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!

Finnish Minister Wants To Expand Pornography Censorship

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the nose-under-tent dept.

Censorship 270

New submitter jdela writes "Finnish Minister for Justice Anna-Maja Henriksson backs expanding FInland's child pornography blocklist to also include websites with animal porn and largely-undefined 'violent pornography.' Her proposal does not have the unanimous backing of the Finnish government, with Minister of Interior Päivi Räsänen doubting the need to expand pornography blocks. Under current law, adopted in 2006, the Finnish NBI maintains a blocklist of foreign sites linked to child pornography. This blocklist is enforced on Finnish Internet users."

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

and so it begins... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42820391)

the way to hell is paved with good intentions

Re:and so it begins... (5, Insightful)

JavaBear (9872) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820647)

Exactly.

I really, REALLY hate these cases, because you can't really oppose them without being labelled as a pervert, this is why lawmakers love to bundle their censorship laws with provisions like these.

Outlaw and block child porn. No one in their right mind can find fault in that.
Protect the children, implements blocks to do that.
Outlaw animal porn, it is after all filthy, right?
Outlaw porn altogether.
Outlaw writings about porn.
Outlaw religious satire
Outlaw religious criticism
Outlaw criticism
Outlaw free speech.

All of these have been seen before in various countries, It is a slope lawmakers won't admit, but it is invariably the end result.

Re:and so it begins... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42820821)

Too bad there's no "+1 depressing" - so you got an insightful instead.

Re:and so it begins... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42820849)

I could easily find a fault in outlaw child porn.

For starters, the abuse that comes from it, like people that lose their job and whole their social life because somebody planted child porn on their pcs, which isn't really common, but its not unheard off.

Secondary, children themselves that send pics of them naked to their boyfriend/girlfriend. At the age of 16 or even 14 in many countries they can fuck, but if they send a picture of themselves naked, they are distributing child porn. Its not so much a fault with blocking child porn as their is a fault with the rules made. If you allow sex at 16 but down allow naked pictures of 16 year olds... I mean, legally I could go fuck a 16 year old but I would be a pedophile if I recorded it.

Oh, and lets bring in our friends the RIAA and MPAA, the free distribution of movies devaluates movies and costs the industry several times the BNP of the world each year. Thus if we allow free distribution of child porn, not for profit, we are effectively devaluating the child porn industry, likely bringing them debts of trillions per year, destroying the whole business. At least, that is if the MPAA and RIAA are correct in their analysis, but aint nobody that doubts that.

Re:and so it begins... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42821415)

You must REALLY like child porn to argue that allowing the free distribution of child porn is a great idea.

Re:and so it begins... (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42821885)

I could easily find a fault in outlaw child porn.

For starters, the abuse that comes from it, like people that lose their job and whole their social life because somebody planted child porn on their pcs, which isn't really common, but its not unheard off.

Secondary, children themselves that send pics of them naked to their boyfriend/girlfriend. At the age of 16 or even 14 in many countries they can fuck, but if they send a picture of themselves naked, they are distributing child porn. Its not so much a fault with blocking child porn as their is a fault with the rules made. If you allow sex at 16 but down allow naked pictures of 16 year olds... I mean, legally I could go fuck a 16 year old but I would be a pedophile if I recorded it.

Oh, and lets bring in our friends the RIAA and MPAA, the free distribution of movies devaluates movies and costs the industry several times the BNP of the world each year. Thus if we allow free distribution of child porn, not for profit, we are effectively devaluating the child porn industry, likely bringing them debts of trillions per year, destroying the whole business. At least, that is if the MPAA and RIAA are correct in their analysis, but aint nobody that doubts that.

So tighten up the law that currently allows screwing 14 year old kids. Problem solved, right?

Re:and so it begins... (3, Insightful)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about a year and a half ago | (#42821033)

Agreed.

Only cowards use censorship.

Re:and so it begins... (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820889)

But the express subway to hell is bad intentions. Or maybe the rails are the bad intentions...

I'm bad with analogies and metaphors. My point is that greed, ACTA, big content, that will infringe on your rights much more substantially and more rapidly than this will. Fight both of course, but I hate that saying basically. Seems like many people on the internet view hypocrisy as the worst thing ever, that people on moral crusades like this are the worst of the worst, and the saying fits into that. I always have found the RIAA/MPAA etc much more loathsome than anyone who actually thinks they need to clean up society. Both are scum, but the moral crusaders are usually too deluded to do much damage to my rights.

Again, both need to be countered of course. Sorry for the tangent.

Bad Intentions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42821201)

That is why when you see ostensible "good intentions" which can be reliably predicted to definitely result in bad things, you shouldn't call them "good intentions."

Child porn blocking is bad intentioned. Saying that doesn't mean you're pro-CP; it means that, because you're not a total clueless fucking moron, you know it will be used for things other than blocking child porn. Similarly, whoever proposes it, since he knows that it's not just going to block child porn, is outed as an asshole deserving the same level of scorn as -- you guessed it -- child porn makers.

It's up to you and me to follow up on pointing out that deserved scorn. When someone in government thinks of censorship, we need to set the conditions so that if they come out in public and say that, or introduce a bill along those lines, they should know in advance that they'll be doing the equivalent of publishing a press release "I like to suck kiddie dick."

If censorship isn't yet seen as equivalent to pedophilia, then we're not all doing our jobs.

What are we going to miss out on? (0, Flamebait)

concealment (2447304) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820409)

So you can't get animal porn and violent porn. Are you missing anything important?

If anything, this act is pure sanity by defining "free speech" not as any speech, but as political speech, which was most likely the original intent.

Pornography isn't speech.

Re:What are we going to miss out on? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42820429)

Define animal porn. Will Animal Planet be banned?

Re:What are we going to miss out on? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42820631)

Define animal porn.

Female human, Muppet drummer.

Re:What are we going to miss out on? (4, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year and a half ago | (#42821601)

Define animal porn.

Humans are animals. To disagree would mean you don't grasp basic concepts like Plant vs Animal Kingdoms. Do you FUCK? Well, then you're an animal, and a video of humans practice-mating is thus animal porn. Bestiality is interspecies porn... They could have said interspecies porn. Oh, but white folks have Neanderthal DNA, so what then we outlaw the interracial porn too, eh?

Will Animal Planet be banned?

Who gives a fuck? You think banning anything actually keeps people from seeing it? Censorship laws are disgusting and ineffectual. They're simply the tools of a police state. The more stuff like this is illegal the more chance they'll find some excuse to throw you in jail if they don't have a legitimate reason, other than wanting you in jail.

To the folks who don't care if "Child Porn" or "Violent Porn", or "Animal Porn" is criminalized: Any web site you visit the world over could have a 1x1 pixel iframe that points to barnyard or kiddie porn, and your browser will happily download that smut without you ever even knowing it. This shit isn't hypothetical, this is what script kiddies do for fun when they get a XSS or SQL Injection exploit to work -- You don't even have to be going to anywhere in particular to get illegal 1's and 0's on your hard drives now. Why would they do this? Simple: Point out how Fucking Stupid Censorship Laws are to regular folks. Joe Sixpack won't fight back until they feel the boot of oppression at their own throats. Cleaned this crap off a client's Wordpress install just last week, wiped it out of few phpBB install a month before that. They had CP, and Snuff sites in the URLs. I don't condone or participate in such malicious behavior, but I can sure as hell understand their motives.

Now, go clean your web cache, you donkey molesting, murder masturbating, pedophiles. Don't forget to forensically shred the empty space on your drives to make sure it's really gone -- Got SSD? Bah, you better have already been running with whole drive encryption then. Oh your not a "pervert"? Are you sure that's what your Internet cache will always say? You trust the security of everywhere you go online? Oh sure, it was an "accident", you had no idea how that sort of illegal content got on your system. Then why do the logs show you regularly visited those perverse sites, at times when we know you were the only one at home to do so... Pray the site owners will back you up -- If you can even determine which ones they were in order to contact the sysadmins.

Re:What are we going to miss out on? (4, Insightful)

guruevi (827432) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820441)

Says who? It's sexual freedom at the very least which is a form of free speech. Having undefined "violent" pornography one could easily find consensual BDSM, rough sex, rape play, homosexuality and other sexual acts which are very normal.

Science time. (-1, Flamebait)

concealment (2447304) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820637)

Having undefined "violent" pornography one could easily find consensual BDSM, rough sex, rape play, homosexuality and other sexual acts which are very normal.

Do you have some science for that?

It seems like you've made a political decision here, which is that every behavior should be accepted.

Not everyone agrees.

Some of us want our kids to grow up in a world where only healthy behaviors exist.

We want people to go experiment elsewhere, and face the consequences of their experiments without dragging us down with them.

You could call us "the control group."

Re:Science time. (4, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820715)

Some of us want our kids to grow up in a world where only healthy behaviors exist.

Indeed. And I find your willingness to arbitrarily define things as "not speech" to be deeply unhealthy. For my children's sake, please go offline immediately.

Re:Science time. (4, Interesting)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about a year and a half ago | (#42821269)

/signed another parent

I've seen suppression and repression backfire over and over again, including with regard to my own parents' handling of me. When you make something as basic and integral as human sexuality a secret, taboo thing, it drives anybody with initiative and intelligence straight into it. I took it as a personal insult that fundamental knowledge was being hidden from me, so around the age of 10 I started a clandestine campaign to learn everything I could on sexuality. I was reading sexual self-help books in public libraries (this was before the internet was common) before puberty, riding my bike to convenience stores to scope out the smut mags, etc. Not because of peers, or "the sexualized media" or any of the bullshit moralists decry, but because of my parents' own apparent disrespect for me. I wouldn't stand for it, and, as an adult and parent now, I can realize that it was an unhealthy way for me to have explored human sexuality, alone and indignant.

If a child is old enough to ask an honest question, they are old enough for an honest answer. That has been the lesson I learned from my parents' mistakes, and the philosophy I've lived by as a parent myself. The goal of parenthood is to make children as responsible as possible as quickly as they are up to the task. Children must know in order to understand, and understanding is the only way they can build a framework to live in the real world responsibly and safely. Prohibition and proscription DO NOT WORK. Each person, and children *are* people, must develop in themselves informed reasons as to why certain behaviors are not healthy for them. They cannot be made proxies for the mores and tastes of others by rote indoctrination, at least, not for long. Doing that sort of thing is like coiling a spring, and as soon as they break out on their own, all of that is very likely to explode, and some don't actually survive the experience.

Re:Science time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42820773)

Define healthy behavior.

Does it include never seeing something "wrong" and thus not know its "wrong"?
Sure you could explain them that its "wrong" behavior. But we all know that always works great.

Also, depending on what you believe is wrong behavior, if it includes things that are very much accepted as not wrong by the majority, for example gay porn (depending on the country you are in), you would be quite a hypocrit to tell your children not to watch and do such wrong behavior since the act of telling them its wrong behavior is seen as wrong behavior by a lot of people.

I personally don't see the problem with animal porn or whatever else on their either. Sure an animal can't really consent in any written or oral form, but if two humans are horny and want to fuck, they can go at it without each side having to totally confirm the other really, really wants to either. I am against abuse of animals in every way, but if you lay down and the dog fucks you, or whatever, I find it hard to believe its abuse. Same with "violent" porn. I am against rape, but its not impossible to think there are two or more people that share a fantasy in which one of the sides may experience a bit of pain. Otherwise we really should start forbidding sports like boxing and so on.

Re:Science time. (1)

Kielistic (1273232) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820775)

Some of us want our kids to grow up in a world where only healthy behaviors exist.

Yes, no unhealthy behaviours like homosexuals, mixed races, ugly people, fat people.

I support discrimination against the obese (0)

concealment (2447304) | about a year and a half ago | (#42821023)

fat people

I don't think obesity is normal or should be encouraged.

The rest of your ad hominem attacks were ignored, since we're adults here.

Re:I support discrimination against the obese (1)

plus_M (1188595) | about a year and a half ago | (#42821549)

I don't think that Kielistic was trying to imply that you believe that homosexuality, mixed-race relations, etc are unhealthy or bad. S/he was pointing out that if you asked 10 different people what behaviour is unhealthy and should be banned, you would get 10 different answers. Who are you to decide that X should be banned, but Y should be allowed? Moreover, who are you to judge people who are considered by society's standards to be overweight?

It's not arbitrary. (1)

concealment (2447304) | about a year and a half ago | (#42821835)

S/he was pointing out that if you asked 10 different people what behaviour is unhealthy and should be banned, you would get 10 different answers. Who are you to decide that X should be banned, but Y should be allowed? Moreover, who are you to judge people who are considered by society's standards to be overweight?

What a trivial and obvious "point," which defaults to an argument that health standards are arbitrary.

I contend they are not, especially in the case of obesity.

Even rudimentary data collection, doctors' experience, and so on, show us that obesity leads to health problems.

It's not an arbitrary choice.

The same is true of many other factors.

Claiming that reality is subjective is the oldest fallacy in human experience!

Re:Science time. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42820793)

Do you have any science for your definition of "healthy behaviours"? I know that God killed many kittens for my behavior, but my behavior isn't unhealthy: God's reaction is.

Re:Science time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42820835)

Some of us want our kids to grow up in a world where only healthy behaviors exist.

We want people to go experiment elsewhere...

And if they actually found somewhere else you would insist on trying to enforce your morality on that place too!

Re: Science time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42820855)

"Some of us want our kids to grow up in a world where only healthy behaviors exist."

"We want people to go experiment elsewhere..."

Idealistic bullshit at its finest. Are you saying you'd prefer that these people went to another planet? Or just that youd prefer them to hide in the deepest darkest hole possible?

Sorry bud, things dont work that way. Fuckin' yuppie.

Re:Science time. (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820915)

It seems like you've made a political decision here, which is that every behavior should be accepted.

Not everyone agrees.

Some of us want our kids to grow up in a world where only healthy behaviors exist.

And here we have a perfect example of someone willing to impose their viewpoints on others while bristling at the thought of others exposing him to things he thinks are "bad". What a hypocritical control freak that doesn't have a clue what he's proposing.

Hypocrite. (1, Troll)

concealment (2447304) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820993)

And here we have a perfect example of someone willing to impose their viewpoints on others while bristling at the thought of others exposing him to things he thinks are "bad".

Isn't that what you're doing to me?

"Accept animal sex, or you're a fascist!"

You're joking, right? or are you 13?

Re:Hypocrite. (4, Insightful)

Antipater (2053064) | about a year and a half ago | (#42821249)

I see this argument a lot in gay marriage debates, and it's always baffled me. It's about the definition of "impose".

I've never quite understood how you can say "Allowing (x) to happen imposes your viewpoint on me". If you have a viewpoint, that's your viewpoint. You're free to judge people who do (x). You don't have to do (x). Meanwhile, you're perfectly willing to see a law stating "You cannot do (x). (x) is now illegal." All the people who want to do (x) must now conform to your viewpoint or be criminals.

How is "You may do this, or may not, depending on your choice," more imposing than "You may not do this"? How in the world is freedom more imposing than restriction?

Re:Hypocrite. (1)

Spectre (1685) | about a year and a half ago | (#42821387)

I see this argument a lot in gay marriage debates, and it's always baffled me. It's about the definition of "impose".

I've never quite understood how you can say "Allowing (x) to happen imposes your viewpoint on me". If you have a viewpoint, that's your viewpoint. You're free to judge people who do (x). You don't have to do (x). Meanwhile, you're perfectly willing to see a law stating "You cannot do (x). (x) is now illegal." All the people who want to do (x) must now conform to your viewpoint or be criminals.

How is "You may do this, or may not, depending on your choice," more imposing than "You may not do this"? How in the world is freedom more imposing than restriction?

+1, Insightful

Restricting others from doing things you don't approve of, actively anti-freedom.

Allowing others to do things you don't want to do yourself, do not accept as moral/proper/right, is being a passive advocate for freedom.

Fighting for the rights of others to do things you don't approve of is being an active advocate for freedom. < People that do this deserve extra kudos!

Re:Hypocrite. (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about a year and a half ago | (#42821463)

Oh look, a straw man. Couldn't find something to argue against, so had to make something up.

In case you're lost, please point to where your quote comes from. Secondly, please coordinate your responses with respect to the generally defended standard of acts between consenting adults in a private room.

Re:Science time. (1)

burni2 (1643061) | about a year and a half ago | (#42821045)

Actually I would call you being very close to Taliban and well the Taliban are a control group. (also the iranian revolutionary guards are!)

If you want to have no unhealthy behaviour you actually need to extingush all unhealthy behaviour or what you define it as.

And when it comes to death penalty, most pro-lifers become very con-life.

And the funny thing is you actually speak "NAZI" language, and perhaps you have been acused of being a facist more often (judging by your post history)- but wrongly a facist is the inbetween of oligarchy and government - however you expressions are discriminating - HOWEVER you are free to do so thanks to FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

HOWEVER we - the liberal anti control group - use our freedom of speech to show you the darkness and evil which lies in your soft toned words.

Re:Science time. (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year and a half ago | (#42821105)

It seems like you've made a political decision here, which is that every behavior should be accepted.

And you've made a political decision by saying it's up to you to decide what should be accepted.

Not everyone agrees.

Some of us want our kids to grow up in a world where only healthy behaviors exist.

Some of us don't give a crap about your kids -- we don't wish them harm, but the existence of your children should not be a short cut to abridging the rest of our rights. Raise your children however you like, but you don't get a vote on how the rest of us live our lives.

And if you're so deluded to believe that you will ever exist in a world where only healthy behavior exist ... you're a little out of touch with reality.

We want people to go experiment elsewhere, and face the consequences of their experiments without dragging us down with them.

Yes, it's called their own homes and lives, and you can mind your own damned business. Nobody is asking you to participate in any of this stuff ... but if you think it's your right to tell others what they can and can't do, you're mistaken.

Re:Science time. (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about a year and a half ago | (#42821343)

And how do you define 'healthy'? Wanting to exile everyone different from you seems pretty unhealthy to me.

Re:Science time. (2)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about a year and a half ago | (#42821379)

Do you have some science for that?

No, but enough anecdotes to be confident of the outcome of any study that would look into this. The exception would be homosexuality, which has been widely studied and found to be very normal - both in external behavior, as well as frequency across time, religions, social structures, genders and even species.

It seems like you've made a political decision here, which is that every behavior should be accepted.

No, the decision here is that behavior which has no visible impact on society at large should be accepted, and not be subject to random moral and religious whims.

Some of us want our kids to grow up in a world where only healthy behaviors exist.

Define healthy. Now compare and contrast that definition with the one from 10, 20, 30, 40, 100, 500, 1000, 5000 years ago. Considering we're still around, I'm pretty sure that your definition of "healthy" is irrelevant to the advancement of mankind and society. Finally, you want your kid to grow up surrounded by only healthy behavior? I suggest you kill off every other human being, because that's the only way your vision is going to come to pass.

We want people to go experiment elsewhere, and face the consequences of their experiments without dragging us down with them.

Sweet! That's what we all want. Oh, you mean that "elsewhere" does not include the privacy of ones bedroom? Or consensual acts between adults?

Wow, so you're actually not at all saying that you're ok with people experimenting elsewhere. You actually want to control what people do. Here's a thought (and keep in mind you're a significant minority regarding your particular definition of "healthy"): move to an island somewhere, and be a control group there. Leave the rest of us to live our lives, and stop butting into consensual acts taking place between adults in a place you have no access to.

Re:Science time. (1)

jockm (233372) | about a year and a half ago | (#42821411)

Some of us want our kids to grow up in a world where only healthy behaviors exist.

If I may quote you: Do you have some science for that? Do you have science to show that homosexuality isn't a healthy behavior? Or that rough sex isn't? Or anything else on that list isn't? Because we have had a lot of research over the last decades to show that so called "deviancy" isn't unhealthy. It doesn't lead to social ills.

I think you protest too much...

Re:Science time. (1)

corbettw (214229) | about a year and a half ago | (#42821843)

> Some of us want our kids to grow up in a world where only healthy behaviors exist.

What's unhealthy about homosexuality or BDSM? And why do you get to define what "healthy" and "unhealthy" are when it comes to sexual expression? Maybe I think your prudishness is more a threat to my children's well being than seeing a man have sex with another man, should I be able to censor your views?

Already illegal, just not blocked (2)

grimJester (890090) | about a year and a half ago | (#42821429)

Animal porn and violent porn are already illegal in Finland. Violent porn is obviously not completely undefined but it may be a bit unclear. I found a blog in Finnish [heikniemi.fi] with some references to clarifications. Violent porn that is "playful" or shows explicit consent is legal.

Re:What are we going to miss out on? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42820461)

Wow, You are a pro-censorship anti-others' sexuality asshole. Pornography has been repeatedly ruled as free speech, too, so you're a shitty lawyer on top of that. go die.

Re:What are we going to miss out on? (0)

zixxt (1547061) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820473)

Pornography isn't speech.

The hell it isn't

What fascist organization do you represent?

I figured this would come about (0)

concealment (2447304) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820659)

What fascist organization do you represent?

When you can't win on the merits of your argument, call your opponents fascists, Nazis, racists, elitists, rich, privileged, etc.

That's the classic ad hominem attack:

"You shouldn't listen to this guy because he's a fascist!"

In addition, if you're over 13, it's a pointless and recognizably played out tactic.

People who argue like that are the people who slow down society and ruin workplaces by consistently opposing any notion of quality control.

Re:I figured this would come about (0)

zixxt (1547061) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820753)

What fascist organization do you represent?

When you can't win on the merits of your argument, call your opponents fascists, Nazis, racists, elitists, rich, privileged, etc.

That's the classic ad hominem attack:

"You shouldn't listen to this guy because he's a fascist!"

In addition, if you're over 13, it's a pointless and recognizably played out tactic.

People who argue like that are the people who slow down society and ruin workplaces by consistently opposing any notion of quality control.

U mm okay so you yourself do not deny you're a fascist?

Re:What are we going to miss out on? (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820491)

well the problem is what happens if you decide to make a semipolitical comic blog featuring a family of Vulpine Anthromorphs??

Would you land up on the block list if a comic featured a pool scene (with the young daughter in the pool) and the Father had a shovel/rake/bat in his hand??

but anywho

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_amendment [wikipedia.org]

the text in question is

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

and says NOTHING about political speech

Re:What are we going to miss out on? (5, Informative)

CRCulver (715279) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820549)

This Slashdot submission is about Finland. It's a different country. Different countries have different consitutions. The First Amendment to the US Constitution does not have any legal force in Finland.

Re:What are we going to miss out on? (2)

kh31d4r (2591021) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820635)

This Slashdot submission is about Finland. It's a different country. Different countries have different consitutions. The First Amendment to the US Constitution does not have any legal force in Finland.

This comes as a shock! Time for US to invade Finland?

Re:What are we going to miss out on? (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820697)

mind giving us the Chapter and Verse for the Finnish version??

Re:What are we going to miss out on? (1)

psmears (629712) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820809)

Here's the Finnish constitution [finlex.fi] , translated into English. I haven't read it all, but it doesn't seem to say a lot about freedom of speech other than in the context of the parliament.

Re:What are we going to miss out on? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42821003)

Here's the Finnish constitution [finlex.fi] , translated into English. I haven't read it all, but it doesn't seem to say a lot about freedom of speech other than in the context of the parliament.

Section 12 - Freedom of expression and right of access to information
Everyone has the freedom of expression. Freedom of expression entails the right to express, disseminate and receive
information, opinions and other communications without prior prevention by anyone. More detailed provisions on
the exercise of the freedom of expression are laid down by an Act. Provisions on restrictions relating to pictorial
programmes that are necessary for the protection of children may be laid down by an Act.
Documents and recordings in the possession of the authorities are public, unless their publication has for compelling
reasons been specifically restricted by an Act. Everyone has the right of access to public documents and recordings.

Freedom of speech in the Finnish constitution (4, Informative)

grimJester (890090) | about a year and a half ago | (#42821041)

Section 12 - Freedom of expression and right of access to information

Everyone has the freedom of expression. Freedom of expression entails the right to express, disseminate and receive information, opinions and other communications without prior prevention by anyone. More detailed provisions on the exercise of the freedom of expression are laid down by an Act. Provisions on restrictions relating to pictorial programmes that are necessary for the protection of children may be laid down by an Act.

Documents and recordings in the possession of the authorities are public, unless their publication has for compelling reasons been specifically restricted by an Act. Everyone has the right of access to public documents and recordings.

Re:Freedom of speech in the Finnish constitution (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about a year and a half ago | (#42821371)

So, in other words, "Your freedom of expression is absolute, except in those cases where the government deems it necessary to restrict it in order to protect children (necessary and protect being defined by the government)."

Re:Freedom of speech in the Finnish constitution (1)

grimJester (890090) | about a year and a half ago | (#42821515)

In practice it's about restrictions on at what time of day you can show TV programs that have age limits. Dunno how widely it's possible to interpret.

Re:What are we going to miss out on? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42821289)

Section 12: Freedom of expression and rights of access to information
Everyone has the freedom of expression. Freedom of expression entails the right to express, disseminate and receive information, opinions and other communications without prior prevention by anyone. More detailed provisions of the freedom of expression are laid down by an Act. Provisions on restrictions relating to pictorial programmes that are necessary of the protection of children may be laid down by an Act.

Documents and recordings in the possession of the authorities are public, unless their publication as for compelling reasons been specifically restricted by and Act. Everyone has the right of access to public documents and recordings.

Back to commons ense (1)

concealment (2447304) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820681)

well the problem is what happens if you decide to make a semipolitical comic blog featuring a family of Vulpine Anthromorphs??

This is a drawn comic, right? Like in the Mike Diana case?

I think the point is that filmed pornography and written/drawn content are quite different and merit different rules.

I always wondered about the sanity of the jurists who convicted Mike Diana, since his comics were obviously very fringe and not purely for prurient gratification. Same way with the court cases for Ulysses and Naked Lunch

Those however had something of literary importance to contribute. Porn contributes nothing. It's another product.

Re:Back to commons ense (1)

tragedy (27079) | about a year and a half ago | (#42821345)

So where do you stand with traditional animation? CGI animation? Combination live action and CGI? How about books on tape?

Re:What are we going to miss out on? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42820519)

a. Slippery slope. First, it was child porn (and I claim basically noone with a sane mind would disagree that it's _bad_). Now it's animal porn (not in the same league as child porn, though the majority is pretty unlikely to disgree with the block) ... and "violent porn" (yeah, right, we're splat in the middle of citizen rights here because this would match BDSM and othert violent practices between grown-up consenters!).

b. Generally speaking: Yes, pr0n deserves to be protected. Or rather: the state's got to keep its fingers out of it unless it can prove (!) that it's detrimental (and detrimental above a certain threshold).

Re:What are we going to miss out on? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42820875)

Ah I wanted to mod you up so badly...Why did you not post with a username.

Re:What are we going to miss out on? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820561)

So you can't get animal porn and violent porn. Are you missing anything important?

I don't need animal porn on the Internet, I can just observe my cats and dogs in the privacy of my home. As for "violent", well, they bite sometimes.

Re:What are we going to miss out on? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42820567)

Fighting for free speech is always hard, because it's offensive speech you always have to defend. A beautiful poem that doesn't offend anyone will never get banned.

That doesn't mean that free speech shouldn't be fought for.

This is false "speech" (1)

concealment (2447304) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820615)

Fighting for free speech is always hard, because it's offensive speech you always have to defend.

I agree in that.

However, pornography isn't speech. It's an entertainment product.

If someone were writing books about how we should be able to violently love animals, that would be speech and should be protected.

That's different from a bunch of people wanting their deviant porn, approval of which would suggest approval of deviancy and thus marginalize those of non-deviant lifestyles.

Re:This is false "speech" (1)

SourceFrog (627014) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820725)

That word "marginalize", I don't think it means what you think it means.

The core question is whose rights are being violated by the existence of animal porn, that supposedly gives you the right to initiate force against those who view animal porn. Your rights do not get violated by the mere existence of the stuff, and to claim as such is an extraordinary stretch - how are your rights violated - are you unable to go out in public because there are posters of animal porn everywhere? Are you unable to go to work because animal porn posters adorn the walls of every business? I don't think so.

At best, this is a question of animal rights. There might be an argument that creating animal porn constitutes cruelty to animals, because animals cannot consent in the way humans consent to sex. But that has more to do with the production of the porn than its consumption.

Re:This is false "speech" (2)

Reibisch (1261448) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820765)

Careful, that arbitrary Crayola is a bitch to get out of clothing.

Shame that a book can also be an 'entertainment product'. But we don't need to defend those, do we?

Re:This is false "speech" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42821409)

approval of which would suggest approval of deviancy and thus marginalize those of non-deviant lifestyles

Oh, you misunderstand ... you're not required to approve of "deviant lifestyles", just to fuck off an keep it to yourself.

Or do you feel it's your right to tell everybody else how to live? Because if so, you're a totally FUCKING HYPOCRITICAL ASSHOLE, and all those places where you've said you're not a fascist is bullshit.

Now go do what every other moralizing asshole does -- go beat on your wife, fondle your children, or otherwise act badly while claiming to be a saint.

Re:This is false "speech" (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about a year and a half ago | (#42821437)

What disingenuous, arbitrary twaddle. Watch this, you might learn something:

An erotic fictional novel about interspecies intercourse you have said is speech.

Add illustrations. Not photographs, but graphic artists' renderings of actions described in the novel.

Reformat it into a comic book ('graphic novel' for all those pretending to be more dignified than consumers of comic books) such that all action is illustrated and all dialogue is still text.

Use the comic book as a storyboard for an animated movie. Poof, you have a hentai, completely rendered by artists as art, accomplishing all the evil deviancy you disparage, and good luck arguing that isn't speech.

Making the whole thing live action only introduces the ethical question of whether it's ok for the animals. Considering we can raise them in cages without enough room to turn around and then slaughter them by the scores of scores and consider it ethical, I think it would be ludicrous to pretend that copulating with one is as heinous as it is claimed.

Re:What are we going to miss out on? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42820585)

Expression should be free, not speech in particular. Speech is a particular form of expression, as is porn. We often use "freedom of speech" to refer to "freedom of expression", so it shouldn't be taken literally - or you can end up with just freedom of speech and not writing, or debating whether ASL is speech or not, etc.

Re:What are we going to miss out on? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820661)

:-) Nice one!

Re:What are we going to miss out on? (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820675)

Define pornography then. It's easy to slide from repulsive stuff to weird stuff to kinky stuff to vanilla stuff to any sex stuff to nudity to romance to clothing and social situations.

IMHO, if it is between consenting adults, it should be allowed to happen, and to be filmed. That does rule out child porn, and I'm not sure about animals (I'm not a fan of that kind of porn, but then, animals probably prefer doing that to going to the slaughterhouse). As for violent porn, what I've seen was very obviously fake and consensual. I'm assuming anything really hurtful would fall in the "non-consensual" category ?

Re:What are we going to miss out on? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42820685)

So you can't get animal porn and violent porn. Are you missing anything important?

If anything, this act is pure sanity by defining "free speech" not as any speech, but as political speech, which was most likely the original intent.

Pornography isn't speech.

Well, it depends on whether this "you" considers animal porn or violent porn "important". This is his or hers to decide, not yours. I wholeheartedly hate the Twilight franchise, and personally don't think much would be lost by banning it. However, I have enough empathy for lesser minds that I can understand the unjustice of such a ban.

Speech is communication, and communication is anything and everything. What you are saying is that banning Twilight saga would be OK, since lousy literature is not "political speech", and thus not covered by free speech.

Re:What are we going to miss out on? (1)

paiute (550198) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820705)

So you can't get animal porn and violent porn. Are you missing anything important?

If anything, this act is pure sanity by defining "free speech" not as any speech, but as political speech, which was most likely the original intent.

Pornography isn't speech.

If the girl is wearing US flag stud earrings, it's political speech. Hell, if she's even thinking about her tax return while blowing the guy, it's political speech.

Otherwise, who gets to define what is politica,l protected speech and what is not?

Re:What are we going to miss out on? (5, Informative)

TapioNuut (615924) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820729)

Sites like http://lapsiporno.info/ [lapsiporno.info] by Matti Nikki (an older summary in English: http://lapsiporno.info/english-2008-02-15.html [lapsiporno.info] ). This guy has been fighting against the censorship and got his site listed on the secret blacklist.

The law actually says the list is supposed to be used against sites outside Finland. Not sites residing in Finland. And even then this particular site has no child porn on it. And why would you block a local site ineffectively when you can just go and take the server out?

Remember the censorship and blacklist has been in use for years. Matti Nikki found out that many of the sites are totally within laws and has been compiling a list of them. Curiously, many of the false positives contained gay porn.

This story is about expanding the censorship, but it's already being used to block other than child porn sites. I'm not quite sure about the situation nowadays but originally there was no way for you to file a complaint about ending up on the list. If I recall correctly, Matti Nikki found out that apparently the police compiling a list does not constitute an official ruling, so there's no way to complain about it.

You know the major ISPs in Finland already block The Pirate Bay? It's painful for me to say, but the good thing in TPB block is that at least it got done by a court order. One way or another, sites like lapsiporno.info and TPB are going to get blocked. Then there are the online casinos, "extremists" and you know, all the Bad guys(tm)...

Re:What are we going to miss out on? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42820953)

The same happened in Denmark.

The DNS blacklist was introduced as a "BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!11!" (and with a "it will only be used to block child pornography" reassurance). Fast forward to now, and it's being used to block online-gambling, pharmaceuticals, The Pirate Bay and more. There's no warning, no legal process, the list is secret, the domains are not reviewed, and a leak sometime showed that it contained domains not even covered in the above - it was recently used to block a site for alleged trademark violation.

At least it's just a DNS blacklist. For now.

Re:What are we going to miss out on? (1)

ultranova (717540) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820957)

So you can't get animal porn and violent porn. Are you missing anything important?

Presumably animal porn and violent porn are important to people who access them since they do so. Simply disagreeing on the importance of particular material is not justification to deny others access to it, nor is finding it personally distasteful.

If anything, this act is pure sanity by defining "free speech" not as any speech, but as political speech, which was most likely the original intent.

Since we have a politician pushing for a law denying access to specific materials, these materials have been politicized, even if they weren't political originally. Anna-Maja just made posting pony porn a political act. I'm sure the various imageboards will be extremely pleased with her.

Pornography isn't speech.

Accessing or hosting pornography is communication, and it's dangerous to start excluding forms of communication from being (free) speech, since what's to stop the tyrant from excluding anything he won't want discussed?

But even ignoring that argument, just why do you think either you or a politician should have any say in what third parties are allowed to communicate to one another? Who are you to judge something important or unimportant on someone else's behalf?

Re:What are we going to miss out on? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42821389)

The problem is that expressions that don't come out of your mouth can be political. Oppressive regimes often restrict what a painter can put in his or her paintings, for instance. A buddhist monk setting himself on fire to protest against a regime is making a very strong statement without using words. Even if some form of expression wouldn't be a political statement in a free country in it can easily become one as soon as the regime starts prosecuting people for it. Every expression implicitly carries the opinion that the expression should be allowed. As soon as a government forbids it anyone still expressing himself that way is making a political statement or comes extremely close to making one. Making the distinction requires reading minds, and that we can't. The safe assumption to make is that expression is protected speech, and it should only be limited when the expression results in the violation of other rights, and the importance of those rights should be weighed against each other in such cases.

Article 34 (4, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820411)

animal porn

Watch out, Finnish bronies.

Päivi Räsänen

Ok, now that's just umlaut abuse.

Re:Article 34 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42820489)

No mod points, but you did make me smile, so have some warm fuzzies.

Re:Article 34 (2)

rogueippacket (1977626) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820497)

Ok, now that's just ümläüt abuse.

Please, allow me to abuse yours...

Re:Article 34 (2)

Iskender (1040286) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820571)

PÃivi RÃsÃnen

Ok, now that's just umlaut abuse.

(okay now Slashdot broke completely normal letters so I have to use weird typing hacks. Thanks for sucking ¥$¥[{, Slashcode!)

Actually it's just vowel harmony, with a handy explanation including a Venn diagram available here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vowel_harmony#Finnish [wikipedia.org]
The vowels y, a:, o: can't be used together with a, o, u in the same non-compound word.

Also those dots aren't diacritics: a: and o: are considered letters like any other.

This post brought to you by the association of unnecessary language explanations.

Re:Article 34 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42821013)

okay now Slashdot broke completely normal letters so I have to use weird typing hacks.

Strange. For me, umlaut letters work quite fine: äöüÄÖÜ. Maybe there's something wrong with your browser?

Stupid is as stupid does (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42820465)

I guess they never heard of Tor?

Animal porn? (4, Funny)

sackbut (1922510) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820467)

I think animals should be able to watch whatever they wish...

Re:Animal porn? (1)

sribe (304414) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820509)

I think animals should be able to watch whatever they wish...

Especially pandas and hippos ;-)

Re:Animal porn? (1)

sackbut (1922510) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820859)

Now that is disgusting!

This is bull#%& (2)

Blackajack (1856892) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820569)

The blocklist is a joke that can be circumvented with a minimal effort, largely consisting of dead sites, legal(mostly gay) porn of various flavors and some real head-scratchers like this: http://lapsiporno.info/ [lapsiporno.info]
That is a page that analyzes and critizises the blocklist itself. It's now removed from the blocklist, but only after an arduous court battle. There is also some info in english.

Re:This is bull#%& (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42820831)

===The title of this post contained animal pornography, and have been censored.===
Regards, Finland.

Just a moment. (2)

zugmeister (1050414) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820671)

Let's think about this. They're looking at expanding an anti-child porn blacklist to include animal porn and "violent" porn. Unless they're referring to young animals or violence against kids, this is no longer a child porn issue. At this point it's just a matter of a block being put in place because the subject matter offends someone using the umbrella of "think of the children". Never seen that one before!

Animal Porn?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42820673)

Is this proof of rule 34?

Of course this makes sense! (1)

fredrated (639554) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820731)

Think of the animals!

Well, that's a surprise (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820739)

I thought Finland was one of those "free" countries that we always hear about.

Remember when ... (3, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820801)

... Finland was seen as the world leader in free and open internet communication? This would be bad news anywhere, but coming from .fi it's particularly sad.

Wikileaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42821659)

The diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks show USA interests working in Finland elections. The party currently in power was the one they favored. Of course, I'm not hedging any bets on how much influence those efforts ultimately had here, but it might make one think.

Well (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820923)

I 100% agree with blocking ALL child porn, it's a horribly offensive and wrong media type. However even though I don't take part in Animal or Violence porn they don't fundamentally violate the rights of a non defend-able group. I don't think it's right to block access to something which isn't fundamentally wrong.

Re:Well (1)

Cederic (9623) | about a year and a half ago | (#42821499)

Given the worldwide slave trade, and the large number of those slaves forced to work in the sex industry, are you really entirely sure that the violent and/or animal sex you're watching is completely consensual?

Censorship sucks donkeys but personally I don't download, watch or buy pornographic films or images. Provenance is just not possible and I'm very much against slavery.

Re:Well (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about a year and a half ago | (#42821571)

Sorry, your perfectly correct. I was auto assuming she was referring to "normal" porn aka not slaves forced to have sex porn, I shouldn't of made that assumption!

Enforced only by larget ISPs (3, Informative)

puhuri (701880) | about a year and a half ago | (#42820947)

The child porn blocking is enforced only on DNS servers. It is not mandatory, so ISP may opt not to block traffic. And of course you can run your own name servers (provided your ISP does not block port 53) even if your ISP blocks child porn.

I would assume in "circles" it is known how to circumvent this blocking. And I guess many will use TOR or some VPN to hide their tracks. DNS-level blocking just makes it more difficult to police to pick the "easy ones" who would not use any hiding techniques if everything would just work by default.

And DNSSEC breaks with DNS blocking, as designed.

Obviously ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year and a half ago | (#42821049)

Any law like this, no matter how well intentioned, becomes used for something else and gets expanded.

Who wouldn't object to child porn being blocked? Who wouldn't object to violent porn being blocked? Who wouldn't object to animal porn being blocked? Who wouldn't object to gay porn being blocked? Who wouldn't object to all porn being blocked?

These things seem to pretty much always go through scope creep in the worst possible way.

It becomes the morality clause.

Movie ratings (1)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about a year and a half ago | (#42821059)

In older times, movies were subject to censorship.

The history is long and involved [pictureshowman.com] , a struggle between powerful parties, but the long-and-short of it was that many state and local "censorship boards" would cut movie scenes which were below the community moral standards.

Predictably, this led to inconsistent views applied across wide geographic areas - censors bragging about how they had cut "the kiss" from "Gone With The Wind", and so on. ("You should be kissed and often, and by someone who knows how.")

The end result was a mess. No two areas saw the same movie, artists complained bitterly about the integrity of their vision, movie makers were discouraged from breaking new ground [wikipedia.org] and so on.

Around the 1960s the movie industry adopted a saner approach: allow any movie to be made, and assign content ratings so that people know what to expect.

That put the decision of "what to see" in the hands of the individual viewer - it neatly sidesteps the conflicting viewpoints of community standards. Everyone gets the freedom to make their own decisions, there is no need for centralized control. Community standards are what the community chooses to see.

===================

Perhaps we should adopt a ratings standard for pornography. With computers and the internet, a ratings system should be straightforward; for example, with four levels of explicit and some attached categories for style.

The porn industry might welcome such a standard: it would help their customers better navigate the topics, and reduce accidental outrage. It would present a framework for automated control at a personal level; ie - parents can set the computer to prevent displaying sites/movies with certain ratings to the kids.

The only debate would be in assigning (and enforcing) the ratings.

With a clearly defined set of descriptions, that's a much simpler task than censoring the internet.

Re:Movie ratings (2)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about a year and a half ago | (#42821547)

Movies are still censored, because ratings are censorship. They aren't there to help audiences make informed choices, they are there to prevent audiences from seeing content. You can't make any movie you want, because it won't be advertised or shown unless it follows the guidelines. Scandinavia has degenerated into feminist extremism, and the goal is to prevent men from seeing sexual content as a way of controlling their thoughts and behavior. A ratings system that constrained the availability of porn to unshaven chubby lesbian soft-core might be implemented, but it wouldn't be about giving viewers choice.

huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42821073)

Animal porn is totally legal in Finland. Also, Päivi Räsänen is from the Christian party. I'm surprised she's against this..

Finland (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42821469)

Back in the time when the internet censorship was first proposed in Finland, the governing parties used their power on biggest finnish medias, turning the "protest against censorship" into a "gathering of child porn proposers".

The censorship system got implemented and watching child porn remained legal.

Perhaps banning it would have disturbed the hobbies of the powerful ones.

Acted in one (1)

Frankie70 (803801) | about a year and a half ago | (#42821567)

May be she has acted in one of them and doesn't want the others to see it.

What about murders? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42821867)

What about videos of murders or other non-sexual violence? After all, it's all crimes and if you're going to ban videos of crimes shouldn't you ban them all? Also, should the penalty for having a video of the crime be proportional to the crime?

What if somebody is illegally parked in the video? Should I get a ticket? Now bear with me here... If I have a picture of somebody cheating on their taxes while holding the camera and they point it at a mirror so that you get recursive images, how many fines should I pay? Maybe it should be based on the series that sums the pixel area of the images.

Anyway, I hope they move fast on this. I'm sick and tired of feeling like it's OK to present evidence of some crimes to the police, but not to present evidence of others because the evidence itself is a crime. Let's cut to the chase and make all cooperation with the authorities dangerous.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?