Time for censorship?

[Vigil]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3459755.stm

Many of us have advocated no censorship and "whatever floats your boat" or "anything goes, so long as noone gets hurt".

People do get hurt.

[Oldfart]

Vigil, people will always get hurt, somewhere, somewhen.

Muslim people scandalised by the facial depictions and rampant

alcohol consumption in areas they have moved into.

Devout Christians aghast at "Life of Brian" and other heresies.

Fundamentalist Jews subjected to the smell of frying bacon.

Nihilists who have existance thrust on them.

We feel for each and all of them, but life is biased towards the majority.

People get hurt when some moron, inflamed by a stripper or a porno

movie goes to a park and attacks a girl (or boy).

Too many governments are enacting laws "for our own good because

we can't be trusted to look after ourselves."

If you can pick where to draw the line, you're either a wiser person than I,

or self-deluded enough to think you know all the answers.

Your cotton wool wrap is waiting, sir.

[Vigil]

The speed limit is a line that is drawn, rightly or wrongly.

The age of consent

Alcohol levels for drivers

and yes there is an international ban on the abuse of children for pornography.

This is a question about censorship and whether the majority should have their way and the difficult thing is to what point?

Do you start at the bottom of the barrel and work up?

Do you think that sites that promote extreme violence to women (or men) should be uncensored? We have a law against inciting racial hatred/violence, why not against hatred and violence to anyone?

[Sharni]

The thing is that this is the World Wide Web....what maybe illegal in one country may not be in another....

To censor the Web will be nigh impossible unless the Worlds countries can agree on making something illegal everywhere..eg: child pronography

The speed limits vary from country to country

The age of consent varies too

Alcohol levels vary also

we would all be trying to put our countries limits on another which i imagine would not go down too well at all

[jseal]

Vigil,

I am confident that I would dislike a standardized world – unless it conformed to my standards.

Who here is ready to embrace this modest proposition?

[Belial]

NO.

No, no no.

The murder victim was exactly that, the victim of a murder. She was not a victim of pornography. Whether or not the pornography fuelled the murderer's desire or not, he still had to make a decision to kill, unless he was actually driven insane, and the story does not indicate that insanity was ever alleged.

[Ranger1930]

ok.. im going to put this in anotherl ight for you guys.. because it seems to me most of you live in europe.. and i've been there hehe and well there's nothing realyl censored.. i'm in the US where.. *snickers* if you didnt hear recently our censorship has become so disfigured and dellusioned that during a mid game football show. a famous pop singer had her clothing torn asunder and her breast exposed.. but it had a covering on it.. yet the channel that aired the show is being sued now.. by so many groups of people its outrageous.. believe me.. sometimes.. censorship is not the answer.. maybe inforcing strickter internet trafficing laws.. but its the net.. NO ONE has control over what someone else creates... especially on the net.. this is kind of a rant.. but i thnk you get my point..

[paprclphd]

My opinion is you could censor all you want, there will still be sick perverts out there who will do things like that killer did to that poor woman.

[Vigil]

It is my experience that the few who abuse something, ruin it for the rest of us.

We are adults who enjoy an adult sexually orientated site. If we do not condemn sites that advocate violence and brutality, we will end up losing even this type of site because the overly zealous meddlesome makers will censor us all back to the middle ages.

If you can develop the web, you can certainly develop border controls by State, Country and Continent. And different limits will apply as they always do. I, in Europe will be OK, but if you are in a State of the US where sex toys, anal and even oral sex are illegal - be sure you won't be having much fun on the internet either.

[Aqua]

Sites depicting necrophilia are sick. No doubt about it. Did any of these sites make him commit murder? No.
John Lennon's assailant claimed his actions were a result of reading a book, The Catcher in the Rye. Some people were for the banning of that book, but the book didn't kill Lennon.
I don't believe there is a way to 'killer-proof' the world from these types of people. There were child molesters and murderers and necrophiliacs before the internet and I suppose that there may be a case made that there has been an increase since the internet made depictions of these readily available. But against what data? I was molested as a child, but back then you didn't talk about such things. Back then, in a lot of families (well, mine anyway), you weren't a victim... you got in trouble. It was not reported as often.
I think a killer will eventually prove himself, unless he seeks help.
Just my opinion.

[lakritze]

"It is my experience that a few who abuse something ruin it for the rest of us." The one bad apple spoiles the cart use is an expedient way and only acts as a band aid for some very complex problems. It has also been my understanding that the overly zealous meddlesome makers will try to censor any thing they find offensive anyway.I have been pondering these issues for a long time to.I would have to ask why,with all of our freedom to to explore sexual issues on the world wide web,does there still exist some very depraved sites devoted to showing the extreme humiiliation and abuse and sometimes worse treatment of another individual? WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? What are they thinking? What are their "values"if any? Is mysoginy, racial hatered,homophobia,child abuse and an all around hatefull view of human sexuality alive and well in the porno industry? Has it been there all along? I avoid these sites like the plague.There is nothing there I can either learn from or feel good about.But perhaps their existance is a price we pay for the overall freedom to view that which we choose to view.Remember,there are people out there who would stop at nothing to censor even Pixies.

[gekkogecko]

There's nothing wrong with mind control and censorship, as long as they're *my* brand of mind control and censorship.

[Oldfart]

Remember when the only set of breasts available to

a young man was in National Geographic?

Do we really want to go there again?

People are ultimately responsible for their own actions, and

need to know that they will be held accountable.

[Vigil]

I agree with almost all of what is being said here.

Censorship doesn't get rid of problems - though there is evidence that it contains or restricts activities.

Which of your freedoms would you forego if it helped stop a child being abused?

My big problem is with the activists. I have come to the conclusion, that whether they are trying to stop smoking or pornography or abortions or whatever, they are actually motivated ultimately just to make themselves feel better.

But they are powerful because the rest of us just sit there - I'm afraid that we are at the beginning of a movement against internet freedoms.

[jseal]

Originally posted by Vigil
...I'm afraid that we are at the beginning of a movement against internet freedoms.

Vigil,

Yes, we are.

China already has extensive political control over the WWW content accessible in that country. Attorney General John Ashcroft would jump at the chance to purity Web content. There are many, many people who would feel comfortable with what would be termed “content regulation”.

There was a saying at the onset of the WWW that it would respond to censorship as damage and “route around it”.

That has been proven to be false. A government, though one of its regulatory agencies, say the FCC here in the States, imposes regulations on the major POPs, which are business and liable to regulation. It will, of necessity begin with the most notorious of sites, say ones that promote child abuse as “Menplay” or some other acceptable euphemism. I believe (and I’d like some feedback here) that the FBI’s “Carnivore” email intercept application has already passed legal review.

Once the principle has been established, the question changes to “how much” and “which ones”.

Many posters here at Pixies have taken exception, to one degree or other, with my position that political involvement is not only unavoidable, but necessary and good. While it may be a distasteful activity, being politically active in the defense of the freedoms we enjoy is the only way to maintain them.

[nikki1979]

in my opinion the guy was a sick bastard who wuda done it if he was online or not, they are usuin the internet as a scapegoat. personally i think necrophillia shud be internationally illegal and banned but that is because i find it repulsive. in the real world tho no matter what happens there will still be sites and still be photos u cant stop ppl from doin what they want

~nikki~

[Vigil]

I am coming to the conclusion that the WWW is facilitating actions, whether it be crime, terrorism or sexual crime. There are too many cases of the latter to deny that what would have remained fantasy has been able to become reality because of the net whereas previously it would almost certainly not have happened.

I doubt very much that the German cannibal would have found someone who wanted to be killed and eaten through his everyday contact with people where he lived.

Societies decide how much of their personal freedom they submit for the wider benefit of their community. This site censors what the majority consider the bottom of the barrel in sexual perversion and I presume because we come here, we don't have a problem with this.

In Europe, we don't have an issue about a loss of rights because we don't need to bear arms. Please consider whether this may have an impact on the fact that more people are killed by guns in Florida each year than the whole of Europe. I am not saying that your community can't decide what rights it wants, but there are consequences that you have to live with.

There are consequences to choices.

[jseal]

Vigil,

The Internet, and its pretty face, the WWW, is enabling many new activities, some obviously better than others. That’s what new technologies do. Clearly, the technologies used in preparation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons have such terrible risks that access to them is restricted.

Distinguishing between human rights and government entitlements is an interesting discussion. Comparing the number or range of individual freedoms available to Europeans and Floridians is another. The freedom or lack thereof of women, in this instance a religious minority, the Muslims in France, to wear headscarves might serve to launch the debate. Here in the States, we consider such a choice innocuous and entirely within the realm of personal choice. The government of France no longer shares that view.

I’m sure we all agree that there are consequences to choices. Given the coercive power of the state, I’d suggest that the wisest course of action is to leave few rather than many choices for it to make. Which choices should the state make? What is the remit of government?

[Vigil]

This is precisely the issue, Jseal.

And my vote will be to forego my right to have access to sexually criminal (and other criminal activity) sites if there is even the slightest chance that they may lead to someone innocent becoming a victim of a viewer who translates the fantasy into reality.

So I put the rights of the victim first.

I quite trust the European Governments to have the debate on where the lines of criminality are (they will be liberal) and to propose thereafter to Europeans.

[Vigil]

Incidentally, Jseal, the French won't be allowed to wear visible crucifixes either, or hassidic clothes/skull caps or lord knows what.

But please don't start me on France. The policy is bananas and if taken to its logical conclusion I suppose the Police and others shouldn't wear uniforms?

Fou!!!

[Oldfart]

The WWW is just a reflection of a changing society.

To argue how many people would not have been killed had the

formula for gunpowder been suppressed, or if the Web had been

better regulated is interesting, but basically irrelevant.

The genie's out of the bottle, Pandora's box is open, the stable

door's open and we shall all live with the consequences.

[Vigil]

OK

So we are not all going to agree - that's fine, in fact preferable.

But there was something left in Pandora's box - hope.

There is a difference between what is clearly fantasy and that which is and is depicted as reality. The latter facilitates others to turn fantasy into reality.

There are laws against some of these subjects being published in magazines or books with the real scenes shown in pictures - so why should we accept it on the internet - you may, I don't.

What is the difference between

1/ A woman having rape fantasies
2/ A man having rape fantasies and
3/ A woman having rape fantasies and imagining that it is you raping her?

[jseal]

Originally posted by Vigil
Incidentally, Jseal, the French won't be allowed to wear visible crucifixes either, or hassidic clothes/skull caps or lord knows what.

Vigil,

The proposed legislation does seem intolerant. I hasten to add that such intolerance is not limited to the French, merely that it is a good example of why I tend to be suspicious of government.

[jseal]

Originally posted by Vigil
...So I put the rights of the victim first.

Vigil,

Many people share that view.

As there cannot be a prosecution without a defendant, while there are many without a victim, it seems more appropriate to me that the focus of a criminal prosecution should be on the defendant rather than the victim.

The prosecution of the individual by the state is not for the benefit of the victim. Rather, it is because the defendant is alleged to have fallen so far from the accepted norms of society that the state feels obligated to bring sanctions, through its policing function, of one form or another upon the defendant, thus predisposing him or her to change their wayward behavior.

In a court of law, the results of a successful prosecution, be they fines, imprisonment, or other intrusions into the defendant’s life, have rather more impact upon the accused than comments made by the hoi poloi. As a result, I remain prejudiced towards the defendant, who, until convicted, retains all the rights and privileges of any other citizen of good standing.

[Vigil]

Compelling as always, Jseal.

Would a defendant prefer not be to be so if the State had taken its other responsibility and prevented him/her from commiting an offence, if it had the power to do so?

Prevention is better than cure, but where does the State draw the line. I imagine Europe would be far more liberal than the US, or states within the US.

Internationally we have drawn a line under child porn, I would include necrophilia, real rape and bestiality. I appreciate that it is a case of restriction rather than elimination.

[Lilith]

So how do you guys feels about chemical castration as a preventative for child molesters or rapists?

[jseal]

Vigil & Lilith,

A strong juxtaposition of posts!

I am, as I’m sure you are aware, deeply suspicious of preemptive government efforts on my behalf.

That being said, sex offenders, such as rapists, pedophiles, and even exhibitionists, commit crimes that put fear into the general public and pose a threat to people that live in their neighborhoods. They are a clear and present danger to the population, and particularly to the children.

Chemical castration is an effective technique . When the testosterone levels of men convicted of sex crimes is lowered, recidivism rates fall from greater than 45% to less than 5%.

http://www.crime-times.org/95d/w95dp6.htm

Their sexual fantasies are lessened as a result of the reduction of testosterone levels. It is an "offender friendly" way of reducing sexual violence. It is also cost effective. Some estimate that the injections cost $21 a day, while incarceration costs twice that. This is not to say that the cost of the sanction (imprisonment vs. chemical castration) should determine the sanction, but it is a factor that should be considered.

Finally, the treatment is not permanent, so if the conviction is reversed on appeal or for any other reason, the convicted can return to his normal, if that is the appropriate term, functioning.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/1/18


Still, there are ethical issues involved. Physicians should avoid administering a drug to a patient if that drug is not clearly beneficial to that patient. This drug would be administered for the benefit of other people, rather than the patient himself.

Historically, the Federal government is rather liberal, insofar as it has had a limited range of direct involvement with its citizens. This has changed of late, but most of the draconian legislation here is dished out by the states, which reflect the enormous range of acceptable or appropriate behavior in this very variegated nation.

[Vigil]

Originally posted by Lilith
So how do you guys feels about chemical castration as a preventative for child molesters or rapists?

Don't quote me on this, but I think that this form of treatment is available to offenders if they choose - and that is where I would leave it, with the individual rather than the state. We seem to have far more lenient parole in Europe than you do in the States and there is great unease about the way we allow people back into the community whilst they still represent a danger.

But I don't believe the old feminist mantra that all men are rapists.

Existing European censorship on other media is very liberal in that anything performed by two consenting adults is ok. Therefore bestiality, necrophilia and paedophilia are no no's. The problem area is the rougher stuff.

Having the internet consistent with this position does not seem repressive to me.

[Belial]

Originally posted by Vigil

Existing European censorship on other media is very liberal in that anything performed by two consenting adults is ok. Therefore bestiality, necrophilia and paedophilia are no no's. The problem area is the rougher stuff.

Having the internet consistent with this position does not seem repressive to me.

I see what you mean Vigil, but I don't think that the availability of the media covering these acts not involving consenting human adults actually precipitates the acts.

[Vigil]

Originally posted by Belial
I see what you mean Vigil, but I don't think that the availability of the media covering these acts not involving consenting human adults actually precipitates the acts.

Another thread discussed the correlative increase in practised bestiality in Sweden after they finally criminalised child pornography.

Even if there was no evidence for the depiction facilitating the practice, I would still censor these activities as they include a criminal act against, a child, animal or dead body (god help us).

I think we would have something to say if N. Korea legalised crack cocaine and forging the $ and started making them available over the internet.

[Oldfart]

Vigil,

As strongly as you hold those beliefs (and many of us have difficulty

arguing with the immediate subject) the simple point that someone's

beliefs should have transnational authority is the cutting edge of

world intellectual domination and that's too scary for me.

[Vigil]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3473193.stm

I'm fairly sure that these kids don't share your views.

[Sharni]

Stopping the distateful content from being on the internet is NOT going to stop the practices from happening...

They will just go back to how they were communicating before or find new ways to do so

If you dont want to veiw it...then dont look (and have a popup killer to avoid the ones thrust on us)

If you have kids that use the internet...then get some form of monitering software or filter eg NetNanny

[Belial]

Originally posted by Vigil
Another thread discussed the correlative increase in practised bestiality in Sweden after they finally criminalised child pornography.

Even if there was no evidence for the depiction facilitating the practice, I would still censor these activities as they include a criminal act against, a child, animal or dead body (god help us).

I think we would have something to say if N. Korea legalised crack cocaine and forging the $ and started making them available over the internet.
Why censor the depction? Prosecute the act, fine, but there are arguably worse crimes (eg. murder) that aren't illegal to depict, and nor should they be.

I'm sure we (who?) would have something to say if North Korea did that. It would probably involve legally obligating ISPs to log and report purchasers. There are of course ways to subvert measures of this kind and I'd say war would erupt if the problem became serious enough. Censorship isn't going to help in that case.

[jseal]

Gentlefolk,

I see two alternatives in this thread.

One is to allow the freedoms of today's internet to determine society's norms.

What cannot be stopped must therefore be assimilated, and although parents and school teachers and youth clubs may put filters and blocking programs on their computers, in general adult users of the net will be allowed to look at whatever they can find. A few people may, as a result, find that the sexual fantasies they have previously repressed are fuelled by what they see. Many others may be satisfied to look at faked images of violence and therefore never act out their imagined scenes.

The alternative is to replace today's network with a new one, one which can be effectively regulated.

It will be a network on which freedom of speech is guaranteed by law and treaty, not simply allowed because of technical decisions on network architecture made 30 years ago by a bunch of academics. We must not believe that the internet is immutable: we created it and we can change it. There is nothing essential about any aspect of the net, nothing that cannot be replaced, retooled or removed. If we don't like the fact that the net allows traffic to cross national borders without any controls, then we can build a new network that does allow monitoring. If we don't like the fact that e-mail headers can be forged, making untraceable spam possible, then we can build a mail system that forces authentication.

Changing a system used by several hundred million people around the world seems daunting. But in fact that has already happened - the World Wide Web is the child of the internet, and it will continue to change. The latest version of the TCP/IP protocol that underpins the net, IP version 6, is already being rolled out by ISPs. Eventually users will be asked to upgrade their local computers, and features like secure e-mail will become possible.

One part of the problem is that the net's standards are controlled by bodies like ICANN and the Web Consortium whose primary interest is technical stability and corporate interests. They deny that they are "political" organizations, where political is used in a derogatory sense rather than meaning "acting in the public interest". Before the internet can be made to reflect the public interest, it must be removed it from the hands of these groups, whose time, like that of the elves in Middle Earth, is over (sorry Sharni, but even Elrond would agree with me).

Of course, one consequence of giving control of the net to governments is that some governments are bad. I would rather see the network in the hands of governments who can be lobbied and replaced than leave it in the hands of the large corporations (Microsoft, Sun, IBM, Hewlett-Packard) who develop the programs or standards bodies which are indifferent to people's real interests.

As a culture we have decided that some sorts of imagery are unacceptable, and in democracies that line is usually drawn where most people feel comfortable. If you wish to see what your culture is like, look about your neighborhood. We allow images of consensual sex in our cinemas, but not images of bestiality or child abuse. Why should the net be any different? There is, of course the difficulty of incorporating the changing norms of one’s society.

I suspect that my position on issues of this nature is well known, but I thought I'd try to abstract the different positions. For those who are just now waking up, well, I hope the nap was refreshing.

[Loulabelle]

To add my ten cents, I think the danger with violent porn on the internet is not so much the fact that it 'insights' violence, but that it 'normalises' it in the watchers' eye. If you habitually watch an act of violence, it loses its shock value and eventually the viewer becomes accustomed to it, and may even go in search of more extreme images, if it is something that gives them a sexual thrill.

A lot of what prevents someone from fulfilling a fantasy can be fear of the unknown (not knowing EXACTLY what the experience will be like)....my fear is that material such as this being available to someone with a pre-disposition might be enough to spur them on to turning this from fantasy to reality.

[LixyChick]

Whoa! Jiminny Crickets for fuck sake! Truth is...........

DNA makes us who we are......and......if just a dot on the slot on the hole in the middle of the bottom of the sea is askew.....then someone, somewhere....will do something out of the "norm" (the norm set up by the majority on any particular subject)......and they'll do something they think is THEIR DESTINY.....and we'll all gather round and say........

HOLY SHIT!!!!!! How could you take that web site or album (as examples) so literally......and how is it we can [see] just how wrong it is and you could swear it right????????????????

The mind.......is sooooooooooo mysterious in it's workings from one person to another! We try to assume everyone is like "us". It's a foolish assumption (an oxymoron in and of itself!)!!!!!

[Vigil]

Thank you Jseal. I imagine that it will be 3 to 5 years before the web is brought into line with what communities have decided to be their regulations in other media forms.

I am reminded of the saying

"evil happens when good people do nothing"

I am not interested in the sad little person who fantasizes about playing with a little girls bits. I am concerned for the innocent 8 year old girl who is raped and abused to fuel the market for such images that the web has proliferated and tries to normalise.

Ditto for young women/men who are raped and brutalised

Ditto for animals

Ditto for anyone being exploited - for your pleasure.

[Oldfart]

Yep, the best way to keep freedoms is to put them in the hands of

others who may not have your personal best interest at heart.

[Vigil]

OF

Can you tell us which freedoms the Australian democratically elected government is denying you?

[Sharni]

Originally posted by jseal
(sorry Sharni, but even Elrond would agree with me).
Hmmmmm you assume much

[jseal]

Originally posted by Sharni
Hmmmmm you assume much

Sharni,

...with certain notable exceptions, of course!