Fight Against Pornography (myth, church, LDS, sex)

[Polaris]

While I admit that pornography alone is not responsible for the sex crimes that are prevalent in our society today, I firmly believe that in many cases it has served as a critical stepping stone. If we really want to protect our children, and future children, pornography must be dealt with today. If I had complete control, pornography would be entirely outlawed, unfortunately that's not possible in today's world. We can however do a much better job of controlling it.

Obviously there are many good software programs that can block much of that which is most dangerous. But that's not foolproof, and it requires that parents make the effort to purchase and enable it. To really protect our children we have to take it a little further. I heard of a plan a while ago that I thought made a lot of sense and unfortunately I haven't heard much of it since. The idea is that all pornographic internet sites must register with the .xxx extension. This significantly facilitates filtering that could be done at the IP provider or at a level even higher. By default .xxx sites would not be sent through to the end user -- to enable such traffic would require a fee and a sign-up process. Any pornographic site that is not properly registered would be subject to a large fine.

What is keeping something like this from being done? I'm confident that if enough people express their concerns regarding this issue to their government leaders, they'll find a way to make it work.

[Ody]

I hear where you are comming from my friend, but i believe in free speech, we should not force others to not use or see pornography if we do not want to. Just as I would not force others who make woefully sexist lyrics in rap of the radio. Unfortunately, search filters that are for ready public consumption, are not that effective at all. I agree with you that parents have the right to keep thier children from pornography, so what is needed is an overhaul of filter programs for minors. However WE CANNOT AND SHOULD NEVER fight against this free speech. After all some would argue judaistic or websites run by the church of lds is harmful to others as well

[mr.guy]

...I firmly believe that in many cases it has served as a critical stepping stone.

I firmly believe that kissing toads will produce more princes; considering the threat this poses to an already inflated monarchy, i must hijack your devotion until my cause is cured. After all, the reciprocal effects of my proposition are far more tangible.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Polaris

What is keeping something like this from being done?

The xxx extension idea was nixed by the porn industry, as far as I know. Perhaps ironically, while the industry was acting in its own interests, it might also have been acting in the interests of a large portion of the public: Google reports that around 40% of all searches are for porn, so there is an apparent huge demand for the stuff.

While I think child and violent porn both should be illegal, I have nothing against the rest of it. Most of the porn I've seen strikes me as poor quality stuff, some strikes me as mediocre, and very little impresses me as worth having been done in the first place. But those reservations are not relevant to me when it comes to the question of whether porn ought to be banned.

I think banning porn is a wedge issue used by political and social elites to get their hands on the freedom of speech clause in the Constitution. I believe those elites hope that the arguments they use to justify bannig porn can be turned around to be used to justify banning political or social commentary that they don't agree with.

Again, I'm aware that some people become addicted to porn, and that it has various consequences to them, such as costing a small fortune in website fees to feed their addiction. But I know very well that there will always be some people who can become addicted to anything, and I don't see porn as being nearly as addictive for most people as, say, a typical controlled substance is. Therefore, I believe the best way to deal with porn addictions is through therapy rather than a ban on porn.

I have never seen a study, much less a body of evidence, that supports the notion normal non-violent, non-child porn leads anyone to commit sex crimes.

So, for the most part, I'm against banning porn on those and other grounds.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by AlanGurvey

I hear where you are comming from my friend, but i believe in free speech, we should not force others to not use or see pornography if we do not want to. Just as I would not force others who make woefully sexist lyrics in rap of the radio. Unfortunately, search filters that are for ready public consumption, are not that effective at all.

I believe in free speech too, but not at the expense of my kids. The plan I proposed would not deny people the right to see pornography. It would just require that they make the effort to get access to it, instead of it being availible by default.

Originally Posted by AlanGurvey

I agree with you that parents have the right to keep thier children from pornography, so what is needed is an overhaul of filter programs for minors. However WE CANNOT AND SHOULD NEVER fight against this free speech. After all some would argue judaistic or websites run by the church of lds is harmful to others as well

The problem with child protection filters is that they aren't available or enabled by default. It requires responsibility on the part of the parents, and some parents simply aren't responsible.

Free speech has limits -- there are reasons a person can't lawfully streak in public. Similarly it should not be possible for us or our kids to "stumble" across pornographic images on the internet.

[Ody]

Originally Posted by Polaris

The problem with child protection filters is that they aren't available or enabled by default. It requires responsibility on the part of the parents, and some parents simply aren't responsible.

Well it's all up to the parent, if he/she is to lazy to filter his/her childs web connection, TO BAD, we have no rights to force a web filter on unwilling parents!

[Mike182]

the government has no right to stop people purposely looking at consenting adults engaging in sexual acts.

[Ody]

Originally Posted by Mike182

the government has no right to stop people purposely looking at consenting adults engaging in sexual acts.

Agreed.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by mr.guy

I firmly believe that kissing toads will produce more princes; considering the threat this poses to an already inflated monarchy, i must hijack your devotion until my cause is cured. After all, the reciprocal effects of my proposition are far more tangible.

That is *completely* untrue! My coffee cup *proves* that kissing toads in fact produces no princes! Look here:

name that cup

So there!

[Sunstone]

While we're at it, I have never seen even one study that supports the notion viewing porn traumatizes kids, and I think that notion might be a myth. Has anyone seen such a study? More to the point, is there a body of scientific evidence to support such a notion?