Internet pornography Watch

This discussion is closed.
Odins eye
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#41
Report 13 years ago
#41
(Original post by Howard)
I'm not sure if I'm convinced of this. The Prohibition didn't reduce the demand for alcohol.
And not only that Howard, but illegal imports do a lot better when something is banned.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#42
Report 13 years ago
#42
(Original post by Odins eye)
And not only that Howard, but illegal imports do a lot better when something is banned.
Forbidden fruit.
0
Chrism
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#43
Report 13 years ago
#43
(Original post by mik1w)
the point is if you censor it then you will reduce the demand a lot and this will help a lot in reducing the crime.
Lots of things are banned that continue to be in great demand - drugs for example. In fact, the ban on certain drugs is what allows theirs dealers to drive up the prices making themselves more money and leading to an increase in theft/burglary/robbery etc as addicts steal to pay for their habit.

If somebody truly wants something, the fact that it is banned or controlled will often be ignored.
0
Ferret_messiah
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#44
Report 13 years ago
#44
(Original post by SophistiCat)
Hmmmm... I think beastiality porn is ever so slightly worse than rock/hiphop music, don't you? As for videogames? I bought Grand Theft Auto: Vice City and have no problem with it, although I realise it's not to everyones taste ... however I'd have issues with a videogame in which animals/children/women/whoever are raped... I really don't get your argument.
My point is, they're all things which have caused moral outrage, but if none are harmed in the production then it isn't the job of the law to tell me what my moral standards should be. If someone wants to watch videos of simulated rape, go for it, as long it is in fact simulated. If someone wants to play Baby Seal Clubbing Tournament 2005: Seal Rape Extension Pack on their computer, go for it.
0
rock_eleven
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#45
Report 13 years ago
#45
I draw your attention to this thread:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/t145260.html

This current thread is starting to go in the same direction, about whether obtaining r viewing porn actually encourages it's further production. Read it if youre interested
0
Person
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#46
Report 13 years ago
#46
I'm not sure if I'm convinced of this. The Prohibition didn't reduce the demand for alcohol.
No but I would have thought that the internet's easier to monitor that the USA with it's capacity for countless speakeasies illegal breweries etc.
0
Ferret_messiah
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#47
Report 13 years ago
#47
(Original post by Northumbrian)
No but I would have thought that the internet's easier to monitor that the USA with it's capacity for countless speakeasies illegal breweries etc.
Oh yes, vast decentralised systems with no real head authority or control are startlingly easy to monitor. I mean, just look at how easily the film music industry managed to find and crush all copyright infringement on the internet. Indeed.
0
Longshoredrift80
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#48
Report 13 years ago
#48
(Original post by Zoecb)
Come on, that's like obscenity or public disruption or something. Do the glances qualify as threatening behaviour or sexual harassment of some kind?
I should bloody well hope that 'glances' do not qualify as sexual harassment or threatening behaviour, even if someone may be watching something distasteful at the same time. Can you imagine how ridiculous that would be? Here's how it might play out in the police report:

Police: And what did this man do to sexually harass and threaten you?
'Victim': He glanced at me!
Police: Glanced at you?
'Victim': He was surfing distasteful images at the same time!
Police: Did he show you these images?
'Victim': No, but I discovered afterwards!
Police: So, really you're accusing him of sexual harassment and threatening behaviour based on him glancing at you?
'Victim': Yes.
Police: And do you know the penalty for wasting police time?
0
Zoecb
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#49
Report 13 years ago
#49
Well that was a slight exaggeration. But you know, if others could see the guy doing stuff under desks maybe it counts as indecent exposure or something...
0
Longshoredrift80
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#50
Report 13 years ago
#50
Oh indeed, but in this case she could not see the 'guy doing stuff under desks' or indeed even know what he was surfing. We don't know if he actually WAS doing anything bad under the desk at all. I'm all for upholding the law, but I believe that you are lacking in any real knowledge about what 'crimes' may be applicable in this case and seem to have a rather unrealistic viewpoint.
0
Zoecb
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#51
Report 13 years ago
#51
Chill out, I don't wanna prosecute the guy - I'm just saying if he was doing what this person says he was, that's not acceptable behaviour in public. What he was looking at however is completely his own business.
0
Person
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#52
Report 13 years ago
#52
Oh yes, vast decentralised systems with no real head authority or control are startlingly easy to monitor. I mean, just look at how easily the film music industry managed to find and crush all copyright infringement on the internet. Indeed.
Do you think sarcasm makes you sound more convincing?

The music industry knows exactly where music is being illegally downloaded from. If a paedophile at a pc can find child porn then government agents with the latest software know where it is too. The question is shutting it down smart arse.
0
Ferret_messiah
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#53
Report 13 years ago
#53
(Original post by Northumbrian)
Do you think sarcasm makes you sound more convincing?

The music industry knows exactly where music is being illegally downloaded from. If a paedophile at a pc can find child porn then government agents with the latest software know where it is too. The question is shutting it down smart arse.
The music industry clearly doesn't, else their actions would have been slightly more effective by now. Clamp down on Napster, upsprings Kazaa, clamp down on that, along comes BitTorrent, somehow manage to stop that and people switch to newsgroup postings, or another program.
And how do you propose to shut down something that's either peer based and constantly moving or hosted in some tiny ex-Russian state? The shher amount of traffic makes it impossible to tell what everyone is doing, and the fact that it's global makes it impossible for any one government to effectively police what gets placed on it.
0
foxo
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#54
Report 13 years ago
#54
(Original post by mik1w)
censorship = no demand = no motive to produce
Censorship = No porn = Higher risk and higher prices for black market products = Big business
0
Ferret_messiah
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#55
Report 13 years ago
#55
(Original post by mik1w)
censorship = no demand = no motive to produce
There seems to be a fatal flaw here. People don't want it just because it's there, it's there because people want it.
0
Iago
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#56
Report 13 years ago
#56
(Original post by Northumbrian)
Do you think sarcasm makes you sound more convincing?

The music industry knows exactly where music is being illegally downloaded from. If a paedophile at a pc can find child porn then government agents with the latest software know where it is too. The question is shutting it down smart arse.
The music industry does not know where music is being illegally downloaded from. Sadly, for much the same reasons the government does not know where child porn is being downloaded from. Occasionally illegal music downloads, as well as child porn downloads, are detected, but in a minority of cases. There is no magical way to monitor the internet. The only reason that some people think that this can be achieved is because many people are have a very naive picture of what the internet actually is - many people think that it is some kind of big centralised computer network or take the metaphorical term 'cyberspace' too literally. As people in this thread have shown, they are wrong. The regulation of the internet is a far more complex and daunting than the regulation of any domestic drugs trade (I think the original analogy was the 1920's prohibition era, am I correct?)

Also, I notice that while you rage against his sarcastic tone, you ignore the actual points being made (albeit sarcastically). This seems to me to be far more destructive to the debate than sarcasm.
0
Iago
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#57
Report 13 years ago
#57
(Original post by SophistiCat)
Hmmmm... I think beastiality porn is ever so slightly worse than rock/hiphop music, don't you? As for videogames? I bought Grand Theft Auto: Vice City and have no problem with it, although I realise it's not to everyones taste ... however I'd have issues with a videogame in which animals/children/women/whoever are raped... I really don't get your argument.
You don't have a problem with GTA: Vice City, in which one can pay a pittance for sex from a probably desperate prostitute, before brutally murdering said prostitute and stealing back the said money.

But you do have a problem with games in which characters are raped.

Right.

On the whole issue with the guy in the cafe:

Masturbating in public is understandably illegal, as is beastiality porn, and child-porn. You should have reported the first two (as long as you're sure he was masturbating) both things to the cafe manager, who would have no doubt taken action.

Whether one can look at non-illegal porn in a cyber cafe or not is totally up to the cafe, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the government. If you have a problem with being in a cafe where people are looking at such things, simply take your business elsewhere.

Further legislation is not the answer for both moral and practical reasons (the government does not have the right to ban consent-based pornography, nor does it have the ability to do so).
0
TKR
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#58
Report 13 years ago
#58
the problem is targetting a ban so that it only affects certain types of porn isn't it?

well i suppose not with beastiality porn - but withporn that involves those under 18. I am led to understand that the American Government has recentl;y brought in legislation which requires all producers and distributors of porn to have records as proof of age of the participants in hard copy. - ready for inspection at any time. The problem is that a "producer or distributor" is any secondary person who posts the material on a website or makes it downloadable through p2p networks. Obviouly these people are not going to have access to the right documents so it makes the whole thing a little bit difficult.

okay that post made not very much sense but overall

PORN IS GOOD - DONT BAN IT PLEASE
0
NDGAARONDI
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#59
Report 13 years ago
#59
(Original post by mik1w)
censorship = no demand = no motive to produce
I don't know. Japanese porn can be very popular but are mostly censored.
0
Iago
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#60
Report 13 years ago
#60
His argument is based on the incorrect idea that censorship somehow removes or even lessens demand. If we ban the Bible will there suddenly be no-one wanting to read the Bible? If we ban oxygen will we suddenly have no need to breathe it?

The last analogy may seem a bit overboard but bear in mind that a case can be made for pornography being an essential part of society - the sex drive is one of the most powerful drives a human has, and it is certainly the drive with most impact on how humans behave across the board. If there can be pornography, there will be pronography, and there's nothing any government can really do about that aside from combat its non-consensual elements (child porn etc.).

(Original post by TKR)
the problem is targetting a ban so that it only affects certain types of porn isn't it?

well i suppose not with beastiality porn - but withporn that involves those under 18. I am led to understand that the American Government has recentl;y brought in legislation which requires all producers and distributors of porn to have records as proof of age of the participants in hard copy. - ready for inspection at any time. The problem is that a "producer or distributor" is any secondary person who posts the material on a website or makes it downloadable through p2p networks. Obviouly these people are not going to have access to the right documents so it makes the whole thing a little bit difficult.

okay that post made not very much sense but overall

PORN IS GOOD - DONT BAN IT PLEASE
No no, that made perfect sense. A good argument against this new law - a law which, like a great many laws dealing with pornography and the internet, is naive and impractical.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (1623)
79.13%
Leave (428)
20.87%

Watched Threads

View All