Once again the DesNews Editorial Board proves that they don't understand
how internet filter technology works. They seem to think that it has the magical
ability to unarbitrarily judge "good" content from "bad"
content.I currently work for a technology company where the majority
and management are Mormon. They use one of the strictest internet filters I have
even encountered. The filter even restricts Budweiser's site for
alcohol-related content. However, I still have to be extremely careful while
browsing the internet because I have accidentally had NSFW images appear on my
computer screen (luckily no one saw). Common websites like Wikipedia, Google
Images, Reddit, and Tumblr are all able to get through my company's
internet filter, but often include "pornographic" material.Conversely, legitimate websites are often filtered out for a variety of
reasons. Educational sites, even anti-pornography sites, may trigger an internet
filter just because of the terminology used. Malicious users can even get a
religious website restricted by reporting the website as "hate speech",
with the website usually being banned first and asking questions later. Websites
are quickly banned, but slowly unbanned.Sometimes the filter just
filters without explanation.
How much rape is there is an orgy? When you have rampant pornography in the US
telling people and showing people of both genders that promiscuity is not only
okay but preferable over morality, then the need for rape diminishes. Instead of
looking at rape statistics, perhaps we should be looking at broken homes, unwed
mothers, abortion rates, unhappy marriages, confusion about sexuality among our
children, and other indicators that show the real toll of pornography on our
A DN editorial I actually find very little to argue with. I completely agree
that any attempt to keep this material out of the hands of young children, or
even teens is a worth while quest. There are those who say it will not work
everywhere, with everyone, just like the gun debate, but even if you keep a
small portion away from this material, and the addiction it creates, is better
than no action at all.And I do like the comparison with smoking.
While at one time, it was the symbol of maturity and adulthood, it it now just
viewed as people who lack good judgement by society. We surely can work to
recreating the social taboo around pornography that has been created around
smoking.... and reduce the damage that is being done to minds that like has been
done to lungs. If you still want either, it will be available, but lets stop
glamorizing it like we did smoking in the 60s.
Good for England! Once again they have led the fight against an enemy. At the
very least, the filters will make it much harder to "stumble upon"
He's making good politics out of something over which he and his government
have little control.
Yikes, people. It's hard for me to believe that some of the same people who
rail against NSA surveillance turn around and applaud anti-porn surveillance.
Make up your minds, folks -- does this country believe in the rights to privacy
and free expression, or not? You can't have it both ways.Yes,
absolutely I agree that exposure to porn is bad for kids. That isn't really
in question. But forced Big Brother governmental intervention isn't the way
to go.These very same strong filters that Cameron is talking about
could just as easily be made voluntary as mandatory. That would protect children
just as well as his mandatory program would. There's no need for government
force here.And notice this telling sentence: "similar to how
people under regimes in Iran and China circumvent government Internet controls.
"Do we really want to start supporting internet censorship that
is in any way similar to countries like Iran or China? Is THAT what has become
of our vaunted ethic of liberty for all??"Critics may howl about
rights of expression"Yeah. It's this funny little thing
called the First Amendment. Look it up.
From "Moral Free Agency" by Daniel H. Ludlow:"[Lucifer]
can also do it by destroying our freedom of choice, and he does this by enticing
us to give up our right of free agency to other persons or to other institutions
and allow them to make our choices for us, resulting in the evil that presidents
of the Church have repeatedly warned against in communism and socialism and
other orders of this type.""... Lucifer can and does work
through many means: business combines, governments on all levels ... Wherever
and whenever you find a person or an institution that seeks to destroy the free
agency of man, there you will find the influence of Lucifer."[President Henry D. Moyle:] "'All we have to do is ... examine any
movement that may be brought into our midst ... and if it ... attempt[s] to
deprive us in the slightest respect of our free agency, we should avoid it as we
would avoid immorality or anything else that is vicious.'"[President Marion G. Romney:] "'God endowed men with free agency ...
The preservation of this free agency is more important than the preservation of
I'm sympathetic to your view, but you are barking up the wrong tree, to use
an old cliche. I ran a high school computer science lab. Any access control we
would attempt would be circumvented by the little brats - 1 week tops. No, the
way to proceed would have us teaching in the schools how to evaluate media
content, including the identification of exploitation, especially sexploitation.
The constant portrayal of women nude is an exploitation and our kids need to
understand this. If they do they will be less likely to use porn, and girls
will demand its control - the activation of girls is especially important,
because right now they are willing and silent victims. Are you with me?
Of course this raises the question - how can girls "control" porn? By
not allowing themselves to appear in media nude or semi-nude. If they
understand they are being exploited they will be more motivated to so act.
[the activation of girls is especially important, because right now they are
willing and silent victims]Are they still victims in female-produced
porn? If so, than is female sexuality always victimization?
In my opinion, our priorities are misplaced. Yesterday, I saw a sexualized
commercial on TV for Liquid Drano... drain cleaner! Imagine advertising
agencies creating a sexualized commercial for something like drain cleaner.
That's on top of all the commercials for things that are easy to sexualize
like clothing and food and drink and cars and entertainment and...So
here we are putting all of this effort into stopping access to porn, which may
or may not be accessed by children while ignoring that they are exposed every
single day to sexualized TV.
@merich39 - dont' we have to start somewhere? Or are we just to throw our
hands up and just say it is far to hard... its not worth while.
"Are they still victims in female-produced porn?" Of course, the gender
of the capitalist makes no difference. Sexploitation goes beyond ordinary
surplus value, to the soul of the victim. All exploitation has a spiritual
dimension as it strips the victim (or employee) of his/her dignity, but
sexploitation it is particularly acute.
Contrarius doesn't grasp the objective of the first amendment. The writings
of those involved with the Bill of Rights show that their intent was to protect
political speech, not social garbage. Granted, the current liberties taken under
the guise of the First Amendment were granted by subsequent SCOTUS rulings but
they drifted far from what the Founding Fathers envisioned.So many
today want filthiness in all its forms to be protected but they are outraged
when someone makes a comment that is politically unpopular. Ironic, isn't
it?Lightbearer has a similar misunderstand of agency. Agency never
meant you can do whatever you want. For example, a single man can date any woman
he choose. A married man has exercised his agency; to date another woman
violates his agency. Members of a society have also exercised their agency to be
helpful participants in the society. When they do things that are detrimental,
they are violating their agency. In many cases, society takes punitive action
because of their crimes. But when the people lose their will to be and do good,
well ... you get today's version of America.
I Further Contrarius's Point on the Right of Center arguement. Whether we agree on access to porn or not it is the fact that the government
is getting more power. People are turning to the Government to fix a problem.
That is why I would not vote for a candidate like David Cameron. Almost
everybody in society today has seen images like that and there are many of us
that turned out just fine, it is because we chose to. If you keep telling us
what to do then people begin to think and act out of obstinance and not out of a
genuine search for fulfillment. That means more emotions and less logic.
Outlawing is wrong. Give government authority to take down sites that host, but
don't outlaw.Outlawing gives authority to punish nearly
everyone who has ever viewed it (aka: most of America). Law enforcement
isn't the right avenue to help a person struggling with a simple porn
addiction, a bishop is. Furthermore, we should focus less on punishing
wrongdoing and more on encouraging rightdoing.Overcoming addiction
takes time. A person may struggle and stumble along the way. I'm fine with
that. Why? Because I'm fine with people making mistakes and learning from
them. I don't like the mistake, but that doesn't justify outlawing it.
We shouldn't police other people's struggles unless infringing
other's rights.I accept outlawing porn made by infringing
another person's rights. But if we are policing those simply struggling on
their own instead of letting them work through it with their bishop, then we
aren't letting them be free to make mistakes and learn.Neal A
Maxwell once gave a great parenting analogy: Rashly grabbing a sharp knife out
of a kids hands doesn't end well. A wise parent offers the kid something
There are certainly places where this move would be courageous. I suspect,
however, that Mr Cameron is actually trying to appease opponents within his own
party by doing something moral, after having incurred the wrath of much of his
own party by promoting legal acceptance of same sex "marriages". In Britain homosexuality is much more excoriated than in the USA and
forums I have perused on popular, "middle of the road" UK sites, reflect
that substantially. This feeling comes from ordinary people; statements in
publications with more intellectual pretensions are more guarded and
"diverse". There was a groundswell of opposition to Cameron's
stance on same gender unions, much of it from his own party, that threatens to
drown him politically.Having said that I would support, and even
commend, him for what sadly, in today's world, passes for courage and might
actually take some real pluck.
@joe5 --"Contrarius doesn't grasp the objective of the
first amendment. "And what makes you think that you understand
that objective better than all the SCOTUS justices who have ruled on it over the
past 200 or so years?Your attitude reflects back on that recent DN
article which stated that roughly 1/3 of Americans now believe that the First
Amendment goes too far.Folks, wake up. If we stop
protecting free speech just because we don't like some of it, sooner or
later your own rights to speak will be gone as well.If we stop
protecting privacy just because we think some people do icky things in private,
sooner or later your own right to privacy will be gone as well.In
order to protect your own civil liberties, you must protect the civil liberties
for all those guys you DON'T like as well.
Make porn illegal, enforce adultery and fornication laws, let some men have more
than one wife, then because of the lack of available women and lack of any kind
of substitutes some men just have to go without sexual gratification their
entire life.This is not the kind of society I want, thankfully those
who push for each of these things at different times in history have failed.