Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Porn Ban Being Considered In South Africa

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the have-an-easier-time-blocking-gravity dept.

Censorship 240

krou writes "Deputy Minister of Home Affairs Malusi Gigaba has gone to South Africa's Law Reform Commission to see whether the law can be changed to allow a complete ban of digitally distributed pornography. Gigaba has also been in discussion with The Justice Alliance of South Africa, 'a coalition of corporations, individuals, and churches committed to upholding and fighting for justice and the highest moral standards in South African society,' which has written its own draft bill regarding the issue, which covers the banning of pornography on television, mobile phones, and the Web. Using a car analogy, Mr. Gigaba said, 'Cars are already provided with brakes and seatbelts.... There is no reason why the Internet should be provided without the necessary restrictive mechanisms built into it.' Related documents and the JASA's proposed bill can be found online, one of which has the wonderful title 'A reasonable and justifiable limitation on Freedom of Expression and Right to Privacy.'"

cancel ×

240 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The brakes model (4, Interesting)

aapold (753705) | more than 4 years ago | (#32396836)

if they use that model, that would be fine.

Because I can choose to hit the brakes or not as I see fit. If harm comes from my failure to use them, then I suffer the consequences. If not, no problem.

Thus, I expect them to implement a filter than can be applied or not applied as the user sees fit, and leave it up to them to apply it judiciously.

I have no problem with this model, if so applied.

Re:The brakes model (4, Insightful)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#32396904)

But couldn't the people who want the filter just, you know, not look at porn?

Re:The brakes model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32397062)

Just as they can just swerve around other cars instead of braking, yes. ;)

Re:The brakes model (3, Informative)

S.O.B. (136083) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397198)

While I don't believe that trying to ban porn on the internet is practical neither is telling people to just not look at it. There are popups, browser hijacking and unfortunate search results that could subject people to porn even though they did not actively seek it out. I remember hearing a story a few years ago of a public school teacher showing kids how to use Google and she suggested typing in "Spice Girls" and at the time one of the top results had nude photos of Geri Halliwell.

If we take the example of how porn is handled in the non-virtual world, porn content is segregated into specialized stores, that dimly lit room at the back of your video rental shop or the top row of the magazine rack.

The controversial .xxx domain, if it ever gets approved, would allow people and countries that do not want to see porn to have a way to ensure that they will never see it unless they intentionally go to those sites. That is assuming that porn sites agree to migrate. After all, migration would be in their best interests as a way of heading off eventual government regulation that would likely be more restrictive. They likely wouldn't lose any money since porn always sells.

Re:The brakes model (2, Insightful)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397338)

"Subject" people to porn. Right.

The .xxx domain is not going to lead to freedom of choice, it will lead to censorship.

The spice girls google example is a lesson, teachers should not randomly type things into google in front of students, if they want kid-safe search results they need to use a kid-safe search engine. That is not just cause for censorship.

The answer is to stop catering to the moral objections of people who don't want to see things. Being offended by something doesn't actually mean someone else did something wrong that would justify orchestrating complex systems and requirements to suit peoples personal beliefs.

Re:The brakes model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32397430)

There are popups, browser hijacking and unfortunate search results that could subject people to porn even though they did not actively seek it out. I remember hearing a story a few years ago of a public school teacher showing kids how to use Google and she suggested typing in "Spice Girls" and at the time one of the top results had nude photos of Geri Halliwell.

But nude photos aren't porn. Even *erotic* nude photos (which I suppose is what you're talking about) aren't porn.

Pop-ups for porn sites only happen if you go to unsavory sites in the first place, too. When was the last time you got any of those on a respectable site?

Browser hijacking? An urban myth that you swallowed hook, line and sinker. What would porn site even gain from that?

Finally, "unfortunate search results" still require you to click on them. If you search for "Gerri Halliwell", to pick up your example, and then get a link that says "nude photos of Gerri Halliwell!", you can still refuse to check it out.

The controversial .xxx domain, if it ever gets approved, would allow people and countries that do not want to see porn to have a way to ensure that they will never see it unless they intentionally go to those sites. That is assuming that porn sites agree to migrate. After all, migration would be in their best interests as a way of heading off eventual government regulation that would likely be more restrictive. They likely wouldn't lose any money since porn always sells.

The IETF disagrees with you [ietf.org] .

Re:The brakes model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32397498)

While I don't believe that trying to ban porn on the internet is practical neither is telling people to just not look at it. There are popups, browser hijacking and unfortunate search results that could subject people to porn even though they did not actively seek it out.

Yes, and what's the consequence? "Oh no, I saw something I didn't like!"

The horror! I'm damaged for life!

Re:The brakes model (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397506)

Do you honestly believe that creating .xxx would do anything at all to solve the pop-up and hijacking problems you mention in your first paragraph? People who engage in such underhanded tactics are not going to willingly restrict themselves to a porn domain.

Re:The brakes model (4, Insightful)

ThinkingInBinary (899485) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397616)

The controversial .xxx domain, if it ever gets approved, would allow people and countries that do not want to see porn to have a way to ensure that they will never see it unless they intentionally go to those sites.

A "country" cannot decide for its people that it "doesn't want to see porn". I can assure you, at least some people (of legal age) in that country probably want to see it, and it's not (morally) up to the country to make that decision.

Re:The brakes model (1)

Reziac (43301) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397628)

Probably would make it easier to find if desired, too -- type in anyrandomshit.xxx and chances are it'll be *some* porn domain. I don't see a downside for the legit porn industry.

As to finding it unwanted... never in all the time I've been online ('net since '96, BBSs before that) have I tripped over porn by accident. When I have encountered it unasked, I was already in some rather shady corner of the web. I have to wonder how many of the anti-porn types are doing "I typed in 'sexy girls' and there it was! see how much porn there is!!" That's kinda like making people go naked, then complaining about indecent exposure.

Re:The brakes model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32397762)

The controversial .xxx domain, if it ever gets approved, would allow people and countries that do not want to see porn to have a way to ensure that they will never see it unless they intentionally go to those sites. That is assuming that porn sites agree to migrate.

Nonsense -- DNS is not a content classification system.

I'd like to see a simple (as in usable, unlike PICS), voluntary content classification system for the web. Delicate petals can then use it to filter things they find objectionable and stop trying to impose their personal views on everyone else (usually by leveraging some nebulous third party as justification). Now consider the real reason why certain religous and "family" groups have opposed .xxx...

Re:The brakes model (3, Insightful)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397406)

But couldn't the people who want the filter just, you know, not look at porn?

Erm..., no. Of course not. They would rather convince themselves that they don't need or want to ever look at porn, and having done that, the cognitive dissonance set up by their envy of those choose not to would be unbearable. So..., everyone must suffer.

Re:The brakes model (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397424)

I can see two possible uses for such a filter.

1. Families where children have better computer skills then their parents.
2. Overly religious (often falsely called "moral") people who want to prevent their partner/family from watching what they deem immoral.

Considering the large amount of such families, I'd suggest that if they could implement such a filter, it would have quite a few people who'd opt to use it.

Re:The brakes model (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32396982)

I think the brakes model is great. In fact, the Internet already has them. If you don't want to see porn, JUST DON'T LOOK. That's equivalent to hitting the brakes.

Re:The brakes model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32397102)

Yes, but we're talking about Africans [chimpout.com] .

Re:The brakes model (1)

rvw (755107) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397620)

I think the brakes model is great. In fact, the Internet already has them. If you don't want to see porn, JUST DON'T LOOK. That's equivalent to hitting the brakes.

I think a better analogy is sitting in the car, realizing that you should brake, then put your hands in front of your eyes. And then peek between the fingers. (Although I'm quite confused as to what this analogy is about.)

Re:The brakes model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32397204)

The brakes model seems to work well. When you're out in public, you can't drive around unless you have brakes and a seat belt on. Similarly, when you're out in public, you can't go around naked or show porn on a big screen TV in a public area..

But when you're on your own private property, it's completely legal to drive around without a seatbelt on, and to drive around without any brakes on your car. Similarly, it should be completely legal to look at porn or be naked.

        Tim

Re:The brakes model (2, Informative)

flyneye (84093) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397336)

Give up on wishing for any common sense. South Africa has a rich history of legislating the wills of the ignorant, the misguided and the boneheaded.
        This gentleman is probably to the point where he is able to Google for what he wants, so he obviously knows more about the internet than all the stupid countries out there who just aren't doing anything about the sinful smutty internet. Well, by golly he will and he knows just how to fix it.
I prefer to sit back and watch this unfold like a 3 stooges episode that I've seen over and over and over.

Re:The brakes model (1)

Johan Welin (1387129) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397524)

Good analogy. But I still do see this as a introductory step into a world of censorship where governments and alike like to enforce ban-of-the-day legislation on any issue that's locally uncomfortable. By applying the "porn" taxonomy of whatever level of nudity and physical activity is highly personal, and/or offensive for that matter, this is in general not compatible with everyones' (the world population) view of what's negative or generally bad for society. IMHO. Banning is bad. Classification and general distribution of classified material to any authorized audience is compatible with managed democracy in general is a good thing. [Isn't this regulated by US constitution and implicit common sense ..]

Re:The brakes model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32397672)

RTFA and you will see that is not the model they want to use. The JASAs bill is much more like a "tie-you-blindly-to-a-chair" kinda of thing than brakes model.

Re:The brakes model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32397784)

I'd think the MPAA and RIAA would fight a ban, as it would mean less money for them. They'd only like a filter on unpaid for movies and recordings, and banning "bad words" or R or X rated movies would hurt their profits tremendously.

So let me get this straight... (1)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 4 years ago | (#32396848)

So the cars without seatbelts have to drive in one set of tubes, and the cars with seatbelts drive in different tubes, and some of those tubes aren't allowed to go into SA airspace? Ok, I think I get it.....

A reasonable precaution (1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 4 years ago | (#32396850)

Who wants to see Winnie Mandela nude?

Re:A reasonable precaution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32396922)

Not Mr. Mandela, it would certainly seem.

yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32396860)

"A reasonable and justifiable limitation on Freedom of Expression and Right to Privacy."

I agree with this. Porn is everywhere and it's damaging the family. Especially with all the perverted bat shit they have out there now. Ban it so I won't be tempted into the darkside

Re:yeah (4, Funny)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 4 years ago | (#32396874)

Ban it so I won't be tempted into the darkside.

Racist.

Re:yeah (4, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#32396972)

Ban it so I won't be tempted into the darkside.

Racist.

Go and blackmale him. That'll teach him.

Re:yeah (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397122)

You are calling racism over a Star Wars reference? Are you working for the DNC or something?

Comic book guy says... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32396870)

..."worst

car analogy

ever."

See, this is why... (1)

schmidt349 (690948) | more than 4 years ago | (#32396878)

There is no reason why the internet should be provided without the necessary restrictive mechanisms built into it.

He's exactly right. This is why we print newspapers and books on flash paper, for instance, in case the ideas they contain are found to be dangerous and need to be restricted. The same logic also explains the censors who sit in on university classes to cover students' ears and hum loudly when the professor expresses views which are not in the mainstream.

Gigaba? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32396884)

'Gigaba' sounds too close to 'giggety' for me.

Attention to other important stuff... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32396892)

Shouldn't they be concentrating on more important stuff?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_South_Africa

http://www.avert.org/aidssouthafrica.htm

Re:Attention to other important stuff... (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#32396912)

No, don't be absurd, that only affects the poor.

Re:Attention to other important stuff... (2, Insightful)

dogmatixpsych (786818) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397160)

Why can't they do both? I don't see how they are mutually exclusive categories. If South Africa wants to filter porn that does not exclude them from also working on the AIDS problem. Governments can focus on more than one thing (usually).

Re:Attention to other important stuff... (4, Informative)

M. Baranczak (726671) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397288)

The problem is, the SA government is not working on the AIDS problem. Their minister of health [bbc.co.uk] , for several years, was a woman who claimed that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, and that eating beets and garlic can protect you against it. You can't make this shit up. This minister is gone now, but the people who hired her are still in power.

Re:Attention to other important stuff... (5, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397462)

Their minister of health [bbc.co.uk], for several years, was a woman who claimed that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, and that eating beets and garlic can protect you against it

Did anybody check her campaign account for donations from big garlic?

Re:Attention to other important stuff... (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397358)

You [i]really[/i] don't see the connection between banning porn and attempting to reduce the AIDS problem? No, you can't actually do the former while trying to do the latter.

Re:Attention to other important stuff... (1)

phoenix321 (734987) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397670)

There is obviously a relation between looking at porn and actually having sexual intercourse with other people.

An INVERSE one.

Every /.'er knows that.

Account and geek card please.

Re:Attention to other important stuff... (1)

koreaman (835838) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397758)

That was exactly his point.

Re:Attention to other important stuff... (1)

fafaforza (248976) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397768)

That's the point. A ban on porn will most likely result in people engaging in more intercourse. If you're aware of the AIDS problem and risks, and you're able to relieve your urges in a safe manner, then you're lowering your risk/exposure. But if you can't relieve those urges, then you'll go out to find a partner to help you.

If there's one place that doesn't need a ban on porn, it's Africa.

Pornography ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32396896)

... is still (adult) Free Speech, isn't it? Well, perhaps not in SA, who knows.

Re:Pornography ... (3, Informative)

krou (1027572) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397048)

I had a brief look at the opinion piece on the JASA website [za.net] , and its argument is basically "think of the children", which (according to them) trumps free speech:

Internet pornography is such a readily accessible evil for children, that the Constitutional Court, if the Bill were challenged, would be bound to hold that the section 28 obligation to protect at all costs the best interests of children would trump the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.

Section 28 of the Bill of Rights [constituti...urt.org.za] states "A child's best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.". Previous court rulings have said that the state 'must provide the legal and administrative infrastructure necessary to ensure that children are accorded the protection contemplated by S28.'

The Bill of Rights also notes that 'The rights ... may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors', which include things like the nature of the right, its purpose etc. So, while they recognise pornography as free speech etc, they also "think of the children", which as we all know overrules any other concern.

Let's not forget ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32397150)

... that enacting this bill will also mean that all foreign pornography will go away instantly. The internet will become the heaven of peace and quiet it should be rights always have been. Brilliant, why haven't they thought of this earlier?

Obligatory bad car analogy (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397480)

So cars should be banned because 1)kids play in the street and 2)some child might attempt to drive one, resulting in an accident.

Perhaps we should go back to the rules ARPA set up for the network: No users under 18 allowed.

Re:Obligatory bad car analogy (2, Insightful)

phoenix321 (734987) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397756)

No, because every idjit voter will recognize the fallacy and dare to speak up against it.

But who will speak up in favor of online porn without fear of being ostracized? Will honored members of society that DO look at porn please raise their hands and say "Yes, I do look at porn out of my own free will"? Probably not.

That is the usual hypocrisy behind all those "immoral" things: drugs, prostitution, pornography - "nobody uses that, or better: nobody should" - all while it's a multi billion dollar market with millions of customers.

And it's another attempt at banning "free speech that might offend someone", ie. killing the "free" part. Popular opinions don't need much protection, after all.

Re:Pornography ... (1)

c_sd_m (995261) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397722)

What about the child's right to be exposed to parts of the world that aren't perfectly safe, so that they grow up before they're 30? Keep someone from skinning their knees or hearing "dirty" words until they're 18 then see how "productive" or mature they'll be at 22.

solved all other problems, I see? (2, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#32396906)

So I guess they solved all of the other societal and economic problems in South Africa now, that they are considering this porn ban.

I don't know of any other single thing that can rile up the masses as much as this nonsense, this including killing of kittens and puppies and eating little babies with some tomato sauce. Well maybe not the masses, but I sure would be quite irritated.

Re:solved all other problems, I see? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32396988)

They're going to ban societal and economic problems in near future.

Re:solved all other problems, I see? (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397130)

and eating little babies with some tomato sauce

That's absurd. Everybody knows that babies go better with a white wine sauce. Red sauce just overpowers the flavor of the meat.

Re:solved all other problems, I see? (3, Funny)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397194)

Everybody knows that babies go better with a white wine sauce. Red sauce just overpowers the flavor of the meat.

Ha! Another Neo-colonialist trying to impose their western tastes on the downtrodden victims of imperialism!

Re:solved all other problems, I see? (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397212)

babies with white wine sauce? You elitist bastard!

Re:solved all other problems, I see? (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397584)

So I guess they solved all of the other societal and economic problems in South Africa now, that they are considering this porn ban.

See, that's just it. Since the dismantling of Apartheid, South Africa has made such progress on human rights and social justice (still far from perfect, but way better than it used to be) that they have to take measures like this to try to fsck the place up again.

Why not? (4, Insightful)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 4 years ago | (#32396930)

Once you've climbed the hill past every other questionable component of human behavior, why not ban porn? You're past racism and oppression and outright murder of whatever race isn't the one in power. And starvation. And everyone has enough water. And you can grow all the food you need. And you haven't sold everything under the ground to companies that will burn everything above making room to dig.

No one is actively raping and pillaging their neighbors. People's homes aren't being burned with government approval. You won't be murdered and your gold teeth pried out if you ride a Kombi outside Johannesburg. Not everyone you meet has aids and does nothing to prevent its spread.

So yeah why not tackle porn?

Re:Why not? (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397128)

Not everyone you meet has aids and does nothing to prevent its spread.

So yeah why not tackle porn?

It's the catholic solution. No porn = no dirty thoughts = abstinence and monogamy = no AIDS problem. No points for finding flaws in that logic, even WoW or slashdot would be more effective.

Exactly (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32397262)

Exactly - just give everyone a state-subsidised WoW subscription, bingo.

Re:Why not? (3, Funny)

Znork (31774) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397454)

It's the catholic solution.

A Catholic solution? Won't somebody (apart from the priests) think of the children?!?

Re:Why not? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397694)

It sounds similar to California......we have a big problem that is so obviously a problem, and yet the legislature seems to want to ignore it, it's too scary.

Of course the problems in S Africa are much worse

In unrelated news... (2, Funny)

that IT girl (864406) | more than 4 years ago | (#32396932)

...a mass exodus of the male population of South Africa is beginning to occur.

Re:In unrelated news... (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397012)

...a mass exodus of the male population of South Africa is beginning to occur.

In a few weeks, probably not before.

Surprisingly honest assessment (1)

Dragoniz3r (992309) | more than 4 years ago | (#32396934)

The summary tries to drum up angst about the title of the bill, but when you think about it for a couple seconds, it becomes evident that it's actually just the most honest bill title you'll ever see. I'm not saying anything about whether their "reasonable and justifiable" limitations are reasonable and justifiable in my opinion. Clearly they are in their opinion however, and they have entitled their bill thusly. Here in the USA, if this same bill was attempted, it'd probably have a cryptic title with lots of numbers in it that don't tell you anything about what it does/says/means. At least this bill TELLS you that it's fucking with your freedoms.

So Bravo, I say, to whoever penned the title to this bill. Good to see a government not hiding behind the curtains of obfuscation.

PS: Let's not forget that there're more than a couple bills in whatever land you're hailing from that likely could be titled similarly, because when it gets right down to it, some limitation of "freedom of expression" is needed. We just tend to call them murder laws instead, but there's no reason why they have to be called that.

Re:Surprisingly honest assessment (1)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397036)

In the US, it would be named the "Save the Children" bill, or be given some stupid acronym like "the CHARGE (Chidren Have A Right to Gain Equally) Act," even though the acronym had little to do with the bill's content and didn't even make sense, really. No senator could be seen to vote against the "Save the Children" bill, so it would pass after lots of pork got tucked in between its pages.

Re:Surprisingly honest assessment (1)

elewton (1743958) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397286)

The US generally goes for irony in naming its laws. Genital Preservation Act? Anti Salaried Sex-Slave Legislation?

Re:Surprisingly honest assessment (1)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397786)

so it would pass after lots of pork got tucked in between its pages.

hahahaha

Yeah, cuz that'll work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32396978)

Rape is illegal in South Africa too and those obscene statistics [guardian.co.uk] can speak for themselves. Perhaps porn shouldn't be the priority here?

Re:Yeah, cuz that'll work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32397008)

Andrea Dworkin published a peer-reviewed paper stating there's incontrovertible evidence that rape causes pornography and pornography causes rape. Surely those rapists are overwhelmed with pornography in their daily lives, downloading it on their iPads, sexting each other, amassing enormous collections of porn on DVD among other deviations.

So porn equals immoral? (1)

AffidavitDonda (1736752) | more than 4 years ago | (#32396992)

That's something that could be questioned. But of course not, if your organization includes "churches". Sex (as long as all participants are of full age and voluntary) is only immoral in the eyes of religious fanatics. Porn equals pictures and movies of sex, So you can apply the rule here too. It's not a matter of "moral" but of a certain belief system.

More car analolgies (4, Insightful)

camg188 (932324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32396994)

Using a car analogy, Mr. Gigaba said: 'Cars are already provided with brakes and seatbelts... There is no reason why the internet should be provided without the necessary restrictive mechanisms built into it.'

Cars come with steering wheels that let me go where ever I want, even if it is an off road adventure in some nasty, sticky muck.

Cars come with radiator caps so if too much pressure builds up, the hot fluids are released into an overflow tank.

Re:More car analolgies (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397238)

Cars are where most teenagers experience their first sexual adventures.

Cars come with radiator caps so if too much pressure builds up, the hot fluids are released into an overflow tank.

Finbarr Saunders (and his double entendres) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finbarr_Saunders [wikipedia.org] : "Fnarr! Fnarr!", "Warf! Warf!", "Tsssk Tsssk", "Chortle Chortle" and "K-Woo! K-Woo!"

Re:More car analolgies (1)

Larryish (1215510) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397426)

You should SOOOO register sexyradiatorcaps.com

Re:More car analolgies (1)

nextekcarl (1402899) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397634)

That's a good point. My cable modem already comes with brakes for the internet. There's this blue bottom on top that puts the modem into standby. If I 'accidentally' run into some porn, I can always hit that to prevent my sensitive eyes from seeing too much. So that's all they need in SA if they want 'brakes for the internet'. Works for the whole house, too. And there's a reason it sits on my desk and not my wife's. ;^)

Best car analogy ever?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32397796)

This dance song [metrolyrics.com] has the best car analogy ever in it.

True story!

I'm with them... (2)

Kikuchi (1709032) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397020)

... because nothing wrong ever rises from people who are "committed to upholding and fighting for justice and the highest moral standards". They obviously know what is better for everyone, moral value being an objective one. I cant' wait until a representative of my country begins thinking "Hey, they're doing it, why wouldn't we?".

I guess they want to increase their birth rate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32397052)

Less porn means more obstacles for people who want to pleasure themselves. Which in turn will lead to more people having sex, some of which will be unprotected (quite a good proportion actually. Unless I'm mistaken, they are not that big on contraception)... which will lead to more births in the long run.
Sounds like a plan... way to go SA.

Arrogance! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32397056)

I realize that it's quite hard (har har) to avoid porn completely on the web, mainly because a) there's so much that could be considered 'porn,' depending on your definition; and b) most folks don't have a problem with it, so it's pretty freely available.

But should I therefore propose limiting EVERYONE'S access to pornography because I have a problem with porn? Just because their group is called the "Justice League of South Africa" or whatever it is, doesn't mean they have the right to speak for every person who lives there.

captcha: neighbor

Brilliant plan (1)

slasho81 (455509) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397124)

Block porn in the most sexually abusive country in the world [wikipedia.org] . What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Brilliant plan (1)

dogmatixpsych (786818) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397228)

Let me just put forth a hypothesis: What if porn consumption is a significant factor in sexual abuse (i.e., the viewing of porn leads to an increase in sexual abuse)?

I'm not saying this is the case but it is possible. Anyone have research data either for or against this hypothesis?

Re:Brilliant plan (3, Informative)

unkiereamus (1061340) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397582)

I'm not saying this is the case but it is possible. Anyone have research data either for or against this hypothesis?

Here [hawaii.edu] you go.

Quite extensive, so I'll just pull a paragraph for you:

Within Japan itself, the dramatic increase in available pornography and sexually explicit materials is apparent to even a casual observer. This is concomitant with a general liberalization of restrictions on other sexual outlets as well. Also readily apparent from the information presented is that, over this period of change, sex crimes in every category, from rape to public indecency, sexual offenses from both ends of the criminal spectrum, significantly decreased in incidence.

Now obviously, this discussion is solely of Japan, which has a number of other factors going on that should be considered before trying to extrapolate, but frankly, I don't care about and am too lazy to look for any more data. If you're really interested, this study cites a few other studies which apparently had similar results.

Free Speech is Either Free or it Isn't (1)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397136)

While I am sure that these corporations, individuals and churches mean well, the problem comes when one tries to actually write laws that only limit the "wrong" sorts of speech. As Justice Potter Stewart once famously said, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it". If a law is worded strongly enough to limit "pornography" then it can probably be used to limit other types of speech as well; speech which the original authors perhaps didn't intend to limit, but have silenced all the same. I hope that these South Africans would consider carefully how this sort of law might be used by future authorities. What if their intentions in using the "anti-speech" law are not as noble as the current authors? IMHO, the bar for restricting speech should be very high and narrow indeed and if that means that we have to put up with "Internet porn" to have truly free speech then I would call that a bargain.

Re:Free Speech is Either Free or it Isn't (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397558)

Their intentions are irrelevant. The government has no business banning porn, period. It is reasonable to limit access of minors to porn, or to ensure porn models are of age and participate voluntarily. And most countries have reasonably effective laws to accomplish that. To use a (bad) car analogy, banning porn to prevent abuse and exploitation is like banning cars to prevent driveby shootings.

About the morality issue I have two words for political and religious leaders who seek to ban porn or other activities that are victimless and harmless: "fuck off". Seriously. And do not presume to take responsibility for my soul, or my mental well being. They are in very good hands thanks. If anyone is going to answer for any transgressions I might have committed, it'll be me.

Re:Free Speech is Either Free or it Isn't (4, Insightful)

Reziac (43301) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397688)

"It is reasonable to limit access of minors to porn"

I'd rephrase that as "It is reasonable FOR PARENTS to limit access of minors to porn". No need to involve the government or gov't censors.

Otherwise -- at what point does gov't interference in parenting stop?? Tho from the info quoted in this post, http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1669582&cid=32397048 [slashdot.org] , it appears that in S.A. gov't interference is allowed to go as far as it sees fit.

Outrageous.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32397138)

That is the most retarded analogy I have ever heard. Porn doesn't kill innocent people, cars without seatbelts and brakes do. That kind of ignorance really annoys me, no one is that stupid. Which leads me to believe there is a greater purpose for this outrageous situation.

Good priority (1)

asifyoucare (302582) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397164)

It's not like SAF has more pressing concerns ....

Like AIDS, crime, or even keeping the fucking lights on.

Maybe they should be addressing POVERTY and SAFETY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32397168)

I've been to south africa and let me tell you, if I can't walk the streets alone then you have serious problems. I was in Cape Town, a shining star of the country but I still could not walk safely on a Sunday afternoon! I had bags stolen from me and my personal safety threatened multiple times. I don't think banning pornography is the way to handle SA's problems. Deal with what's important: POVERTY and PERSONAL SECURITY.

Why does the middle class all live behind huge fences and pay big $$$ for private security?

The economic crimes of apartheid need to be addressed and this is just a waste of time.

Re:Maybe they should be addressing POVERTY and SAF (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32397422)

Why does the middle class all live behind huge fences and pay big $$$ for private security?

because if they dont pay security big money then the local gangs will
i asked a customer of mine why he moved out of the country, he said he was fed up of waking up worried that his own security was going to rob him (apparently its common)

the wealth disparity is massive in SA and the poor are desperate, uneducated, angry and lazy

when a man has nothing to lose he has everything to gain

Good luck! (1)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397190)

They'll need it!

Rape Capital of the World (4, Informative)

Iyonesco (1482555) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397216)

South Africa is the rape capital of the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#South_Africa [wikipedia.org]

Why are the more worried about porn than actual crimes? Any logical person can see that banning porn would likely make the rape situation even worse. I'm glad to see they've got their priorities straight.

The whole world seems to be in a state of insanity regarding porn at the moment. We've got the Australia's small breast ban and cartoon laws, Canada's Cartoon laws, the UK's Extreme Pornography laws, the US's Obscenity Laws and Agnes Chan leading the lunacy in Japan. Could I ask these moral crusaders to kindly fuck off.

Re:Rape Capital of the World (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32397312)

South Africa is also the violent crime capital of the world. The brutality of SA crime will make you vomit. Even babies and old women are targets. Unsurprisingly, most crime is committed by blacks. Killing is a happy pastime, with the government looking the other way.

Whites in particular are a soft target. The cunts in government have already tried to disarm the whites. I'm sure they'll try again.

Black South Africa failed.... (5, Interesting)

Simonetta (207550) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397226)

Sure, apartheid was evil and cruel. Yeah, we all cheered when Nelson Mandela was elected President. They had our hopes, investments, and prayers. We all waved our plastic lighters when Paul Simon brought all those beautiful black Zulu singers on stage in the Graceland tour. We all believed.

    Then we woke up. We found that South Africa has become the rape capital of the world. We found that most people there are superstitious and ignorant, and violent. Where most people still believe that drinking the blood of 13-year-old virgin cures AIDS. (It doesn't, guys, just in case you were wondering) Where the few remaining whites running productive farms in the countryside are hunted down, tortured, and murdered by the new South African police that just look the other way and call it justice. Where most international investments are skimmed by corrupt and incompetent government officials. Where no blacks outside of the government are better off than they were under apartheid. Where the whites have reestablished semi-segregated quasi-homelands with their own police and self-defense forces that mirror apartheid. Where nobody in their right mind is going to spend thousands of dollars to fly to this dangerous and remote part of the world just to watch a soccer game.

    Africa is a giant mess. A half-assed collection of 'daylight democracies' and nighttime tribal savageries. South Africa is no different. And how do they deal with their problems.

    Banning internet porn. Fucking buffoons. Bring back the Boers.

Re:Black South Africa failed.... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32397374)

The Boers are still here, simply trying to survive. We also drank the cool-aid, believed, were and are fucked. Hard.

The whites (and blacks, mind you) that can afford it live behind electric fencing or gated communities. These are not apartheid mirrors, as you imply, they are simply frightened white communities trying to fucking survive, not be murdered, raped, tortured, robbed, abused by blacks.

You know what's ironic? These are the same whites who voted Yes in the referendum to change the country's future, free Mandela, and try and start again.

I voted Yes. I now have children who's future is uncertain. I decided a long time ago not to emigrate like so many of my peers, but I now *must* for my children.

Re:Black South Africa failed.... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32397706)

My dad worked in Botswana for a couple of years and they sometimes had to go into SA for supplies. He's a pretty hard left democrat who was forced out of the Navy after 10 years) because he stuck up for a guy who he believed was bing railroaded because he was black. So he is about as far from racist as you can get, and he said there are intersections in SA where whites don't have to stop. Being confused, I asked why, thinking it was some sort of racial law. He informed me because if you stop, you will be killed. For being white, nothing more. Too many people there just don't care. This was over 10 years ago, but it doesn't sound like things have gotten any better.

Car analogy... a must (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32397274)

The problem is that the car analogy is ALWAYS badly flawed !

I get an impressive number of customers that started to compare my softwares with their cars (ie it works when I start it, and ..., and ..., and), only to realize that they need to service it, that they spend a lot of money putting gazoline in it and so on.

However, I did not get such a biaised opinion as Mr Malusi Gigaba.

Nice start for a new nation. If needed, Mr Malusi Gigaba should consider to submit his resume to China. He will be welcome.

Learned well from us... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32397292)

I see they have learned well from the United Corporations and Churches of Amercia [U.C.C.A.]
where the real product is the stock
and the true customer is the stock holder
in god we trust all others pay loan shark interest.

So they are now the U.C.C.S.A. [United Churches and Corporations of South America]

Notice here churches are first over corps as the UCCA has Imaginary Property rights on Corporate power over churches.

If porn gets banned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32397306)

rapes with inevitably go up.

Ulterior Motive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32397362)

That's one way to make sure no one sees that "student" film you made in college.

Just depends... (1)

Rallias Ubernerd (1760460) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397456)

What exactly is there definition of porn? As long as it excludes bikini model pictures, i'm happy.

But seriously. Many people in the country probabily look at porn on a daily basis. In America, it is considered freedom of press to publish any photo you wish to whatever audience you want (other than the so-called "undeveloped" minors of the nation, which I feel is unconstitutional to keep certain rights from, but I may be biased), and freedom of accociation to view these images as long as you follow the rules the publisher sets down. No harm is truly done. Only studies that show it is addictive cause issues with congressmen.

And it is well known that there is always good free porn in the world, you just have to look for it. Google Images with safe search turned off is a good starting point. Just make sure to keep it in something like coLinux, Mac, or Linux so that you don't get viruses.

Diversion? (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397504)

Shouldn't they be dealing with their crime problem instead? That would actually be useful and not ab attempt to ram "morality standards" down the throats of their citizens. This whole thing reeks of a diversion attempt to cover up their own incompetence when it comes to solving true problems.

Meanwhile in this corner (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32397598)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7509357.stm [bbc.co.uk] - "Plans to legalise prostitution for the 2010 football World Cup in South Africa have been criticised by religious groups and opposition parties."

FRIST XSTOP (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32397656)

Laws and Morals (1)

Nall-ohki (55577) | more than 4 years ago | (#32397690)

Are separate things. Don't confuse the two, or you end up with the following annoying conversation:

"You got your laws in my morals!"
"You got your morals in my laws!"

Self solving problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32397782)

WIth all the disease and murder in South Africa, it seems strange to me how there is still even a population there. You'd think it would be a problem that solves itself. They're so god damned stupid down there that they keep killing themselves, hopefully soon there wont be any left.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?