to think that a Europe wide ban on pornography is nuts?

[ophelia275]

The European parliament is seeking a ban on all pornography across Europe.

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/european-parliament-votes-on-call-for-porn-ban-8527229.html

I don't think all pornography is bad and I think it serves as an outlet for both women and men to release anger/sexual frustration etc. I don't think a ban would be a good idea because there would always be ways around it and suppressing pornography would just result in more violence and sexual aggression imo. I also don't think there is anything inherently wrong in looking at naked photos of the opposite sex and satisfies a natural urge.

Sometimes I wonder what the EU is going to try and ban next on the grounds of protecting our rights?

Processed meats may be involved in colorectal cancer.

They want to impose china style blackouts on the web i am not comftable i rather see the rasict far right stuff banned first TBH and some of the canible websites and some of the how to kill yourself websites in my porn is a bit off but there are much much worse things on the web.

And flatpack if you want to argue that 'erotic images' have been around 'forever' then good luck with proving that. No-one really has the least idea what figurines like the so-called 'Venus of Willendorf' mean; it's all supposition based on the context of the observer not the find; and there is plenty of archaeological literature on this.

I say it is

You could also say the Earth is flat.

It would hardly constitute irrefutable evidence, though.

You need to think about what groups like Anonymous would make of such actions.

Groups than CAN and HAVE hacked some of the most secure systems in the world. Groups that see freedom of speech and information as a fundmental right and will go to great lengths to protect it at all costs. Groups that have deep seated suspicion of government actions.

They tend to be accused of also having somewhat backward views towards woman and women's rights and porn. To a point I think its justified, but I also think they these groups contain some of the most intellectual and liberal minded men (and women) out there too.

Whilst you have various feminists who are vehemently opposed to porn, the idea of censorship holds at least equal hatred to people like this.

And I think its a bit unfair to say that opposition to this is because its about people wanting porn. Its about the fact that its the internet - their home and their community. Its their back yard and affects them directly - and not necessarily because they want to gain access to porn - its about gaining access to EVERYTHING. And because there is so much more awareness of this particular subject due to publicity.

It would be extremely unwise of the EU to not consider this.

Red tooth i am with you i think people who cannot see this is not about porn at all are short sided vicy price in there nieavity they would harm them sleves in order to shut down porn

Once they see they can stop us watching one thing on line whats next ........

And like i said if somthing must be shut down is people over 18 having sex really the most evil thing out there on line if you thonk it is i think you are likey not to wtach much new or surf the web very often

So now we are to take account of Anonymous in making laws? Seriously?

Bo take into account censorship

I think if porn is even in your top 10 of things that shouldnt be online then i really worry about yu all

Domjoly, nobody has argued that there aren't worse harms.

But a worse harm doesn't negate the original harm under discussion, does it?

I dont want to end up like china with the goverment telling me what i can and cant view on line as long as its not illagl or course and seeing as there are plenty of illegal things avaibke to view of line they might want to turn there hand to that

Sorry, Dom, I really can't follow that post.

LineRunner so start with that porn should be way down the list of things to tackle

Why do you worry about me Dom?

LineRunner i dont want to end up like china with the goverment telling us what we can and cant watch

Porn is legal weather you like it or not there are plenty of things on line to biew which is illegal there time would be better spent sorting out dont you think?

Because out of all the things on line your biggest worry porn what ever you may think of it

I can list about 10 things that are avavible to view which is either illegal or much more worrying than some tarty looking lady shagging some not so good looking guy

I would like it to be more difficult for kids to access porn - the evidence is coming out how many kids are watching porn and how negatively it is affecting them. Childline and nspcc are reporting on this.

But no, no, don't worry about that, there are more important things to worry about.

That's a load of bollocks about not worrying about A because B is worse. Totally possible to care about more than one thing. It's absolute bollocks to say that someone can't try to change one thing while worse things are still happening.

Dom, it's ok, you can stop telling me what I should be worrying about, and worrying about me worrying about all the wrong things. I'm all grown up now.

Thisisaeuphemism in my view this often stems from the lack of parental supervision

I dont know how many time i read on here my child has a lap top ect or my child has a facebook page the child is like 7 or parents allowing internet ready phones when we all know you can get mobiles with out

If you have the correct oarental controls
Have the pc in a communal space

Key stroke tracer
Email alerts
And timers so they can go on when your not around the chAces of them looking at porn is slim

Its very diffcult to look at porn whatever your age if the pc is in the front room even harden if you have the right conrols even harder still if the timer is set to a time when somones home
Parents want this so they can abdicate there role

The motion doesn't seek to prevent anyone from looking up Internet porn. What it seeks to prevent is the situation where people have to switch off their televisions and stop reading newspapers and magazines to avoid it.

As such, the motion is all about choice, not against it.

The real problem is that some of the most damaging and objecting material in the media cannot really be defined as pornographic. This discussion should really be about whether the motion aims at the right target.

Toad Absolutely, the internet porn thing is actually fairly irrelevant in this particular case.

The motion under discussion is about in-your-face advertising, Dom.

Toadinthehole, the motion is dangerous not necessarily in how it is worded, but how it is interpreted and used by those who are expected to enforce it.

Anti-terrorism laws have been widely misused and expanded to other areas. Some of these have been condemned and been challenged but not without difficulty in doing so. In fact anti-terrorism laws have hardly been used for the purpose they were intended and existing laws probably could have been applied in these circumstances anyway.

Why is the onus on parents to opt out of finding porn everywhere?

Why isn't the onus on porn users to seek it out and find it?