I get why Cameron wants to crack down on types of porn that either simulate assault or actually ARE assault (rape porn, child porn, etc). I think for me, a lot is going to depend on how the "opt in" to porn happens. When you call the company, do you have to say "WE WANT PORN!", or when you are doing the on-screen set up of internet preferences and parental controls, will there be a box to check? How exactly will the internet companies filter them out? How will existing internet customers express their preference for porn vs. no porn?
In general, I'm uneasy about people having to out themselves as porn-lovers to be able to watch internet porn. But I like stopping child porn and rape porn.
Post by mrsukyankee on Jul 23, 2013 4:27:25 GMT -5
A bunch of us in the UK are having this conversation right now about the blocking of porn as several of the couples like watching it for sexual use. I wouldn't mind ticking a box to opt out, but I don't like having to tick a box to opt in. I don't know how to feel about it as some of the terms you'd have to block might actually have nothing to do with porn. We're all ambivalent at the moment as we're not sure it's even a true possibility.
Post by blueballoon on Jul 23, 2013 5:23:14 GMT -5
This is dumb. If people want to watch porn they shouldn't have to opt in to get it. Banning child porn is awesome, but to ban all other types? I have no problem with simulated violent porn as long as all parties in the video consented to it. It seems like a way to try and shame people from watching porn.
i'm having a lot of trouble getting all aghast at the "censorship!" of blocking porn described as:
""violent" or "extreme" porn, which involves simulated rape. Searching for certain images will also be banned; an organization called the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre will come up with a set of search terms in relation to child abuse/child porn that will then be blocked."
i'm not saying i'm in favor of the ban, but it's not where i'd place my energies. especially given that, at least so far as the child-related stuff is concerned, the pornography is de facto depicting a crime.
i'm having a lot of trouble getting all aghast at the "censorship!" of blocking porn described as:
""violent" or "extreme" porn, which involves simulated rape. Searching for certain images will also be banned; an organization called the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre will come up with a set of search terms in relation to child abuse/child porn that will then be blocked."
i'm not saying i'm in favor of the ban, but it's not where i'd place my energies. especially given that, at least so far as the child-related stuff is concerned, the pornography is de facto depicting a crime.
Yea, I think I'm going to wait on judgement/outrage until I see how this actually plays out.
I agree that banning porn that's violent/rape-y/children-y is actually probably a good thing. I can't really get behind the censorship view of that. There are ways to get the S&M stuff put out of those categories, too, I'd imagine. But it could end up being more widespread to prevent people trying to get around this, etc. We'll see.
I have a big problem with simulated rape porn with consenting adults being censored. Huge.
i do in theory.
in practical effect, i keep thinking "how do they KNOW it's simulated?" and worry that this somehow will excuse/allow in documentation of real rape. and, then, of course, i'm appalled by the notion that anyone enjoys watching rape (simulated or no), to get off.
but, as with things like the death penalty, i have to go with theory/rule of law over gut feeling.
like i said, it's not that i'm for the ban. it's that if i had a list of things to which i could devote my energy, it wouldn't be on the list. and also i'm not british.