than you naturally it follows that the state should control all aspects of your activity.

    Thus as you say, social engineering is no longer scary, but required in all actions you take so you have only "right minded people" in your populace.

    Human nature is not something to understand, but to be ironed and whitewashed over to get that perfect homogenous bland - er, I mean, blend.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:The very definition of "Liberal Fascism" by ohnocitizen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It baffles me that there are men out there so oblivious to the impact of sexist advertising on women and women's role in society. Paranoid, misguided men who think that removing sexist advertising is a plot to turn everyone into the same person. Sad.

    2. Re:The very definition of "Liberal Fascism" by Byrel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the impact of sexist advertising on women and women's role in society.

      Fairly negligible. Sexist advertising is the symptom of sexist culture. Advertisers are very good at adapting to cultural expectations. Whether sexist culture is good or bad is a normative judgement, and hence likely to be contentious.

      And the 'cure' in this case is almost certainly worse than the disease. Social engineering of this sort can only be justified through a paternalistic view of government; that it's the majority of us trying to keep us individually on the 'right' path. Which is dictatorship. Benevolent and majoritarian dictatorship, but dictatorship nevertheless. [1] And hence should be anathema to the true liberal; much worse than individuals making choices we personally disagree with.

      [1] Blatantly plagarizing from Milton Freedman, Capitalism and Freedom

  11. It isn't ubiquitous. by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:It isn't ubiquitous. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is plenty of evidence that unrealistic body images are damaging, especially for teenagers. The people in porn are not usually very average looking and tend to act unrealistically too. Kids have to be told they don't need to screw like a porn star or act like nymphomaniacs.

      Porn is fine for adults but making it a bit harder for teenagers to find might not be a bad thing.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:It isn't ubiquitous. by houghi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Have you looked at advertising? Have you looked at TV? Have you looked at ANY movie? The people in media are not usually very average looking and tend to act unrealistically too. (You see what I did there?)
      Media is fine for adults but making it a bit harder for teenagers to find might not be a bad thing. (See? I did it again.)

      If watching porn is bad, then so it watching people get killed. Especially when it is shown unrealistic. e.g. without the blood and gore. Yet this is almost completely against how movies are rated.

      An interesting movie about the whole rating process is This Film Is Not Yet Rated.

      And making it harder to get? Seriously? Security through obscurity. That will work well. Especially to kids. They will say "Hey, it is hard to get, lets go do something else, because this was not meant for us. Let us buy another version of a Disney movie. They show how the real world should be and how we must behave. They will show us that it does not matter if you are an ugly man, as long as you are a prince and rich. And if you are a good looking girl, you will be rewarded."

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  12. You Know The Internet Has Arrived When... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:What was the reason for wanting to ban it? by Patch86 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Quit with the trolling nonsense. The bill was proposed by the "Women's Rights and Gender Equality" committee, which, at a glance, the majority of members of which belong to the European People's Party (Christian Democrats). We are quite capable of producing a homegrown religious "Think of the Children" brigade without resorting to Islam.

    The offensive bit of the directive (the sweeping ban on otherwise legal material on the internet) has been removed, so democracy has done it's job. The rest of the bill is a typical EU directive- well meaning, high-minded stuff which is far too broad to be meaningfully implemented. That's fine too; that's a part of how our not-even-federal system works in Europe; the details should be (and in this case are) left entirely to the member states.