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!

Egypt Banned Porn, But How Much of the Internet Is That?

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the phrase-your-answer-in-fluid-ounces dept.

Censorship 316

pigrabbitbear writes "The recent web pornography ban in Egypt has raised questions about the evils of censorship (and porn) and the changing tide of popular attitude of Egyptians. It perhaps reflects the emerging influence of more conservative Muslim elements in government, a shift. Apparently the same ban was passed 3 years ago but was not enforced because their filtering system was not effective. But porn bans are nothing new. Other countries with strict censorship laws like China and Saudi Arabia have successfully implemented bans that restrict pornography along with anything else they deem inappropriate for public viewing. In 2010 the UK discussed a ban that would require users to specifically request access to pornographic material from their internet service providers. And porn-banning rhetoric has even stomped through the U.S. news media over the last few months, thanks to GOP also-ran Rick Santorum claiming President Obama is failing to enforce pornography laws. (There have also been some awesomely ridiculous pornography PSAs.)"

cancel ×

316 comments

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

Bigger problems in the world than... (2)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 2 years ago | (#39589841)

.. OMG, the evils of having sex for recreation, entertainment!

Re:Bigger problems in the world than... (5, Insightful)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590069)

Ban Porn, but it's OK to beat your wife!

Re:Bigger problems in the world than... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590357)

Shouldn't that be insightful? Especially with the muslim brotherhood now running for the top office, and believed to have 43% of the vote in the bag already.

Re:Bigger problems in the world than... (0)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590771)

Oh, I'm sure there will be wife beater video websites. Islamists around the world will share, rate, and subscribe to them. Also they will act as instructional tutorial videos. To them that's porn. Sick bastards!

Re:Bigger problems in the world than... (5, Funny)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590537)

.. OMG, the evils of having sex for recreation, entertainment!

But the people watching internet porn aren't having any sex at all.

Just wait... (1)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 2 years ago | (#39589845)

After a year of bitching about it, Egypt realises they can still get it without too much hard work, and are getting a bunch more done these days. Plus, real naked people rock!

Please (4, Funny)

jeesis (2494876) | more than 2 years ago | (#39589849)

Think of the consenting adults!

I don't get it (5, Insightful)

XPeter (1429763) | more than 2 years ago | (#39589911)

Violence plastered all over the media is okay, but God forbid little Hazem sees a tit.

Re:I don't get it (2)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590015)

All over the media? How about all over your street/neighbourhood? I'm sure the recent Egyptian unrest did not happen only during hours when little Hazem was supposed to be in bed.

Re:I don't get it (-1, Redundant)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590061)

This.

Disagree (3, Interesting)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39589929)

Having been married for plenty of years, I've concluded that pornography can actually quite harmful to some marriages if not most marriages.

You might argue that the government shouldn't censor pornography. But there's a big leap from that libertarian viewpoint, to implying that porn is generally harmless. Which is the underlying sentiment I took away from the line, "(There have also been some awesomely ridiculous pornography PSAs.)"

Re:Disagree (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39589955)

The Libertarian viewpoint is that, even if some people consider it harmful, people should still have the right to view it. There's a leap from "we think this is bad for your marriage" to "so we won't let you see it" that you're ignoring.

Re:Disagree (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590013)

The Libertarian viewpoint is that, even if some people consider it harmful, people should still have the right to view it. There's a leap from "we think this is bad for your marriage" to "so we won't let you see it" that you're ignoring.

He isn't saying porn should be banned, he's just saying porn can be harmful.

Re:Disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590075)

My mistake.

Re:Disagree (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590253)

You are confusing Libertarianism with Anarchism.

Re:Disagree (1)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590769)

I don't think he is.

Re:Disagree (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590363)

Same with marijuana and alcohol. Even though I personally think both are destructive, I'd never ban these products. I would have opposed Prohibition in the 1920s, and I oppose it now too. (Besides it's unconstitutional - Congress does not have the authority to ban natural things.)

Re:Disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590465)

(Besides it's unconstitutional - Congress does not have the authority to ban natural things.)

Unless they, y'know, pass an amendment. Which in the 1920's, they did [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590779)

amendments are unconstitutional! fuck the bill of rights to hell!

Oh, and on-topic, that kid fingering the mac mouse was funny. i thought it was an ad for that old lamp shaped iMac at first.

Re:Disagree (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590539)

The Libertarian viewpoint is that, even if some people consider it harmful, people should still have the right to view it.

No; the Libertarian point of view is that so long as one person's actions do not harm another, what fucking business is it of yours what they do?

Re:Disagree (2)

kryliss (72493) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590595)

Censorship is telling a man that he can't eat a steak because a baby can't chew it.

Re:Disagree (2)

zlives (2009072) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590759)

no body is stopping hiim from eating the steak... he just can't watch it on his computer

Re:Disagree (2)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#39589987)

It takes away our freedom of choice. Without that, whats the point in living, might as well be an animal in a cage.

Re:Disagree (2)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590025)

I'm not arguing that it should pornography should be legislated away. I'm just arguing that someone is no fool for avoiding it, especially if married.

Re:Disagree (2)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590571)

I'm arguing only the fool is married when there is pornography around.

But seriously I know a married couple that enjoys pornography together and actually thinks it enhances their marriage. But I suppose their point of view will be swept under the carpet. When I was married pornography helped my marriage by giving me an alternative to cheating when the wife was out of town. I don't see what the big "evil" here is. It is like alcohol - if you are addicted don't partake. if you aren't there shouldn't be a problem. But banning it for everyone because some may have a problem with it is a terrible solution.

Re:Disagree (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590681)

I think you may have missed my point. Never once in this thread have I argued that porn should be banned, or that there were no marriages for which is helped.

Re:Disagree (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590001)

What in the world makes you think it would harm a marriage or even most marriages?

Unless you mean staring in it, that I guess could.

Re:Disagree (4, Insightful)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590029)

Lots of couples actually watch Porn together, to get them in the mood. Nothing wrong with that, right?

Re:Disagree (2)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590107)

[citation needed]

Re:Disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590351)

The r/sex/ community on reddit seems very big on couples watching porn together. There is your citation.

Re:Disagree (1)

wwbbs (60205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590535)

Citation Provided. I have three subscribed channels on Shaw Direct. I know My wifes in the mood when she is tuned to those channels.

Re:Disagree (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590265)

Lots of couples actually watch Porn together, to get them in the mood. Nothing wrong with that, right?

Not finding your partner interesting enough to get "in the mood" just with them seems like a problem to me.

Re:Disagree (1)

wwbbs (60205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590589)

Well some people have fetishes Voyeurism just happens to be one several people enjoy. Also it is not used exclusively to get in the mood perhaps your looking for a new position Books are good but video is better when learning a new Kama Sutra position.

Re:Disagree (3, Insightful)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590685)

Being so shallow you would find fantasy the equivalent of "I'm not enough to turn you on" seems like it would be an even bigger problem to me. Or are you one of those people who when in a relationship has to lie (to yourself and your partner) by claiming "I never even think of anyone else" becasue somehow you think having an imagination is the same as physically cheating?

Re:Disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590083)

It can cause unrealistic expectations and/or jealousy.

The obvious example is the man who loses interest in sex with his wife because porn stars are hotter. Or the house-wife who spends her days on her webcam.

Re:Disagree (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590217)

If watching porn borks a marriage, that marriage was boned regardless. Not seeing any porn won't keep you from realizing that there are hotter women out there. Not seeing porn won't form the connection being sought through a webcam.

Marriages based on looks are doomed. Marriages without a connection between the spouses are .. not even marriages, except on paper.

Re:Disagree (5, Interesting)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590443)

My wife is a sociologist and cultural anthropologist (double major, though closely related). Her anthro dissertation was on educational systems impact on child development both within the US and in the world in general (in many ways the village raising the child as seen in tribal communities in the Amazon and Africa does better at teaching children than the US system).
Her soc. paper was focused on the sex trade.

A couple interesting points come out of this: my children are less exposed to violence than sexuality (not to say they watch graphic movies, they are 6 and 8, but questions about gender are not danced around at all). My wife and I talk a lot about what the other finds attractive in a stranger/movie star (of either gender) && each other (though we specifically do not talk about friends this way, even if they have traits in common with those we discuss), and we have the open offer to each other to talk about the chance of an affair prior to one ever happening.

The point I'm trying to get at, porn will not damage a marriage nearly as badly as poor communication. It may not be a net positive for all marriages (though I think there are more [couples] than people think who indulge together), it should not be all that toxic to a well grounded marriage either.
-nB

Re:Disagree (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590219)

The latter is the staring in it I mentioned. Who would lose interest in actual sex vs touching yourself. No matter how hot the video it can't compare to sex with even the most hideous wife. You can turn the lights out in that case.

Re:Disagree (1, Funny)

HBI (604924) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590345)

I dunno, I remember some situations where self-pleasure would have been heaven next to the alternative. Tooth rake and the lupus chick with the oily skin come to immediate mind.

Re:Disagree (0)

i kan reed (749298) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590047)

I love how you give us your personal conclusions instead of the evidence that lead to those conclusions. Thanks for that, it's so helpful and meaningful to the discussion.

Re:Disagree (5, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590097)

So are cars (accidents create widows), jobs (long hours == annoyed wife), lack of jobs (husband annoyed because he thinks nonworking wife is lazy), children (lack of sex), TV (one spouse feels ignored), internet (ditto), books (ditto), gambling (wastes money), stores (spouse blows thousands of dollars).

Maybe we should just ban EVERYTHING that harms marriages.

Or we could take the more logical course and say, "With great freedom comes great responsibility. The government will not protect you from your own bad choices in life. You work too much, spend too much, have car wrecks, or view too much porn, youtube, TV, and your marriage fails. That's your own dumb fault." i.e. The path that was originally laid out for us in 1789.

Re:Disagree (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590213)

But that would mean that people are responsible for their own actions and that bad things can happen to them if they make poor decisions. People want to be able to blame others when they do something stupid. If they can't make it someone else's fault what are they going to do?

Re:Disagree (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590487)

Okay, but you realize I'm not saying it it should be banned, right?

Re:Disagree (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590113)

Plus there is evidence that prolonged pron use plus chronic masturbation can cause erectile dysfunction regardless of age. Just look it up.

Re:Disagree (1)

BanHammor (2587175) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590291)

Can this AC prove it, please?

Re:Disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590349)

It's true. Also, I am completely blind now and have to shave my palms every other day.

Re:Disagree (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590727)

As an avid and pensioned master-baiter, i can solemnly state that chronic self-service has had no ill effect on the woodiness of my snake trouser!

Re:Disagree (2)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590117)

Having been married for plenty of years, I've concluded that pornography can actually quite harmful to some marriages if not most marriages.

So can video games, interest in science fiction, political conviction, religion, lack of religion, overeating, eating (or not eating) the wrong things, etc., etc. Should we legislate all those as well? Or put out PSAs to try to drive people away from those things?

Re:Disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590231)

Having been married for plenty of years, I've concluded that pornography can actually quite harmful to some marriages if not most marriages.

Or put out PSAs to try to drive people away from those things?

I don't know about you, but I'd consider political ads to be PSAs against any given political conviction, churches to be PSAs against lack of religion, atheist blowhards to be PSAs against religion, billboards and ads by health food nuts to be PSAs against eating the wrong things, billboards and ads by fast food giants to be PSAs against not eating the wrong things, etc...

So, no, we shouldn't legislate those as well. We're doing perfectly fine dictating other people's opinions, and we can do it with a blatant self-interested bias, too!

Re:Disagree (3, Informative)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590241)

I believe you missed my point. I was not arguing at all that porn should be outlawed.

I was arguing against an tacit attitude I was picking up from the post, which is that it's silly to avoid porn.

Re:Disagree (1)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590379)

Saying the PSAs are "awesomely ridiculous" is not the same as saying that it's silly to avoid porn. PSAs are awesomely ridiculous more often than not, even when they're arguing against things that most sane people would avoid, like random violence or heroin addiction.

Re:Disagree (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590521)

I agree. I was making an inference. The post was clearly against the banning of porn. And the only other point it made was that some PSA's against porn are ridiculous.

So with a conspicuous silence about whether or not porn actually can be harmful (which is the underlying assumption both in banning and in those PSA's), I figured I'd put in my 2 cents.

Re:Disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590123)

Having been married for plenty of years, I've concluded that pornography can actually quite harmful to some marriages if not most marriages.

You might argue that the government shouldn't censor pornography. But there's a big leap from that libertarian viewpoint, to implying that porn is generally harmless. Which is the underlying sentiment I took away from the line, "(There have also been some awesomely ridiculous pornography PSAs.)"

then don't fucking watch it, i hate people that make the statement that because something is harmful to something/someone that it is obliviously the same for everything/everyone else, you have the freedom NOT to watch it, what kind of choice in a free society COULD BE BETTER? And i'm certain that there are marriages that have survived the "infectious evil" of watching porn.

Re:Disagree (4, Insightful)

uncanny (954868) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590147)

Ever heard the term "correlation not causation"?

maybe the marriages already had problems, porn was just used as a scapegoat because it was there. Wife doesn't want to put out? well, the computer will. Then the wife gets pissy. hmmmm

Re:Disagree (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590549)

Yes. But your point seems to be that because correlation is causation, we should never make any inferences in life that presume causation. If so, have fun with that.

Fuck you. I love my wife. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590185)

Having been married for plenty of years, I've concluded that pornography can actually quite harmful to some marriages if not most marriages

Porn showed me how to eat out my my wife.

How to masturbate her.

And that she has sexual feelings.

Catholic Sunday school taught me that she is evil.

I'm still married after dozens of years.

Porn showed me that my wife can be exiting after she gets old and fat.

Fuck you.

Re:Fuck you. I love my wife. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590701)

Sounds more like "sex ed" than porn.

You couldn't have asked her to teach you those things?

Re:Disagree (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590235)

But would not that be a personal and cultural thing, and not an absolute. It is only bad for the marriage becasue one or more of the married parties think it is inherently bad to begin with.
Or have you see married couples who both like porn and honestly like watching it together, but their marriage still fell apart because of this watching of porn?

Re:Disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590283)

I would like to propose that it damages marriages where couples are actually in a committed, working, familial relationship (which may be rare, in and out of marriage.) I.e. the relationships that keep society stable.

While I only have several real-world personal experiences, regarding young couples that I know, instead of real data - in each case the husband was addicted to it and lost the trust and confidence of his wife and children. The wife could never live up the physical 'perfection' the pornography offered or any ideal the husband now had of women. The self-gratification involved self-isolated the husband to the point of disregarding his family. The children had no father.

I believe people should always have the choice. But I would hope people would choose other people above themselves.

Re:Disagree (1)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590601)

instead of real data

Yeah, okay.

I suspect this might be a problem of already flawed marriages and of people who can't separate fantasy from reality, but that is all.

And perhaps even personal preferences.

Re:Disagree (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590331)

One partner or the other withholding sex and other forms of intimacy is probably a thousand times more damaging to marriages than porno.

Re:Disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590373)

You have a choice. You can choose to watch porn or not watch porn. Just because it does not work for your marriage or don't enjoy seeing porn or wanting to see porn does not mean you have the right to ban other people from seeing. Porn really is harmless, and if you find it harmful or offensive don't watch it. I don't like Bill Maher and I choose not to watch or listen to him.

Re:Disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590413)

Having been married for many years I've concluded that pornography can actually be helpful to some marriages. I think the implication that porn is harmful to most marriages is outright wrong but I agree that it can be harmful. For the most part my gut says porn generally doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. If porn becomes a problem in the marriage there's likely other issues at play that are the real problem and the porn is just a scapegoat/symptom of these deeper issues.

As for my marriage, porn has had no real net positive or negative effect on it.

Re:Disagree (1)

wwbbs (60205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590479)

Well not sure what type of porn you watch with or without your wife. I must disagree with your Observation(s) unless of course you can site some proof? However I would suggest the type of porn you watch may not be conducive to healthy sex life. eg, if your wife is pushing 50-55 don;t watch something like "XXX Teen Tail" (hopefully fake name) as it may make her feel old.

That's fine for you. (4, Insightful)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590649)

If porn harms your marriage? Install local filters are your computer.
It's not the government's job to babysit your marriage.

Re:Disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590751)

Blaming porn for insecurities in a marriage seems like using poor Jenna Haze as a scapegoat.

How much of the Internet is porn? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39589983)

All of it. People are just more commonly into certain things than others.

Re:How much of the Internet is porn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590641)

All of it. People are just more commonly into certain things than others.

It's what the Internet [youtube.com] is all about.

Incorrect citation on the summary (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39589995)

Not to do with the Egypt ban but the summary states that Santorum has as a policy pledge to Ban pornography. The proper context is that he was the Santorum: "Believes that federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforce" Refering of course to current laws already in the books. This is not a ban: http://www.snopes.com/politics/santorum/taliban.asp

Re:Incorrect citation on the summary (4, Informative)

DanTheStone (1212500) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590129)

According to your Snopes link he claims that hardcore pornography is obscenity and he will have obscenity laws used against it. That sounds like a ban to me.

Re:Incorrect citation on the summary (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590459)

Congress shall make no law limiting the freedom of speech, or of the press..... Frothy Santorum can say whatever he wants, but he is not above the Supreme Law of the land.

Does slashdot have editors? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590005)

"thanks to GOP also-ran Rick Santorum claiming President Obama is failing to enforce pornography laws."

Not looking to ban porn... (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590051)

But it's harmful to marriages, sinful to all and not what God wants for you. This isn't about civil liberties - if you must, go watch, I'm not looking to stop you, but I do want you to know that Jesus loves you and has better things in mind for you.

Re:Not looking to ban porn... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590101)

If God really doesn't want us to watch porn, surely he would enable his servants to do a better job of explaining logically why it's harmful or wrong? The fact that you consistently do so poorly suggests that he's not really in your corner.

Re:Not looking to ban porn... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590149)

But it's harmful to marriages, sinful to all and not what God wants for you. This isn't about civil liberties - if you must, go watch, I'm not looking to stop you, but I do want you to know that Jesus loves you and has better things in mind for you.

That post may be agreed with, or disagreed with... but it's certainly not "Flamebait".

Re:Not looking to ban porn... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590259)

Like war?
How about genocide?
How about plagues?

Let me know which bible verses these are from.

Re:Not looking to ban porn... (1)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590643)

My magical sky daddy promotes porn! Yours has got nothing on mine!

Governments do it wrong... (4, Interesting)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590067)

Honestly, if I wanted to do stuff like this, I wouldn't ban porn. I would just ban the anti-government stuff. So similar to China and such, but without blocking porn. Or gambling. Or other sites holding vices that society might not approve.

Keep the general public amused with crap like that and they won't bother looking up anti-government information because they'd be too busy with Facebook and YouTube to care.

Make it appear free and people won't test the boundaries. Sure make it illegal, but just turn a blind eye and you'll find the vast majority of the population won't be trying to bypass the filter because there isn't one. All the dissidents now stick out like a sore thumb to be dealt with.

At least, if I ran my own kingdom.,..

Re:Governments do it wrong... (4, Informative)

explosivejared (1186049) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590131)

In places like Saudi Arabia, and increasingly in post-Arab Spring Egypt, power is legitimized through the approval of Islamist clerics. In most of the Gulf states, kings or emirs have the right to rule and don't constantly face "Islamic revolution" because of old agreements between the royal houses and the clerics. Your version of the dictator's calculus doesn't really work in states that blend in elements of theocracy.

Re:Governments do it wrong... (1)

cyfer2000 (548592) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590339)

Porn and gambling are illegal in China.

Re:Governments do it wrong... (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590441)

In this case, it's partly a populist measure - Islamist sentiment is on the rise in Egypt (and other post-"Arab Spring" countries), so banning "vile" things immediately scores you points with the largest and most active electoral group. Remember that those countries are democracies now, even if they're oppressive democracies.

Re:Governments do it wrong... (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590659)

That's how they do it here.

There, a different set of blinders are in use.

awesomely ridiculous... (1)

Janek Kozicki (722688) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590071)

that link isn't working. Either it's a wrong link or I just discovered that mu pipe is censored somehow.

Up next... (3, Funny)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590077)

Egypt's population spikes to unprecedented levels

Much Lower Costs... (4, Funny)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590085)

Egypt Banned Porn, But How Much of the Internet Is That?

Well, let's put it this way.

They can run the entire country on a few dial-up accounts now. Broadband no longer required.

Wait wait wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590165)

I was told by the media that they overthrew their opressive government and were setting up a free democracy... How did we not see this coming? I'm shocked!

China... successfully implemented bans... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590183)

That's too bad that censorship of any portion of the internet is successful. We're supposed to able to work around it, to make censorship impossible. Why isn't that happening? The internet is supposed to help us stamp out all authority over information, and we have failed to make that happen. Where's the P2P that the internet is supposed to be?

Porn and Hookers (3, Insightful)

bobcat7677 (561727) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590263)

Much like hookers, you can outlaw porn all you want but it tends to happen anyway. Too much demand for both.

Hookers are a bad example for what you are arguing (2)

Benfea (1365845) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590401)

Sweden was very successful in reducing the amount of prostitution by implementing a new strategy. They stopped arresting prostitutes, and started aggressively arresting their customers instead. Those found guilty of purchasing sex had their names published. I do not think such a strategy would work very well on consumers of porn.

Re:Hookers are a bad example for what you are argu (2)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590705)

Wow. That sounds as pointless and counterproductive as the war on drugs. What are these people thinking? They could be going after actual criminals. Rhetorical question.

Re:Hookers are a bad example for what you are argu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590707)

Maybe you have different sources, but as far as I know all that is known is that as a result of the law street prostitution went down. There are no concrete numbers on internet-based prostitution and the conclusions of the recent investigation in how well the law works were known even before the author sat down to write it.

Somewhere in Egypt (4, Interesting)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590267)

Right now, some illiterate goat farmer who's practices a medieval, backwards religion is looking at the remains of a nearby ancient Egyptian city and wondering what it must have felt like to be one of the world's most advanced civilizations and what went wrong.

Re:Somewhere in Egypt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590481)

Went wrong? What are you saying? I think things attitudes and social structures are very close to the same level they were then. Nothing really changed at all. Its everyone else that changed. :-)

Goat Porn is popular as ever in Egypt... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39590275)

They don't look at regular porn, which is what is only banned.... but animal sex is just fine.

Priorities! (3, Insightful)

JosephTX (2521572) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590371)

"Mr. President. The world's faced with rising oil costs and falling windpower costs, people in Africa are starving, 1/6 of our country has no access to health care and half don't have adequate access to it, our kids aren't keeping up with the rest of the world in math and science education, businesses are going Big Brother on their employees' facebook profiles, and our Defense Department is spending $700 billion a year with nothing to show for it"

"QUICK! BAN ALL THE PORN!"

Pornography Prevents Bestiality (4, Interesting)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590455)

Pre-internet, estimates ranged that 10% of rural men engaged in bestiality. You know those jokes about farm boys and animals? Not so much jokes as wildly inappropriate insults.

Post-Internet, bestiality vanishes from 10% to almost nothing.

Not that hard to understand - if you live in a small town and are not the handsome jock, you don't have much options for masturbation. The married shmucks outlaw porn, and if you are a teenager/poor you can't get around their laws. The animals start to look not bad.

But give them access to internet and suddenly they no longer want to screw animals.

THE INTERNET IS A HUGE FORCE FOR MORALITY.

The only thing is, moralistic shmucks never knew the disgusting things their neighbors liked before. Know they have become aware of what we do, and blame it on the internet.

No.

Mankind was always a bunch of horny perverts, it's just you were a blind fool before. The internet makes us better people, in part by showing moralistic fools that they are wrong about what most people do.

Obl (2)

Alomex (148003) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590529)

So far not very succesfully:


% lynx http://google.com/ [google.com]

      Google

          Egyptian porn_____________________
      [Google Search] [I'm Feeling Lucky] [Advanced search]

      Web Results 1 - 10 of about 10,200,000 for Egyptian porn.
              (0.53 seconds)

Distance to porn (5, Interesting)

Okian Warrior (537106) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590559)

I once did a Google image search on the most common 1000 words in English and noted the index of the first porn image in that list.

I was interested to see if there was a way to measure how far any word would have to be taken to indicate porn. For example, I would expect "car" to be distant from porn, but "head" to be fairly close.

To my surprise, using Google images as a metric indicated that all common English words were within 15 images of porn.

This was before they switched to the Javascript image results page, and they may have cleaned up their act a bit, but the results were inescapable - much of the net is centered around porn.

Trekkie [wikipedia.org] had it pegged about right [youtube.com] .

I'm confused. (2)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39590743)

I thought that Obama was the secret Muslim, with a Muslim agenda.

But - Muslims are banning porn.

Santorum wants to ban porn.

*gasp* Santorum is a secret Muslim!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>