Slashdot Mirror
Leaked Document Shows Europe Would Fight UK Plans To Block Porn
Mark Wilson writes: Before the UK elections earlier in the month, David Cameron spoke about his desire to clean up the internet. Pulling — as he is wont to do — on parental heartstrings, he suggested that access to porn on computers and mobiles should be blocked by default unless users specifically requested access to it. This opt-in system was mentioned again in the run-up to the election as Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Sajid Javid assured peopled that the party "will age restrict online porn". But it's not quite that simple. There is the small problem of Europe. A leaked EU Council document shows that plans are afoot to stop Cameron's plans in its tracks — and with the UK on the verge of trying to debate a better deal for itself within Europe, the Prime Minister is not in a particularly strong position for negotiating on the issue. Cameron has a fight on his hands, it seems, if he wants to deliver on his promise that "we need to protect our children from hardcore pornography". Documents seen by The Sunday Times reveal that the EU could make it illegal for ISPs and mobile companies to automatically block access to obscene material. Rather than implementing a default block on pornography, the Council of the European Union believes that users should opt in to web filtering and be able to opt out again at any time; this is precisely the opposite to the way Cameron would like things to work.
Sure. Let the Brits only see their own porn!
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
And how exactly do you block access? Politics and policy aside, from the technical viewpoint, what he proposes is not possible. One country cannot get worldwide cooperation of every single adult website to honor this opt-in policy. Keyword based filters cannot work with encrypted traffic. Whitelisting or blacklisting would be such a massive undertaking as to never be effective. There's just no way to even do what he's advocating.
Better known as 318230.
I would suggest that this might be an issue that David Cameron used for the elections and for politics and that it isn't a core issue that he'll defend against such pushback.
Or we could just stop raising a country of sexually reclusive prudes who are ashamed of their own body and freak out at the through of seeing nipple.
Funny side anecdote: I was in Bad Hofgastein in Austria skiing and after a long day on the slopes I went down to the wellness centre for an evening of sauna. There was a British woman shouting at the receptionist that it is absolutely unacceptable that she was kicked out for wearing swimmers in the sauna area. There were a lot of naked men and women standing around quite bemused.
Cameron is staunchly anti-freedom. What's tragic is a majority of British liked this and voted for the man and those that didn't are forced at gunpoint to come along for the ride.
... wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
... breaks up the foundations of society.” —Thomas Jefferson
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” —Ben Franklin
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” —Thomas Jefferson
“Democracy
“Democracy is the most vile form of government... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention... incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.” —James Madison
“The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and
http://democracyisnotfreedom.c... https://encyclopediadramatica....
Wasn't Cameron only taking a stance in order to assuage anti-porn feminists? Pro-feminist candidates were roundly defeated in the last elections and they were hilariously humiliated by the Sun in the Page Three imbroglio. Cameron's an idiot if he pays any more attention the neo-puritans.
captcha: purify
the EU could make it illegal for ISPs and mobile companies to automatically block access to obscene material. Rather than implementing a default block on pornography, the Council of the European Union believes that users should opt in to web filtering and be able to opt out again at any time
O.K., this is better than the opposite (i.e., "blocked by default unless users specifically requested access to it"), but does this means that "the EU could make it illegal for ISPs and mobile companies to NOT automatically block access to obscene material if users OPT IN to web filtering"? (for the record: i believe that ISP's should -try to- block access to such materials if users ask for it)
Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
UK & Greece: no porn and no money.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Would seem sensible for ISPs to require a choice at signup, where you would have to select either yes or no to web filtering. i.e no default. That way lawyers are happy that nobody can claim they didn't know about the option. Users could then easily change their preferences at a later day as they choose.
How to make a nation pro-EU?
Enact stupid and draconian laws, or violate civil liberties, at the national level and have the EU ride in on its white horse to save us all.
I suppose it can be interpreted as acts of subversion.
The world should not be set up safe as a default for you and your fucking whiny children.
The moral upbringing of your children in a sealed bubble which keeps the world at bay is your damned problem.
Every parent who insists the world be made sanitized for you and your precious little snowflake can piss off.
You want a nanny internet, you take the time to sign up for it and request it. But if you think the rest of the world should have to opt-in ... you can fuck off and leave the rest of us out of it.
I'm s sick of idiotic parents who think the world should change to protect their children. We don't give a crap, they're not our kids ... on behalf of parent-less couples everywhere, this is your fucking problem not ours.
I won't moderate my behavior for my mother. If you think I'll do it for you and your brood of annoying children ... well, ask me. I dare you. Because they'll learn every possible bad word as well as hearing them used in complete sentences.
If you think the world should tiptoe around you and your kids ... you're too stupid to have kids.
Shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker motherfucker and tits. Fuck you, fuck off, go the fuck away, and don't make me tell you again.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Just ban all BBC exports in Europe: Which would be a shame since the BBC make the best documentaries on the planet. Some of their shows (eg. 'Top gear') earn millions for the UK government. Let's see how desperate Cameron is for censorship when he has to pay the price.
David Cameron needs to watch this video.
There seems to be absolutely no need for Europe to get involved in this issue, and the fact that there are some wanting it to do so is a sign that there's no real commitment to subsidiarity (why does the decision need to be taken an EU level given that ISP are inevitably local?). It also suggests there are Eurocrats with too little to do with their time...
Of course the whole area is product of the ignorance of our lords and masters at how easy it is to get past such barriers...
Since UK is leaving the EU and it's myriad financial and political problems behind soon anyways, this will soon be moot.
Just a minute ago I was reading about trannie mosquitos, now I read the EU wants to protect the average brit's right to fap to trannie mosquito porn.
// it's Fark!
/// Oh, wait
/ it's not news
I can't speak for other countries, but here in the US, making porn is in no way illegal so the actresses are free to peruse legal help if that were the case. And also, due to regulation, regular STD checks are mandatory and if a positive test comes up, the entire industry is halted until the breadth of the problem is determined. So at least in the US, all the points you made are nothing but FUD. And I believe the US is one of the largest porn producers in the world.
I see you are trying to take the western modern medicine approach to treatment, cover up the symptoms and ignoring the underlying disease.
I am split. On one hand I support freedom of speech and I think it would be nice to enforce it. On the other hand I support Democracy and if the Brits want to restrict freedom of speech, an outer undemocratic body like EU should not be able to bar them.
But after some though, I think that there should be no natural laws. People sovereignty should be the source of any law and therefore Democracy should trump freedom of speech. After all in a democratic regime, freedom of speech restriction wan be overturned later by another sovereign decisionn therefore it is no big deal.
As is typical for politicians of his breed, he only needs to be seen to be trying to implement an Internet filter. He doesn't need to pass it to be seen to be doing something by those people he's trying to win votes from, and if he doesn't succeed he'll be able to rally them again next election and win their votes. Failing to create a workable solution and being able to blame the European Union is probably highly beneficial to him, politicially.
Amen to that.
SSCCATAGAPP!
"we need to protect our children from hardcore pornography"
Typical conservative "save the children" bullshit. What we actually need to do is educate children that "hard-core" pornography is not real. That it's the equivalent of a sexual cartoon for not very grown up grown ups, and that for the vast majority of people sex doesn't work that way.
There is so much free stuff available (so I've heard ;) ), how does anyone make any money with it at all?
Who pays for porn with so much free stuff available?
Is porn just advertising for the actors who engage in for-hire sex with anyone with adequate funds?
Are us poor slobs just enjoying the commercials while the rich guys get the real stuff?
Who do you think it is out there making sex slavery a profitable industry? Does the matter even enter into the debate over pornography, or is everyone supposed to just assume that one phenomenon somehow doesn't feed into the other?
The porn filter and protect the children thing is a straight up lie. It is all about censorship about blocking any ideas that compete with the false ideology of the rich and greedy, that ideology being they want more, more, more. It is all about accidental block sites, union sites, opposition (real opposition) political sites, real news sites, blogs basically anything at all. All so very accidental, then it takes months to unblock and costs thousands of dollars and then it gets accidentally blocked again.
Reality is, if they are serious about porn, they should simply strip sic it of copyright protection, cripple the ability of corporations to generate a profit from it and with out the profit there is no money to make more. Done and finished.
Of course it all has nothing what so ever to do with porn, that is a lie. All about blocking the majority from publishing anything and putting the power of publishing content back in the hand of a psychopathically greedy minority.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Someone should gently remind the prime minister that the Victorian era is over.
is just not British!
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Some things are worth dying for.
Whatever you think of the various sides of this argument, it's interesting to me to look at how different the sides are.
The US is, on average, far more concerned about pornography and other sexual issues than the UK, but there is not and never will be any significant discussion of government-mandated filters, outside of specific situations like government-run schools. The reason is our belief in the importance of free speech. Although there are plenty of Americans who would like to ban porn, no one at a national level says it out loud. No one seriously talks about it even at local, highly homogeneous levels, because everyone knows it won't fly.
The UK is somewhat less prudish than the US, but is perfectly willing to carve out large exceptions to free speech wherever it's convenient. Therefore, British pols do talk seriously about trying to ban porn, except for adults who opt out.
Europe (as a whole; there are exceptions) is even less concerned about free speech than the UK, but apparently considers porn to be something worth fighting for, to the degree that they're willing to invest at least a little effort in fighting to keep porn available to kids in the UK.
FWIW, I think porn is bad. Conceptually, there's nothing wrong with human sexuality, but porn presents an extremely distorted view of human sexuality. I think regular consumption of hardcore pornography, particularly by adolescents, skews expectations and perceptions in ways that have negative consequences. That said, I have no interest in trying to ban it. I do filter it on my home network, but that's a half measure which mostly serves as an early warning system (I get notified of attempts to get to porn sites) which offers a chance to talk the issues over if I find my kids looking for it.
All of which mostly says that I'm a fairly typical American parent: concerned about porn but unwilling to take the strong anti-freedom steps needed to effectively ban it :-)
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Why the UK and AU are so hardcore about banning porn online? I know the UK has this giant boogey man called child porn that seems to be so widespread (since that is usually the context for wanting a ban), but is child porn viewing really the bulk of what porn is tuned into in the UK?
I remember having a conversation with a coworker from London once while driving to find some lunch, we passed a hooters and he was like, "there would be no way that would make it in the UK".
+1, Bravo.
it's a few big spenders. In the game industry they call them "Whales". That and spyware/viruses selling scams that folks fall for.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
People who buy sex slaves. And literally nobody else.
So prescient.
Let's expand the focus a bit, for a better perspective: Rape, Sexual Harassment, Stalking/Voyeurism. And, for that matter, pretty much any lust.
Oh, so this is the $100,000 Pyramid? Okay, go:
Things That Can Only Be Blamed On Pornography If You Seriously Believe In Magic!
This is beyond futile, but at least it will greatly advance image recognition. Maybe they could also differentiate the ban by actual scene properties and try to vary them every week (like having a BBC week, ATM week, etc.) - that would be really useful.
You need to service your brain. It seems to be broken. Badly.
UK ISPs already block certain traffic. Not necessarily bittorrent either. I've had more than a few blogs blocked not because of morally questionable content, but because of politically questionable content.
The message here from Europe, is that you can watch a video of a woman getting fucked up the arse but you can't watch a Youtube of someone with a beef against the British Government. It's starting to sound more like the West's vision of North Korea every day, but there it is.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Is there any evidence - I mean serious, well-studied, scientific evidence - that access to pornography is that harmful?
I've seen a lot of scaremongering. I've seen a lot of anecdotal accounts too, plenty of people sharing their personal stories of how porn ruined their mind and their life. But what I've not seen is serious data - the few bits of real research I've found are rather dubious in methodology, and tend to be carried out by the type of organisation with 'family' in the name that can hardly be called unbiased.
If pornography was one-tenth as harmful as anti-pornography campaigners claim, western civilisation would have collapsed by now - just about everyone has access to it and yet, somehow, the incidence of rape is actually going down. Yet the assumption remains unchallenged, because it's just too socially and politically awkward: Anyone who dares so much as suggest that maybe pornography isn't a terrible threat to children risks being branded as supporting child molestation. Society has reached the witch-hunt level: Anyone who questions the validity of the witch-hunt risks being accused of supporting the witches.
"ith the UK on the verge of trying to debate a better deal for itself within Europe, the Prime Minister is not in a particularly strong position for negotiating on the issue"
The UK isn't fussed either way being in Europe, Cameron is in a very strong position to get what he wants.
"with the UK on the verge of trying to debate a better deal for itself within Europe, the Prime Minister is not in a particularly strong position for negotiating on the issue"
Really? This is exactly the sort of thing which the anti-EU people love to throw around as an example of meddling foreign politicians. Cameron is not merely trying to get a better deal, he's putting membership in its entirety to the vote. Given that the other EU countries don't want us to leave, I would say the prime minister is in a very strong position to tell them to forget it, and so have a minor public victory over the EU.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why is it that right wing nuts like Cameron always have such an unhealthy attitude towards censorship and sex? Why is it that they try to impose their backward christiano-religious 'morality' on other people by default? It's also unsurprising that these same people seem to end up being the people with the most deviant of all behaviour.
Cameron has to learn that he can not censor the internet. It seems to be taking a long time for this fact to sink in to his particularly feeble and nasty little right wing mind. If he balkanises the internet in the UK, it will just force everyone to use anonymisation services and proxies in countries that have a better record on internet freedom. As long as it is possible to establish an encrypted connection to a different machine in a country with internet freedoms, it is utterly trivial to set up a proxy service to bypass any nazi filters imposed by the Cameron junta. Increasingly, I think government behaviour is proving beyond any doubt that we need to have pervasive encryption to keep these deranged right wing policies out of our homes and lives. I find Cameron's take on 'morality' particularly contemptible, particularly given his vicious attacks on the poor, sick, and disabled.
We need to define a "cameron" as a particularly distasteful (to prudes) sex act so that it gets blocked by the porn filter. I suggest something scatalogical. He is a little shit, after all...
Would be nice to get May in on the action too. Some porn star should use her name. The chaos caused if we could get "may" into the filter would be hilarious.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
This. Infinitely this.
This pretentious prick is only doing this to get more votes. He won. Fuck you England.
UKIP would have honestly been better than these prudish morons.
Who the hell keeps voting for Conservatives?
The worst part about it, the worst part, this prick is all for killing off public sector stuff, yet he goes and does a 180 and forces others to become the parent of every child in the country at public expense. What a diiiick.
There will NEVER be children in my house. Ever.
If I get that stupid warning on my screen again, like it did sporadically for a month despite it being off, I swear to fuck some pricks teeth are falling out via their spinal column.
If this does go through, I am going to make it hell for every single ISP that agreed to it.
Censoring the internet is like telling a person they are only allowed to walk down certain areas of a street, and wear certain clothes, and adhere to a certain speed.
Oh wait, that is already Britain anyway.
Carry on ol' chaps.
FYI..."husbandry" is "the cultivation and production of edible crops or of animals for food; agriculture; farming." (Dictionary.com).
This policy has been in place for a number of years in the UK already. Any new customers to an IPS / Mobile Carrier automatically have limited access to adult material. To get unblocked is a very simple process indeed, especially if you are a mobile user. Honestly its not causing any hassle for us Brits and its helping to protect our children from gaining access to unsubtle material.
And so we see the problem with these claims: they don't stand up because the exceptions disprove the rule.
I predict that one of the "great concessions" that David Cameron will gain from Europe will be permission to block porn. They will probably come up with a whole load more things that they won't sweat about dropping so that David can go back with a long list and gleefully declare that his negotiations have been very successful, whereas in reality he won't have gained many of his important targets
Because they'll learn every possible bad word as well as hearing them used in complete sentences.
And then I'll have you arrested. If you don't know how to behave around other people - children or not - you're too stupid to leave the house.
All that you've done is internalised what you think should and should not be free based on where you live. And anywhere restricting speech where you aren't, is anti=free speech. Any restrictions you have are seen as "reasonable" and "totally free speech compatible". I.e. conferences being able to mandate some speech not acceptable, even if it would be a breech if done by government, defended as "totally acceptable private agreement", even though neither party is private. And one doesn't get agreement except by Hobson's choice.
> We need to define a "cameron" as a particularly distasteful (to prudes) sex act so that it gets blocked by the porn filter. I suggest something scatalogical. He is a little shit, after all...
Look up the old Scientology filter software, described at http://www.xenu.net/archive/ev.... The CensorWare software was embedded in the "creat a website" kit they were giving their own members, trying to flood Google searches and prevent access to the cult's inner secrets about the galactic emperor, Xenu. Hysterically, they had my name in their filter list, mis-spelled.
Sexual slavery, rape, voyeurism, and lust are simply the predictable extremes. Failure to establish any sort of consequences for deviant sexual behavior and letting it become mainstream entertainment and 'safe' to indulge (rather than at least a jailable offense for everybody involved) is the problem: It encourages the deviant behavior, and it makes it impossible to prosecute before it turns into crimes perpetrated against others (it also results in a hell of a lot of hypocrisy in politics and enforcement).
No, it doesn't exist. But maybe it ought to...
The problem: lots of nasty porn where men do nasty things to ladies, and no-one seems to be smiling or enjoying themselves. Lots of poking things where they simply don't belong. LIttle information or education on how to have more fun and possibly do less harm.
The non-solution: try and filter it out. We know this does not work, and it is unrealistic to believe it may work in the future. It is also a restriction of liberty. The only thing it might do is generate a billion pound a year industry for banning people from the internet, and then charging them to get their case heard for reconnection. That's a winner for our overlords, but not for us.
The solution: create a better alternative. Have some independent but public body such as the BBC curate a body of knowledge and images about people doing the sexy that is representative of best practice. It should not completely exclude the more iffy stuff, but it should not dominate the regular stuff either. While ladies may prefer to read rather than look at images, such as images as there are should reflect their interests too, rather than having two models servicing some dumpy man. This would not restrict anyone's liberties because the other stuff is still there.
It won't happen because, you know, politics and democracy and stuff. But maybe it ought to.
We don't ever find out about secret efforts to block political corruption. Is that because it never happens or because it is just that secret.
But seriously, why can't we work on legislation for real problems. Human trafficking still occurs in Europe, including the UK. Maybe they could work on that instead of going after literal wankers.
Come on, does it even sound like police slang? Council Housed And Violent is a backronym. The word almost certainly comes from the traveller community (romani or irish travellers as they are sometimes known), see wikipedia or just do a simple google search for tons of references.
I have kids and I agree with you. Teach your kids to adapt to the world, not try to force the rest of the world to adapt to brats who have an unrealistic perspective.
:-)
Also, earmuffs!
Harsh but fair
Did prohibition of alcohol work well?
I propose this as the name of the SI unit for the minimum distance between two blunders.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This seems like a ready-made tool for blackmail and extortion. It creates a list of everyone in the country that wants access to online porn of any sort. What are the odds that no one with access to such a list would ever have any inclination to misuse it? For example, threatening to leak a relevant portion of the list to a local church group or to your employers?
Society doesn't need to construct more barriers to use to separate people.
Virgin Media in the UK just turned their safe filter ON and I had to click the no box on the page they were displaying to disable the filtering...
who knows what the heck they're really filtering behind the scenes... all IS related sites? anything anti-government?
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
....and tits shouldn't even be on the list......
sounds like a snack.....yeah yeah I know it is...
tater tits
i miss George.....
two girls one cup....now see the movie
starring Cameron May and Cheney Bush
How many drunkards do you know who rightly justify themselves [when confronted over the consequences of their behavior] by asserting the failure of prohibition?
Unless you can demonstrate that pornography does indeed cause sex slavery, yes, people are supposed to assume that. You're proposing violating freedom of speech and expression, so it's up to you to show that pornography does indeed have the consequences you list.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Support the European Union and their blow for freedom!!
Er, not blow. Thrust! No no, that's not it. Pound! I mean hammer!
(Awkward silence)
"Deviant sexual behavior" isn't a problem at all, and shouldn't be prosecutable.
You want to control other people's sex lives. This makes you morally equivalent to those rapists and sexual slavers you've been tossing up as strawmen.
Let's start with a bit of background. Below is a link to a presentation on the human trafficking industry. Should be a bit shocking, particularly if you're not well acquainted with what people do to each other when they have neither restraint, nor morals.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=21141119270
And where's the evidence of a causal link to pornography?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
You must be a great listener, seeing as it took you less than 12 minutes to listen to the entire 80 minute presentation before posting your dismissive comment.
What took me less than 12 minutes (seconds, actually) is realizing that:
1) Your "presentation" is a religious sermon, and therefore NOT a scientific source
2) Your openly stated purpose in presenting the link was to shock the listener with tales of cruelty and depravity, which in turn shows that you're relying on shock value as a substitute for hard evidence supporting your claim.
Now either put up some actual evidence, or admit that you're full of shit. Those are your only possible choices, and so far you've done nothing but the latter (accidentally, but unmistakably).
Why, if you won't listen to a presentation about the matter, should anyone expect you to care about facts and evidence?
Also, check your attitude. In addition to refusing listen, cursing and insulting doesn't exactly make you look like one who is about be convinced of anything, however well supported.
Of course, if you want to prove my assessment to be wrong, I would encourage you to take some time to review what the US Department of State has to say about Human Trafficking:
http://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/index.htm
I'm not going to listen to it precisely BECAUSE I care about facts and evidence. You put it up purely as an emotional argument, not a citation of facts that support your claim.
But on the off-chance that buried somewhere in 80 minutes of sermon is some actual hard evidence showing that pornography actually causes human trafficking, why don't you point out what part of it does so?
Checked and wholly validated. You are getting the attitude that your dishonesty causes you to deserve.
That's true, I'm certainly not about to be convinced of anything. Because you haven't made a convincing argument, and are getting increasingly upset at the notion of being asked to try to make one. As for "well supported", that hasn't happened.
I would advise you to take some time to review it, and see if you can find even one shred of evidence to support your claims about pornography.
You are, again, hoping that nobody else can tell the difference between "Human trafficking exists and is a problem" and "Human trafficking is caused by pictures of naked people!". We can, and so can you, and your deliberate attempt to conflate the two proves - beyond any possibility of doubt - that you are a liar.
It's the attitudes, greed, and lust. Regarding people, not as humans deserving respect and dignity, but as objects to be leered at, exploited, abused, then thrown away and forgotten.
Where pornography comes in: Taking women who are beautiful, turning them into the subject of the fantasy of any pervert, and selling to as many as possible. Lots of perverts = lots of profits.
Aside from the occasional token platitude, no thought goes toward the consequences. No one is being dissuaded from going beyond just the pornography and seeking out women and children to abuse. We certainly don't hear about "men", not satisfied with just the magazines and videos, vacationing out in third world countries for the purpose or raping little boys (and no consequences, be they legal or social). That isn't convenient. Certainly not for those who want their smut unimpeded.
What do we see instead: Look around this discussion. Does anybody really care about those caught up in abuse? Or is it just a blatant one-sided smear, cursing, and public shaming of anyone who attempts even a feeble pushback?
You expect somebody to sit through a ninety-minute presentation before disagreeing with you? I don't agree that that is reasonable.
As far as the State Department goes, those are fairly long reports. Could you indicate where they mention pornography, to facilitate the conversation?
Look, everybody here thinks human trafficking is bad, and nonconsensual sex is bad. We just aren't convinced that porn causes that.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
What you have completely failed to show is that pornography encourages despicable behavior. Perhaps it serves as something of a relief, bleeding off internal pressures that would otherwise induce sex crimes. If porn caused sex crimes, I'd expect to see some correlation between sex crimes and porn. Recently, porn has become more and more accessible, and sex crime rates have fallen. This is hardly proof, but it is evidence that porn doesn't cause sex crimes.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Even if this weren't a blanket statement that deliberately assigns strawman motivations to thousands of people you know nothing about - and you know that it is - none of it in any way causes rape or human trafficking. Again you're making an appeal to emotion because you know that the facts are completely against you, and you're desperate to distract our attention from this truth. And again it isn't working - you simply aren't smart enough to pull it off.
You filthy lying scumbag.
We DO hear about these things. You KNOW that we hear about them. You are choosing - willfully and maliciously - to falsely claim that we don't, so that you can pretend that your sad little obsession with porn is actually some kind of noble crusade on behalf of rape victims. But nobody buys it - not even you, deep down.
You certainly don't. You WANT sex slavery and violent, widespread rape. You're overjoyed when you hear about them happening, because to you they're an excuse to demand the thing you really want: control over what other people are allowed to see and hear. If, somehow, all kind of rape and human trafficking suddenly ceased forever, you wouldn't be happy. You'd be horrified, and you'd immediately start scrambling to find a new cause to cover for your agenda.
And you continue to lie, by trying to portray yourself as some kind of martyred hero bravely facing abuse at the hands of evil forces. You're not and you never will be. You're just a weak-minded hypocrite losing an argument on the Internet. And you know it.
You think you can have someone arrested for saying naughty words, and you think he's too stupid to leave the house.
If irony could be harnessed as a power source, your post would keep Times Square lit up for a month.