Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 22nd Jul 2013 15:21 UTC
Internet & Networking "Every household in Britain connected to the internet will be obliged to declare whether they want to maintain access to online pornography, David Cameron will announce on Monday." And so, the UK nanny state turns to straight up censorship. Let's look at some of the authoritarian policies that David Cameron wishes to enact.
Thread beginning with comment 567774
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I'm not convinced
by roblearns on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 13:23 UTC
roblearns
Member since:
2010-09-13

The theory behind blocking pornography is that it does some public good.

And you'll be told, to protect women, but that isn't the case.

Relatively speaking the number of women employed in the pornography field isn't many compared to the massive numbers of men addicted to pornography.

The toll on society is great. At the same time, I don't favor censorship.

The main issue with pornography is that for many its available for free. If economics worked the way it used to in the past - there'd be no excuse for government intervention.

But the phenomena of delivering services for free in order to profit from addicts mean there is no longer the barrier.

Look in years gone by - they had pornography but it was printed in a magazine - it cost a few dollars, and you had to go to the store and actually purchase it at checkout.

Well my belief in freedom of commerce, speech, private ownership of networks - is all strong enough that I wouldn't support the governments actions.

However I feel no need to over simplify. They are addressing a real problem - even if the world is so focused on women, they have to express every problem and solution in terms of how it impacts women.

The real problem here - is pornography is negatively impacting men.
And - as men are human beings too - it's sad that its having this impact, and I'd like to see a solution. Just not the government's solution.

p.s. I'm not from the UK - so my 'support' was neither requested nor required - I'm just joining the discussion because its interesting. True, it's important to stay vigilant against attacks on freedoms, but at the same time, some talk of the underlying issue is important too - pornography is a menace, if you ask me ;)

Edited 2013-07-23 13:29 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: I'm not convinced
by Ravyne on Wed 24th Jul 2013 00:51 in reply to "I'm not convinced"
Ravyne Member since:
2006-01-08

I wonder what your viewpoints are on the following:

If the real problem, as you say, is not exploitative production of porn and resulting shifted perceptions (that is, "harm to women"), but really is the addictions of men facilitated by free/cheap and easily available product to consume, what role is there for government to play? Why isn't the solution "Its your responsibility to stop doing things that harm you." Admittedly, for a small few, this is easier said than done. But what would be the wisdom in implementing any beurocracy or process intended to curb such isolated addictions? Especially to the extent that responsible consumers of porn are affected -- I suppose this all hinges upon your response to my second query, which is:

What harm does the porn itself actually cause? Not many reports of habitual masturbators robbing corner stores to keep up with their porn habits are there? Similarly few of "porn deals" gone bad. So the harm seems to be the perception of porn addicts as, ultimately, not pulling their weight in society. On a case-by-case basis this may or may not be true, but the fault ultimately is the addiction itself, not their drug of choice, whether it be pornography or heroin.

Leaving even governments aside, why should it be anyone's prerogitive to decide for someone else whether they are doing too much percieved harm (or good) to themself?

I agree that there should be help -- non-profits, community organizations, even perhaps government offices -- for those who want to rid themselves of such addictive behavior, for whatever addictions they suffer -- but what I would disagree with is for anyone to take it upon themselves to define what the standard is, and to track and prosecute those who would fall on the wrong side of it.

Reply Parent Score: 2