And they say feminists are hysterical...

[FloraFox]

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/28/iceland-porn-ban-free-society

So a group of activists from different countries (including Laurie Penny) have penned this gem of a letter to the Icelandic minister in charge of the pornography ban proposal. It includes such gems as:

"The current discussion of blocking pornographic content has offered no definition, no evidence and suggested no technology. This is an affront to the basic principles of the society..."

Eh? What basic principle of society would that be?

"Rather than silencing a voice, the result is depriving the population of material they can see and read. This is censorship, as it skews the way people see the world."

What? Through the filter of a woman's vagina?

"The right to see the world as it is, is critical to the very tenets and functions of a democracy and must be protected at all costs."

Just, fucking, wow.

"The prohibition of pornographic content may create demand for an underground porn industry, unregulated and most certainly affiliated with other illegal activities..."

So we must not regulate pornography on the internet because if we do, an unregulated porn industry might arise. OK, got it.

"Interested to know your opinions on why discussions about some porn's negative effect on women (labouring under the assumption that we all think children + porn = nothing good) move very swiftly to information about why it can't be blocked. "

In this case it is because the letter referenced in the OP talks about the technical difficulties and technical objections to a filter.

The letter isn't minimising the effect of porn on women, children or anyone. It doesn't even mention it. It talks about the technical side. That's why we're talking about the technical side.

If the OP had instead talked about the effect of porn on people then there'd be no reason to bring up technical issues (unless someone had started talking about the centralised porn filter again), but the OP specifically talks scornfully about a letter talking about the drawbacks of a centralised porn filter.

So that's what we are talking about. There's no derailing, we are talking about the very thing linked to (and quoted) in the OP.

Those quotes yes, but they are taken out of context. The actual letter they are taken from is talking primarily about the technology.

For example, this quote from the OP
"Rather than silencing a voice, the result is depriving the population of material they can see and read. This is censorship, as it skews the way people see the world."

Alongside the OP's comments it reads as though they are saying that blocking porn would be depriving people and censoring people right?

Here's the full quote

"On the Internet, censorship has taken a new guise. It doesn't merely prevent publication, but also restricts people?s access to the information they seek. Rather than silencing a voice, the result is depriving the population of material they can see and read. This is censorship, as it skews the way people see the world. It is tempting to regard filtering the internet as a quick and easy way to restrict unwanted speech, opinions, or media, which the government regards as harmful for either them or the people. The right to see the world as it is, is critical to the very tenets and functions of a democracy and must be protected at all costs"

This paragraph is not about porn, but about the technology being used to silence views that are in opposition to whoever controls the filter. One of the big fears with a centralised filter is the ease with which it can be abused, because so far that has happened with every single centralised filter.

Or this quote from the OP

"The current discussion of blocking pornographic content has offered no definition, no evidence and suggested no technology. This is an affront to the basic principles of the society..."

The full quote?

"The current discussion of blocking pornographic content has offered no definition, no evidence, and suggested no technology. This is an affront to basic principles of the society, and while we acknowledge that this discussion is at a starting point, we feel that the way it is being conducted is harmful."

So not saying that porn should be easily accessed, but arguing that a centralised filter isn't the way to do it.

They repeatedly talk about the aim being right but the method (the technology) being wrong and potentially harmful.

Oh and the quote about driving it underground?

Here's the full quote

^"The prohibition of pornographic content may create demand for an
underground porn industry, unregulated and most certainly affiliated with other illegal activities, as we have seen in the case of drugs or alcohol prohibition. Hiding the problem is not a solution and may in fact make things worse.^

If the Icelandic Government worries about children getting their sexual education from pornography on the Internet, the solution should be better sex education in the home or through schools. Sex education that deals not only with conception, contraception and sexually transmitted diseases, but also relationships, communication and respect."

Which is correct, prohibition did nothing to stem the use of alcohol, in fact it makes it more widespread and more dangerous.

And they aren't arguing for making porn freely available, they are arguing for education to counter it.

In an ideal world we wouldn't need to counter it. I wish that we could just make it vanish. But we can't. Maybe way into the future we will see huge social change and it will be shunned. But right now? Not likely. So we need to focus on what can be done now, while we slowly change societies attitudes.

But is a technical issue. Without at least a basic understanding of the issues involved (such as TCP/IP, DNS, the OSI model) the how can you begin to discuss the political ramifications. You can't just wave them away - they're fundamental to the issue.

For example, as has already been stated the closest we could probably manage would be the equivalent of China's firewall. However, this is easily bypassed by a simple VPN. How can you discuss the human rights implications of what this means with someone who has no idea what a firewall or VPN is?

The OP, as has plainly demonstrated has no technical knowledge. I struggle when my DP starts to talk about DNSSEC and IPSEC? How is the OP meant to give an informed opinion when not only does she plainly have no idea, she isn't interested?

To use an analogy its like discussing government legislation around child car seats without the first clue about kineisology or biomechanics.

I think you can quite clearly see Beanie that I have no interest in discussing the technicalities with you or on this thread.

"I think you can quite clearly see Beanie that I have no interest in discussing the technicalities with you or on this thread."

Well I can quite clearly see all you are interested in is banging the drum of your particular agenda no matter how ignorant (and so deliberately ignorant at that) you are about it.

Flora So why not talk to us about the issues in the letter you linked to? And the quotes I've posted in response to the quotes you've posted?

Beanie I've said specifically that I am not willing to put my credentials on the table. You have clearly stated that you have none and you can't keep up with your DP's explanations. But you think I'm ignorant. Hey ho.

MoG the point about educating children is a non sequitur to the point about prohibition. On that point, firstly I dispute that prohibition of alcohol made it more widespread. It may not have been successful in stamping out alcohol consumption but I have never seen any evidence that it caused an increase in alcohol consumption. Also, alcohol production and distribution is highly regulated whereas porn is not. It makes no sense to compare prohibiting a regulated product and prohibiting an unregulated product.

Educating children is not a solution to the general harm done by porn nor to te apecific harm to children or exposed to it or adults exploited by it. I don't want my DD in a dating environment with boys whose first exposure to sex is anal gang rape. No amount of education can fix that.

've said specifically that I am not willing to put my credentials on the table. You have clearly stated that you have none and you can't keep up with your DP's explanations. But you think I'm ignorant. Hey ho."

As I've repeatedly said, I'm not arguing from the authority of my credentials but those of the technology community that agree that the Icelandic plan is nuts. Your refusal to engage with these arguments is entertaining but ultimately illustrates just how out of your depth you are - even to my amateur eye. ;)

I'm happy to discuss any references you can provide from those in the technology community that support your argument but I suspect they'll be a long time coming.

"Educating children is not a solution to the general harm done by porn nor to te apecific harm to children or exposed to it or adults exploited by it"

Obviously.

Educating children is only part of the solution. We also need to educate parents on how to keep their children safe online by using parental controls, filtering software, supervision etc. And also by giving parents the skills to help them talk to their children about embarrassing subjects, and helping their children deal with peer pressure.

I don't see what else we can do.

Eradicating porn entirely would be nice, but I think we'd be looking at decades worth of work at the very least.

Beanie I'm really not intending to offend you but really I don't care if you're happy to discuss that with me. I'm not happy to discuss it with you.

"I'm really not intending to offend you but really I don't care if you're happy to discuss that with me. I'm not happy to discuss it with you."

If you're not willing to discuss it (or rather simply lack the knowledge to do so, I will allow others to draw their own conclusions) then why raise it on a discussion forum?

I've just skimmed through the recent comments (short on time) and see another post suggesting that the OP STFU.

I really think that on the feminism topic of MN, women should be allowed to raise and discuss issues that concern them, without being told to basically shut up and piss off.

Really, I think it is important.

it would be nice if it worked in the world in general, but it doesn't. But in this particular section of this particular website it would be really good if women could. you know, discuss stuff that matters to them from a generally feminist perspective without being told to put a sock in it. This isn't the GUU, for crying out loud.

OP I still see where you are coming from.
We certainly have laws in the UK which have been in place for years and are in line with what Iceland are suggesting.
These laws as they are enforced (sometimes) at the moment, involve prosecuting people after the event. I see no reason that Iceland should not do similar.
I don't think there is anything wrong in having a law which says that things are illegal. Even if it is hard / impossible to stop them happening.
I do not think that accessing porn is a basic principle of society - in all societies (I imagine) there are forms of porn that it is illegal to access.

Trekkie Where has anyone told the OP to STFU?

"We certainly have laws in the UK which have been in place for years and are in line with what Iceland are suggesting."

Making porn illegal is fine, totally support that. Problem is, if we are talking making it illegal rather than using a filter, the most Iceland would be able to do is ban porn from servers hosted in Iceland. And I suspect that the majority of the porn online isn't hosted in Iceland. In order for that to work all countries would have to agree to make it illegal.

Which would be excellent, and maybe we'll reach that point one day.

"I do not think that accessing porn is a basic principle of society"

It's not, the basic principle that people are worried about is that a porn ban would likely result in banning other content. Censoring things that really shouldn't be censored. Either accidentally or intentionally.

beanie ok I can't believe this is not clear to you. I did not start a discussion about the present or potential capabilities of a block on Internet pornography. I don't care if you can spout names and repeat stuff your DH has told you. You don't understand it. That's your admission. Therefore I don't care what you think. You can draw any conclusion you like. I'm not interested in a discussion with someone who can only regurgitate stuff they don't understand - you or any other keyboard warrior who has read a little or listened to their DH ranting and decided to set those feminists right.

Umm: yes you did. For that is exactly what the letter you selectively quoted us about. And also is a main plank of what the Icelandic proposals actually are.

And unenforceable law is bad law.

That came out more stridently than I intended.

The Icelandic proposals (which the quoted letter is about, so very much at the centre of this thread too) centres on a technological solution, if you look at them, with their PM saying "I've commissioned technical experts to look at this. If we can put a man on the moon we can do this". This cannot be discussed in isolation from how to police the Internet and how to draw up a good law.

Or at least, not until the Icelandic government actually spells out how it intends to turn the talk into a set of measures.

I find it odd that the sound descriptions of current technological capabilities are being dismissed by some posters.

I'm definitely female, BTW, and fully capable of dealing with technology myself.

PQW "I do still think that there's an interesting side to this discussion that isn't technical however"

Oh absolutely! I think maybe it would be better suited to another thread though where it isn't so intrinsically linked to the technology.

scaveola "if you look at them, with their PM saying "I've commissioned technical experts to look at this. If we can put a man on the moon we can do this". "

Wow, hadn't heard that quote. That's a huge part of the problem with non-techies talking about the filter, they tend to compare apples with oranges.

leithlurker "rude and aggressive in the extreme"?

Compared to your beloved porn, I am as gentle as a lamb. If you are so worried about demeaning women I suggest you start with the porn industry. Make some progress there then come back here and let me know how you get on. For so long as you are just interested in feminist bashing, I will continue to not give a shit what you think of me.

flora Has anyone on this thread said that they are pro-porn or anti-feminist? Disagreeing with you personally doesn't equate to either of these things.