Irritating internet laws

[TylerDurden]

I've just read an article in the Daily Telegraph where some idiot UK government Minister is stating that he's about to go ahead with setting age-restrictions on viewing some websites, with some censorship of websites involved as well. I can just see where this is going:- no doubt, websites like our forum will be viewed as "dangerous" and get censored.

[Waungata]

  It's complete ignorance! We could get placed in the same category as "how to commit suicide" and "anorexic tips" sites just because of advocating raw animal foods?

Everyone should choose who is put in office very carefully. Banks should be regulated and the Internet too but with good, knowlegeable reason - not ignorance!     

[povarby]

They can be understood. In the Internet today is too much dangerous resources. And all because of the fact that there is no legal framework governing this area.

[TylerDurden]

I disagree. Censorship is always wrong. Besides, the Internet allows people to flout specific, national draconian laws which are relevant only to 1 country, by accessing foreign websites. A good example is the increasing use by Chinese citizens of Japanese websites to get round the restriction on free Internet speech by the Chinese government. Plus, the Internet is a great way to avoid the draconian libel laws that exist in the UK, as most websites/forums are more or less international in scope, rather than national.

Sure, there are spammers, but these can be dealt with via better anti-spam protection etc.

[akaikumo]

Personally I think the internet needs to stay the free, cesspool of humanity that it is, so that it can function as a sort of uninhibited idea flow. That isn't to say that I advocate child porn and crap like that, I mean I think we could all go without seeing goats and stuff (and I don't suggest googling that if you've been gifted with not running into it), but if you restrict one type of thing, you can restrict a lot of things that shouldn't be restricted. Like RAF being stuck with dangerous things like pro-anorexia sites, just because of ignorance. There can be a lot of unforeseen consequences with censorship laws.

I think it's up to the servers to restrict what goes on there and who sees it and then it's up to them and the user to comply with local laws, imo. It shouldn't be at the provider level. I don't want comcast editing what I can access. The internet should stay an open book, with both good things and really not good things.

What I'm afraid of is if they start monitoring a bad thing, like child porn or keeping kids from running into porn sites, then everyone will get used to the idea and confidence will rise--they'll start monitoring more and more.

[Waungata]

This is where I see a major difference. If you're an adult and want to "hurt" yourself by anyones definition, fine but when it comes to things like child porn, I would like to see them censored. Children are being abused because some bastard wants to make money. Also, those sites do nothing more than get pedophiles riled up so that they're more likely to go out and find children to molest themselves.

Blue Host does have certain restrictions as to what kind of sites they will host. They won't host any porn at all and child porn is illegal period. The problem is is that people get hosting in foreign countries where laws are not enforced. Just my opinion but these sites should be censored. I don't think we'll have to worry about too much censorship in the US. There's the anarchistcookbook.com and if censorship does go further, that site will be gone long before this one. Even Australia censors hard-core porn but I don't really see that going much further. If it gets to the point that pro-anorexia and anarchists sites start becoming censored, that's when I'd start worrying about sites like this one getting lumped in with them but I do believe that would be, and is a problem more for citizens of other countries, which is just as disconcerting.

Many people are afraid of gay marriage because of what they think it might lead to. People being allowed to eventually marry animals or children, which is absolutely ridiculous. It may not be the best analogy but you get the picture. For me, being afraid of what something might lead to, isn't a good enough reason to do away with it altogether whether it be gay marriage, regulation of banks, or Internet censorship. Just my opinion.

Happy New Year!

P.S. Usually, the best way to pique my curiosity is to tell me not to look for/at something but I'll heed your warning this time. I once got smacked in the face with a wave because I was told "DON'T TURN AROUND!" while I was in the water. 

[goodsamaritan]

As the network admin and web host of this forum and as a web developer I do not host nor accept work for pornography;  because it is my choice of how I do my business.

As far as troublesome emails and hackers, I have blacklisted via my firewall the most troublesome sources of spam and hackers.  I cannot disclose my blacklist as that would open up my servers to harm.

As far as internet laws are concerned, I am not in favor of censorship of the internet.  I like the internet as free as is possible.  I've been on the internet since 1995.  I believe censorship does more harm than good.  But that is just me.  As for protecting my children from harmful internet content I will just come up with my own at home solution for my children.  And I'm the father, so my teachings count.

One of my blogs http://www.pronatal.org is not just pro-family, pro-child production, it is also pro-polygamy... for some reason multiple families are frowned upon in industrialized western countries where promiscuity is applauded... e.g. Playboy's Hugh Hefner and his 3 live in girlfriends... but if Hugh decides to make babies with all 3 live in girlfriends and forms 3 live in families... he would no longer be cool in the western world... and his reality show would no longer be acceptable in western media... and if internet laws become ridiculous... will be censored.

I do appreciate and can think of the idea of classifying internet content via domain names.  Say all porn goes to .xxx or .porn so people know what they are looking for.  They can easily choose to firewall off .xxx or .porn from their home computers. 

[TylerDurden]

I'd just like to address a few points. First of all , the primary reason why the Internet got going in the first place  was because of all the porn sites that were there from the beginning|(indeed, at one point, porn consisted of something like 80-90%+  of the Internet). So porn actually helped the Internet grow, regardless of what one's personal view is of porn.

Secondly, the whole business of child porn is hopelessly overblown. Judging from media reports, one finds that almost all such websites feature made-up/photoshopped fake pictures of children being abused. The way I see it, such websites allow people with unusual tendencies to get rid of them/sublimate them  in a way that doesn't harm others. I certainly don't think that someone should be prosecuted, therefore, for merely watching such images online, as they are not directly harming anyone in any way.

By the way, there was 1 case sometime in the 80s, I think, where an American citizen from Wisconsin or some similiar neighbouring State exploited the fact that there was no local State law against Bestiality (or marrying animals?), so was able to (legally) marry his horse. Of course, he got a lot of hate-mail from the public, who felt that he was making a mockery of the USA, but he got away with it.

[goodsamaritan]

I agree with the observation that porn makes new media move.  As with the internet, porn helped DVDs, VHS and Betamax get going... betamax is what we had in asia.

[avalon]

Betamax is great! I love Betamax! What is Betamax? 

Just kidding 

What is Porn? 

[Waungata]

Secondly, the whole business of child porn is hopelessly overblown. Judging from media reports, one finds that almost all such websites feature made-up/photoshopped fake pictures of children being abused. The way I see it, such websites allow people with unusual tendencies to get rid of them/sulbimate them  in a way that doesn't harm others. I certainly don't think that someone should be prosecuted, therefore, for merely watching such images online, as they are not directly harming anyone in any way.

What you speak of is not real child porn but could be taken as such. Take a look at the countries that already ban and censor the real thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship. Most developed countries do but there are those that have no restrictions whatsoever and people can use anonymous proxys to get to them.

Even being allowed access to anything that resembles child porn will tempt a pedophile to commit the act whether it be barely leagal or illeagal porn and have the same ramifications.

There's also a big difference between pre and post puberty porn. That is, people attracted to four-year-olds are not going to be satisfied with sixteen-year-olds who have secondary sex characheristics but are still easily taken advantage of.

 

I'd just like to address a few points. First of all , the primary reason why the Internet got going in the first place  was because of all the porn sites that were there from the beginning|(indeed, at one point, porn consisted of something like 80-90%+  of the Internet). So porn actually helped the Internet grow, regardless of what one's personal view is of porn.

I believe "sex" was and still is the most searched for word on the Internet but the Internet got started by the military and science community as a way to easily and privately communicate over long distances. http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml

[Waungata]

By the way, there was 1 case sometime in the 80s, I think, where an American citizen from Wisconsin or some similiar neighbouring State exploited the fact that there was no local State law against Bestiality (or marrying animals?), so was able to (legally) marry his horse. Of course, he got a lot of hate-mail from the public, who felt that he was making a mockery of the USA, but he got away with it.

I can't really find much about this other than an episode of Jerry Springer that never aired but I can't help but think that the "legally" part is an urban myth. I wouldn't doubt there may be someone out there who's married his horse in an unofficial capacity.  Did the horse have a birth certificate and other forms of ID to obtain a marriage license? How did the horse sign it? Dexterous lips? What were the horses vows? He must have married Mr. Ed.    At any rate, very humorous!

[TylerDurden]

All I recall is that his State had no power to do anything to him, at first, as bestiality isn't illegal in that State, but they were able to forcibly send his horse to be slaughtered when the vet declared the horse too decrepit to have a sustainable old age.

[povarby]

You disagree that videos of child porno, violence, kills and others must be banned?

[goodsamaritan]

Depends on how people define child.
Until 1990, the marrying age for women in my country was 14.
They raised the marrying age to 18.
Now there are clamors to raise the marrying age to 24.

So the definition of a child gets re-defined each year in each country.

And if we are to ban what people define as child porn, let's just ban all of porn all together... then we go to what defines porn.

I remembering emailing my sister in the USA naked pictures of my children 1,2 and 4 years old then.  And she explains that in the USA naked pictures of children are considered porn...

My point is, until one world government comes along, how can we ever get to synchronize laws and regulations?

[RawZi]

You disagree that videos of child porno, violence, kills and others must be banned?

    POVARBY, I think people who give no good information, but join diet forums to sell shoes and pills should be banned.

[TylerDurden]

You disagree that videos of child porno, violence, kills and others must be banned?

Let's face it, there's no snuff-movie market, and most child porno is made up of faked images. But that's by the by. A lot of people, such as the UK and Euro police, have used the slender arguments about child pornography, to argue that it's OK to legally hack into the private computers of citizens without needing a warrant(there's an actual law for this being seriously considered).  This sort of censorship has to be stopped  cold, therefore.

As far as videos of violence, we see them all the time in the media re the effects of bombings, fires etc.  Sanitizing the news to protect us just makes people less mature and ignorant of the real world.

[coconinoz]

"the primary reason why the Internet got going in the first place  was because of all the porn sites that were there from the beginning"

as i remember, the world wide web began as a means to exchange research related information in academic circles
the 1st web browser i used was mosaic for the mac; netscape came later

[TylerDurden]

"the primary reason why the Internet got going in the first place  was because of all the porn sites that were there from the beginning"

as i remember, the world wide web began as a means to exchange research related information in academic circles
the 1st web browser i used was mosaic for the mac; netscape came later

Just to clarify, the Internet started out as an experiment for the military, then became a research tool, but it only grew substantially in popularity when porn sites came onstream:-

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2004-03-09-onlineporn_x.htm

[Waungata]

How about this be moved to Hot Topics?

[Waungata]

Depends on how people define child.
Until 1990, the marrying age for women in my country was 14.
They raised the marrying age to 18.
Now there are clamors to raise the marrying age to 24.

So the definition of a child gets re-defined each year in each country.

And if we are to ban what people define as child porn, let's just ban all of porn all together... then we go to what defines porn.

I remembering emailing my sister in the USA naked pictures of my children 1,2 and 4 years old then.  And she explains that in the USA naked pictures of children are considered porn...

My point is, until one world government comes along, how can we ever get to synchronize laws and regulations?

In the US, thirteen-year-olds can get married with parental consent. This usually only happens if one of the children becomes pregnant. They can reproduce, marry, but still not be allowed to participate in pornography. They cannot obtain a driver's license, drink, join the military, and still must have to attend school.

It will be a long time before there is one world government. That's why there is a need for limited censorship. 
I don't think your sister would be arrested for having those pictures, as they are family pics, with no child porn in her possession,  but if they were to end up elsewhere on the Internet, on a kiddie porn site, you'd probably be angry as hell. Someone could have intercepted those pics in transit. This is just an unlikely supposition. I'm not that paranoid. Just stating what could be.

My opinion is that banning porn altogether wouldn't really hurt the Internet. Sure, anonymity helps in buying/viewing porn, but would everyone give up the Internet without it? I think not. "Darn! Porn is gone. I'm not going to look for anything else that I'm interested in."   

I'm only using your post as an example. It's actually to all participants.

[goodsamaritan]

mmmm... hot topics.
Maybe some women think this is a hot topic too.

You know, I've been thinking sometimes the reason we may not be getting too many women posters is because men like us enjoy discussing hot topics without getting into a fight.

I do notice that women mostly are conformists and discussions like these don't appeal to them.  I mean, many of them if they ever discussed a topic this way they would be angry at each other.  Now I'm crossing over to the "We want more women" thread.

Sure, go ahead and move this to the hot topics section.

[Waungata]

Please read your messages. 

[povarby]

I'd just like to address a few points. First of all , the primary reason why the Internet got going in the first place  was because of all the porn sites that were there from the beginning|(indeed, at one point, porn consisted of something like 80-90%+  of the Internet). So porn actually helped the Internet grow, regardless of what one's personal view is of porn.

Secondly, the whole business of child porn is hopelessly overblown. Judging from media reports, one finds that almost all such websites feature made-up/photoshopped fake pictures of children being abused. The way I see it, such websites allow people with unusual tendencies to get rid of them/sulbimate them  in a way that doesn't harm others. I certainly don't think that someone should be prosecuted, therefore, for merely watching such images online, as they are not directly harming anyone in any way.

By the way, there was 1 case sometime in the 80s, I think, where an American citizen from Wisconsin or some similiar neighbouring State exploited the fact that there was no local State law against Bestiality (or marrying animals?), so was able to (legally) marry his horse. Of course, he got a lot of hate-mail from the public, who felt that he was making a mockery of the USA, but he got away with it.

So, let's separate "pornet" from Internet.

[povarby]

    POVARBY, I think people who give no good information, but join diet forums to sell shoes and pills should be banned.

Do you always read only signatures?