Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Iceland Considers Internet Porn Ban

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the frigid-climate dept.

Censorship 684

Onymous Hero writes "With the printing and distribution of pornography already banned in Iceland, further measures to stop internet porn are being considered by Iceland's Interior Minister Ogmundur Jonasson. From the article: "Iceland is taking a very progressive approach that no other democratic country has tried," said Professor Gail Dines, an expert on pornography and speaker at a recent conference at Reykjavik University. "It is looking a pornography from a new position — from the perspective of the harm it does to the women who appear in it and as a violation of their civil rights.""

cancel ×

684 comments

fuck you iceland. (5, Insightful)

maudface (1313935) | about a year and a half ago | (#42897705)

This is dumb, as a woman who's various parts are all over the internet I think this is bullshit.

Re:fuck you iceland. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42897827)

And THIS is ignorance.

Re:fuck you iceland. (4, Funny)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year and a half ago | (#42897855)

LOL ... pics or it didn't happen is the appropriate meme here.

I'm sure lots of people would be interested in your, um, various parts. ;-)

OK, I'm a bad person, I know it.

Re:fuck you iceland. (5, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about a year and a half ago | (#42897889)

Seconded... A friend does porn and thinks it's one of the greatest career choices she's ever made. She would consider these new laws a violation of her civil rights.

Re:fuck you iceland. (4, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year and a half ago | (#42897949)

It isn't like anyone is holding a gun to any of these women to disrobe, or have sex on screen (they have to sign papers about age and all this anyway)...how could it possibly be in any way, an imposition on their civil rights??!!?

Is freedom of choice what to do with yourself not a civil right? What about that?

Re:fuck you iceland. (2)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898059)

That's the way it works for some of them, yes...

Others? Not so much.

Re:fuck you iceland. (5, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898369)

For the women who didn't make the career choice to go into the adult industry, ie, those who have been kidnapped/trafficked and forced to appear in films, they have bigger issues than the harm to their "civil rights" stemming from the film. Kidnapping and rape are, I assume, already illegal in Iceland. Filming it is then just creating documented evidence of that crime. Making ALL porn illegal because SOME porn is documentation of a REAL crime makes about as much sense as making guns illegal because criminal commit crimes with guns. Of course, Iceland's probably already done that too.

Re:fuck you iceland. (5, Funny)

QRDeNameland (873957) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898215)

It isn't like anyone is holding a gun to any of these women to disrobe, or have sex on screen (they have to sign papers about age and all this anyway)...how could it possibly be in any way, an imposition on their civil rights??!!?

Is freedom of choice what to do with yourself not a civil right? What about that?

The comedian Doug Stanhope I think summed it up best:

"If God had intended women to prostitute themselves, he would have given them free will and a vagina."

Re:fuck you iceland. (0)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898379)

But there is no God, and there is no free will.

Re:fuck you iceland. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42898415)

Are you really that naive?

You really think it's all legit? or is that how you deal with your guilt.

The pornstar protection police? Fuck off.

Re:fuck you iceland. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42897927)

So what I'm hearing is that when one woman opens her mouth and starts moralizing about this stuff, that perhaps she's making sexist presumptions herself.

Re:fuck you iceland. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42898047)

Obligatory:

Pics or it didnt happen.

Re:fuck you iceland. (0)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898219)

I hope you meant "pictures of." Otherwise, who did you piss off that they severed limbs and tied them to various computers around the world?

Get with the program! (1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898267)

The article says this is a "very progressive approach".........which means it can only be for your own good.

Re:fuck you iceland. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42898335)

You are dumb, and to dumb to realise.

Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42897711)

That won't work. Still, just for the record: fuck censorship.

From a metaphorical standpoint (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42897713)

This is like being on a boat in the middle of the ocean and trying to declare water illegal.

This will be a terrific boost... (4, Insightful)

Zemran (3101) | about a year and a half ago | (#42897729)

...to the internet proxy industry :-)

Re:This will be a terrific boost... (2)

avandesande (143899) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898189)

Really? Isn't there about 30 people in Iceland?

Re:This will be a terrific boost... (1, Insightful)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898363)

No-no-no! You just dont get it do you? It is banned! BANNED you hear!?!
The moment something is banned it just stops being there. Every politician knows that. They know that because the tried that with TPB, childpr0n, marijuana, alcohol, shrooms, speeding, burglary, copyright 'violations' and spam! This all worked brilliantly every, single, time!
No politician can get marijuana, SO you are not capable either...

For example (a bit off, but here we go), the EU hires people (professional troll's) to make positive comments on the EU on fora that are 'critical' about that institution. So, if you just swamp a forum with 'happy-shiny-OMGponies-reactions' it just means that everyone in the EU is happy with the EU!

Basically one could say that the Vogons are the civil servants, and the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal the politicians. You see, politicians are so mind-bogglingly stupid that it assumes that if someone cannot see pr0n, then it simply is not there.

well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42897735)

When you live in a culture with a deficit in sexual morality... who needs porn?

Re:well... (5, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | about a year and a half ago | (#42897871)

I don't think Icelanders are any more or less sexually moral than any one else. There are indeed abuses of women in porn, and the sex worker trafficing problem is huge.

However, this is a moralist in disguise. He doesn't mention as an example, gay/lesbian porn. He's thinly disguising is contempt for porn in general. Consenting partners, unencumbered and free to make the choice, make porn all of the time. He's just interested in making sure no one watches it, for his sense of moral satisfaction.

Re:well... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42898385)

Is trafficing huge?
Clearly, a significant number of women are moved for sexual purposes.
However, a russian prostitute offered a job (admittedly extra-legally) in another country, and who moves there consensually may be counted as having been 'trafficed'.
Kind of like assuming everyone in the country illegally was smuggled their without their consent by people trafficers.

"It is looking a pornography from a new position.. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42897749)

"It is looking a pornography from a new position..."

Meh. I've seen all the positions (and done most of them).

Re:"It is looking a pornography from a new positio (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42897983)

except for the ones involving more than one person.

oh iceland (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42897755)

Months after this measure goes into effect, sex crimes will skyrocket. What other idiocy does iceland have?

Re:oh iceland (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42898135)

Well, for starters... [wikipedia.org]

Their will being? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42897801)

The women who work in porn are there of the own free will and many of them make a decent living from it. Same with strippers. The only victims in a strip club are the guys blowing their paychecks to see a naked woman.

Re:Their will being? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898115)

Maybe in an American state with a high percentage of trailer trash, yes.

Down in Mexico (for example), not so much...

Obligatory XK,, err, Dilbert (5, Funny)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | about a year and a half ago | (#42897805)

Dilbert is coding protection software to keep minors from viewing porn. [dilbert.com]

Dogbert: So, you're pitting your intellect against the collective sex drives of every teenager on the planet?

Dilbert: Yes.

Dogbert: Did you know that if you put a little hat on it a snowball can last a long time in hell?

Moral panic (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42897807)

Just another idiotic moral panic [wikipedia.org] . Where's the actual evidence of harm to either porn consumers or producers?

Re:Moral panic (4, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about a year and a half ago | (#42897899)

Just another idiotic moral panic [wikipedia.org] . Where's the actual evidence of harm to either porn consumers or producers?

In a democratic nation, evidence of harm is not necessary. "Because we don't fucking like it, we're the majority, and if you don't stop we'll thump you, that's why" is a perfectly acceptable reason.

Re:Moral panic (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898209)

That's what we call Tyranny of the Majority. It might be legal, but it's never acceptable. It's nothing more than sheer thuggery.

Re:Moral panic (5, Insightful)

Rene S. Hollan (1943) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898175)

To play at Devil's Advocate here: some women may be in porn against their will, "forced" into it either through unlawful restraint, or "economic difficulty", and therefore need to be "protected" from such a fate.

Now, if unlawfully restrained, clearly a crime has been comitted, and should be prosecuted. I can't see prohibition of pornography as having much effect on such crimes, sadly, as a black market will always exist, and indeed, increase the profit motive for such criminals. Arguably, it would make things worse.

The "economic difficulty" argument is hardly "force", and while it may be sad that a woman might have to resort to pornography, or prostitution, to support herself, clearly it speaks more to the failure of a social safety net, than any "economic force" used "against" her. Personally, I have more respect for prostitutes, porn actresses, and strippers, than those on the welfare dole: the former earn a quite difficult living (often abused in places where these activities are illegal).

All that said, I've known a number of women who stripped their way through college, to wind up with a decent education, and successfull careers. (Granted, a large percentage had serious drug habits, but that should not reflect on those that didn't and saw an easy way to separate men from their money for their benefit.)

The bottom line is this: just because some may be criminally or economically forced into activites they'd rather not do, this does not justify prohibiting those who willingly chose to engage in them from doing so.

Re:Moral panic (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898311)

To play at Devil's Advocate here: some women may be in porn against their will, "forced" into it either through unlawful restraint, or "economic difficulty", and therefore need to be "protected" from such a fate.

How is that any different fro men being "forced" to be a coal miner out of "economic difficulty"? By that argument shouldn't Iceland ban any potentially dangerous or unpleasant job?

you have the right to have no rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42897815)

Seems idiotic to protect a woman's civil rights by deciding what she can and can't do with her own body and time.

That's not what Progressive means... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42897817)

Foisting your old-world belief systems onto the Internet is neither Progressive nor innovative.

Done correctly, sex doesn't hurt anyone. It's a simple biological process that does not itself degrade or injure. A few minutes of having a dense set of nerve endings correctly modulated to produce an instictively programmed pleasure response is simply not a problem for humans.

It's people like you Mr. Jonasson that make it a problem, people who look at women as degraded if they have sex in front of cameras, you are the problem. Your judgement, sexual frustration and jealousy of those who have the sex you deny your self is all the darkness that is brought to the table.

I'm glad everyone in my life has enough fun sex that we don't have to be up tight about this old-world garbage. I treat pornstars and nuns no better or worse than I would treat the Queen of England.

Re:That's not what Progressive means... (4, Insightful)

Jiro (131519) | about a year and a half ago | (#42897999)

They're not banning porn in the name of "old-world belief systems", they're banning it in the name of feminism. I suppose since it's located in Iceland you can consider it to be old-world simply by location, but it's not based on the kind of religious attitudes one normally means by that term. And there's no evidence that he or his supporters aren't sincere about banning porn on feminist grounds rather than religious ones. Iceland is also a very secular country overall, despite having a state church.

Re:That's not what Progressive means... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42898161)

They're not banning porn in the name of "old-world belief systems", they're banning it in the name of feminism. I suppose since it's located in Iceland you can consider it to be old-world simply by location, but it's not based on the kind of religious attitudes one normally means by that term. And there's no evidence that he or his supporters aren't sincere about banning porn on feminist grounds rather than religious ones. Iceland is also a very secular country overall, despite having a state church.

How is forced feminism a form of progressiveness? Any person in Iceland can already exclude him/herself from being "victimized" by these films. This is nothing more than draconian overreach in the name of protecting women. Fascism is probably about the right word for it (and i'm not even trying for hyperbole, but here we are).

Re:That's not what Progressive means... (5, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898203)

True feminists support a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. Denying free sexual expression to women in the name of feminism is the height of hypocrisy.

What about the men? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42897851)

So if the women are being harmed and their civil rights are being violated for voluntarily participating in porn, where's the outrage over the harm done to the men in the same videos performing the same acts? Just curious.

Re:What about the men? (0)

dywolf (2673597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898065)

More importantly, let us not forget how the woman's rights are being abused and the harm being done to them by recieved 1k to 5k dollars per scene, while their male counterparts are getting between 250 - 1000 per.

Oh those dispicable chauvinists. Those poor women. So taken advantage of!
UNITE SISTERS AND FREE THESE POOR WOMEN FROM THIS HORRIBLE CAREER THEY CHOSE!

For the benefit of women... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42897869)

Leave gay porn legalized!

That is not progressive, it is regressive (5, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year and a half ago | (#42897879)

Performing in porn is free expression, and banning that expression is an infringement on the civil rights of the participants. The only "harm" resulting from porn is not from the porn itself, but from a society that is reactionary and overly judgmental. This is total bullshit to call this "progressive".

Re:That is not progressive, it is regressive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42898147)

Wow, some people really like their porn. Look sometimes its sunny out side other times you can type with two hands.

People expressing free expression in the making of porn is one thing, the consumers of that porn are expressing a whole different thing and it isn't that artistic.

Re:That is not progressive, it is regressive (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898367)

I also rabidly defend the right to practice and express religious freedom, despite the fact that is mental illness. It has nothing to do with how much I like or dislike porn. It is fundamentally unethical to limit the expression of someones rights when that expression does not directly infringe on the rights of another.

Re:That is not progressive, it is regressive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42898227)

I think you totally miss the point. A lot of what is depicted in Porn is violent, aggressive and illegal. Yes it's a movie, but we all know how movies effect people.

The vast majority of it is demeaning to an entire gender, it has no place in a progressive and civilised society.

And the "my friend is in porn and makes a good living from it" argument - you seen how doped up some of those "stars" are??

Re:That is not progressive, it is regressive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42898317)

Indeed

"Iceland is taking a very progressive approach that no other democratic country has tried"
notice the words "progressive" and "democratic" on that sentence - in an attempt to justify censorship!!

hahaha what a load of craptalk!

Re:That is not progressive, it is regressive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42898381)

Prohibition was once considered a progressive cause, aligned with other movements retained under the broad category of progressivism.

To an extent, you can see where society needs to go and push it there. But sometimes you'll be wrong which is why it can be good to have some opposition.

yeah i tried it as well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42897891)

Iceland is taking a very progressive approach that no other democratic country has tried. It is looking a pornography from a new position

You mean now you're "looking at it" with your left hand?

Statists (5, Insightful)

Tailhook (98486) | about a year and a half ago | (#42897901)

In the name of health and safety, children, civil rights and stuff.

Not 'christians', fundies, conservatives or anyone else you've been trained to hate.

The ruling class deciding how you'll live with no help from the church at all.

Progressive? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42897905)

This is progressive like Catholicism. "Won't somebody think of the women?" They're not children and there is no coercion (if they are or there is, that's a real crime). The real story here is Iceland thinks women are not equal to men, and may not have equal power of choice.

I'm doubtful of that so called expert... (4, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | about a year and a half ago | (#42897909)

Professor Gail Dines, an expert on pornography and speaker at a recent conference at Reykjavik University.

How exactly did this gentleman become an expert on pornography?

It is looking a pornography from a new position â" from the perspective of the harm it does to the women who appear in it and as a violation of their civil rights."

What if they unconsciously want to appear in it? Isn't democracy the right to choose your destiny, good or bad?

Re:I'm doubtful of that so called expert... (1)

Bigby (659157) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898105)

This is like arguing suicide should be illegal. The government wants to step in to prevent you from violating your own rights.

Yes, it is politics at its finest. Alongthe lines of "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

Re:I'm doubtful of that so called expert... (1)

godrik (1287354) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898303)

"This is like arguing suicide should be illegal."

Actually in France, suicide is illegal. Though I don't think anybody ever got charged for attempting to commit suicide...

Re:I'm doubtful of that so called expert... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42898373)

Not only should suicide be illegal, you should get the death penalty for it.

Re:I'm doubtful of that so called expert... (5, Informative)

PhxBlue (562201) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898173)

How exactly did this gentleman become an expert on pornography?

Prof. Gail Dines is actually a she, but her credentials on pornography are suspect at best. Do a Google search for "Gail Dines" "Penn and Teller Bullshit."

Re:I'm doubtful of that so called expert... (1)

godrik (1287354) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898191)

"Professor Gail Dines, an expert on pornography and speaker at a recent conference at Reykjavik University."
"How exactly did this gentleman become an expert on pornography?"

First, Gail Dines is a gal. And she got a PhD in Sociology according to wikipedia. You know what they say about PhD in Sociology, it is just like an exercise in masturbation. So I guess that's where the expertise come from.

Re:I'm doubtful of that so called expert... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42898235)

This. The problem with freedom is that you have to accept that people will do what you don't always want them to do, and you have to accept that people will do what is not necessarily good for them. That is the price of freedom. If you start saying that every mistake we make is a violation of civil rights, I think you long past a slippery slope, and should just make your position dictatorial.

Re:I'm doubtful of that so called expert... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42898331)

When I hear "expert on pornography", think of Jenna Jameson [wikipedia.org] , not Gail Dines [wordpress.com]

Re:I'm doubtful of that so called expert... (1)

wideBlueSkies (618979) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898425)

But what harm? Does she articulate what the harm is?

Oh, that's right. Men look at women as objects of desire.

That must be bad. So immoral and demeaning, me and every other guy on the planet being hard wired to want sexual gratification from women. As if doing so harms women in some way.

Who wants it more? (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#42897921)

Freedom collides with democracy again. "Progressive" democracy that can conjur reasons to remove freedom to the applause of people.

Re:Who wants it more? (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898143)

Freedom collides with democracy again. "Progressive" democracy that can conjur reasons to remove freedom to the applause of people.

Of course, Conservatives and religious people will try to remove your freedoms on different grounds.

Sooner or later, any group in power will try to impose their view of the world on everybody else and try to define acceptable behavior according to their model.

And if you have a better system than democracy, we're all ears.

Re:Who wants it more? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42898243)

Statists are naturally compelled to enforce a health and safety romper room world on everyone. They know best and you'll comply to get the bennies. At least there appears to be no churchman our resident cadre of well trained malcontents can blame for this.

Not all porn contains women for a start. (3, Insightful)

DamonHD (794830) | about a year and a half ago | (#42897943)

Never mind the fact that at least some of the participants of either sex many not be being exploited any more than the would if flipping burgers for minimum wage while their PhD is being reviewed.

Rgds

Damon

Isn't that like... (3, Funny)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42897995)

....93% of the internet? The entire country could be served by one router.

Really odd this is from Iceland (5, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898011)

A place that has a Phallic museum should not be trying harder than Al-Quida to ban naked women.

Re:Really odd this is from Iceland (1)

wideBlueSkies (618979) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898169)

Maybe what they are really afraid of is declining birth rates.

With more guys satisfying themselves with porn, there's less chance of pregnancy.

Not that I agree with a ban, at all. I'm simply pointing out reasoning that might not have made it to the public statements. We've heard arguments like this about pron before.

BTW, whatever happened to autopr0n? He used to have nice little site there.

What do we lose? (-1, Troll)

concealment (2447304) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898039)

Again, I will defy popular opinion and make my unfashionable point:

What do we lose, if porn is banned?

Speech is political or social commentary, which is what actually needs to be protected. If porn gets banned, we don't lose anything that will improve our society. If politicians attack political and social speech as porn, it must be defended there, as it has been in past court cases like the ones legalizing Ulysses and Naked Lunch. However, political speech is much more easily censored by having six media companies control the news who refuse to report on certain things.

I think "free speech" as we want to practice is now is an illusion. It has a very bad consequence, which is that the signal-to-noise ratio becomes almost all noise. Even more, it prevents us from having a community with standards. When porn is common, everyone gets desensitized to porn and lets it shape their worldview.

In the name of freedom of speech, expression, etc. we have permitted ourselves to become crass and to support outright destructive ideas, and in fact force them on others, just to prove we're "open-minded" and that we like government and big media are supporters of freedom, liberty, peace, sexual liberation, diversity, porn, etc.

Re:What do we lose? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42898205)

What do you lose if porn is banned? You lose PORN. Something that - when performed willingly, which is almost all of the time - doesn't harm anybody, but instead offers many people a good time. In other words, something that improves society. There's also the whole thing about how availability of porn is negatively correlated to occurrence of rape. I'm sure you can agree that rape is bad for society.

Re:What do we lose? (5, Insightful)

PhxBlue (562201) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898233)

What do we lose, if porn is banned?

The freedom to choose.

Re:What do we lose? (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898249)

Who the fuck are you to decide what improved or degrades society, and even if you're right, it's peoples rights to be degraded or harmed or view that content if they want. The state is not infallible and neither is the majority.

Re:What do we lose? (1)

godrik (1287354) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898251)

I think the question should not be what do we have to lose. But whether there is any gain legislating on that.

Why not banning lolcats? lolcats do not (typically) have polical speech or social commentary, so let's just ban it. For sure we are not losing anything of much value. But why do that? People like lolcats.

If you were making anonymous polls to keep either lolcats or porn, I think cats would go out.

Re:What do we lose? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42898285)

Wow are you ever ignorant.

What do we have to lose? The protection and liberty of women who want to make their own choices about what they do. Once something addictive and pervasive like porn is banned, it doesn't stop. It doesn't even become reduced.

What does happen? It moves to the underground.

What are the implications of this?

Women who want to make porn become criminals, and have no way to protect themselves from exploitation.
People who want to view porn become criminals, and aren't exactly doing anything that is harmful at large, which is bullshit.

Want a massive increase of very nasty porn without any health regulations and protection for the actors? Ban porn. Want to keep people and society at large as safe and healthy as they can be? Keep it legal and keep it acceptable. There is no other logical alternative. Ideologies do not work in the fact of facts.

Live with it and get over your righteous delusional thinking.

Re:What do we lose? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42898345)

Again, I will defy popular opinion and make my idiotic point

Fixed that for you.

Speech is political or social commentary, which is what actually needs to be protected. If porn gets banned, we don't lose anything that will improve our society.

And once again:

Porn is social commentary, and no amount of fanciful wishing on your part will change that fact.

I think "free speech" as we want to practice is now is an illusion.

Sadly, I need to agree here - since we're restricted to 'free speech zones', the First is an illusion.

It has a very bad consequence, which is that the signal-to-noise ratio becomes almost all noise.

Utter nonsense. The fact that you can't filter is your own personal problem. The fact that content - in all its levels of quality - is produced at such massive outputs is a good thing.

Even more, it prevents us from having a community with standards.

Does it? That's funny, because I've yet to see lesbian bondage orgies strolling down the street. Oh, right - because standards have nothing to do with quantity of speech.

When porn is common, everyone gets desensitized to porn and lets it shape their worldview.

Better get to banning movies, video games, and network security tools. Can't have people being desensitized.to violence, corruption, and hacking.

In the name of freedom of speech, expression, etc. we have permitted ourselves to become crass and to support outright destructive ideas,

Ah - there it is: You don't like something, so everyone who does is supporting the destruction of civilization.

Re:What do we lose? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42898427)

Speech is political or social commentary, which is what actually needs to be protected. If porn gets banned, we don't lose anything that will improve our society.

Says you. You realize that all the arguments in your post apply just as well to Xbox, IM, dancing, music and Slashdot itself, right? It's like you're from the Taliban or something.

Expert? (1)

luckymutt (996573) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898043)

So Professor Gail Dines is an "expert on pornography?"
I'm sure there are quite a few other "experts" out there who will take a counter position. Or two.

Re:Expert? (1)

Graydyn Young (2835695) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898201)

"Shut the door I'm doing research!" -Gail Dines

Re:Expert? (1)

PhxBlue (562201) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898279)

I'm sure there are quite a few other "experts" out there who will take a counter position. Or two.

I see what you did there ...

And you're right. Stoya [twitter.com] , in particular, has nothing nice to say about Dines.

ok. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42898057)

Iceland - vigilant defender of antisexualism.

All I can say is, enjoy your increased rape rates.

I like the Newspeak (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42898071)

Censorship is progressive now, huh?

I can't keep up with the new definitions (4, Insightful)

argStyopa (232550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898097)

It's 2013 people.

"Progressive" now means that we'll tell you how to think and what to think.

It's great, I mean - look at all the burden that's taken off the individual!

(On a serious note relevant to the OP: (http://newsroom.unl.edu/blog/?p=1202) "The research, published in the European Journal of Social Psychology, found in a series of experiments that participants processed images of men and women in very different ways. When presented with images of men, perceivers tended to rely more on "global" cognitive processing, the mental method in which a person is perceived as a whole. Meanwhile, images of women were more often the subject of "local" cognitive processing, or the objectifying perception of something as an assemblage of its various parts." This was happening with both male and female survey subjects.

Re:I can't keep up with the new definitions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42898343)

Yes. Misuse of word progressive. This is exactly the opposite of progressive. It is a reactionary response.

But, in most of the world, conservative is a bit of a dirty word. So, maybe playing to the home crowd with this one.

Gay porn is ok? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42898101)

So gay porn is ok? Is lesbian too? "By women for women" etc.

Only thing degrading are the pitiful politicians that come up with these suggestions. Stop making the human race look bad!

"Professor Gail Dines, an expert on pornography" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42898117)

I'm sure that many readers here can associate, but I still find it impressive that a person can be considered by a community as being "an expert on pornography"

Who determines what is art? (4, Insightful)

kawabago (551139) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898149)

Art and freedom of expression are at risk here. This law is no different than the Taliban imposing extreme sharia law on their hapless victims, it is one small group determining everyone else's choices.

Poor bastards (1)

tippe (1136385) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898163)

I mean, what else is there to do in Iceland other than watch porn? Poor, poor bastards...

Women as victims (4, Insightful)

Jerry Rivers (881171) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898165)

Paternalistic, sexist bullshit. I don't see them whining about the civil rights of men in porn. No, it's only women who need protection.

Only a complete fool would buy this as anything other than a bald faced lie.

Just tax it? (1)

strangeattraction (1058568) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898171)

They need the money right. Make porn companies pay for access to Iceland.

When People talk progress remember... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42898179)

"Iceland is taking a very progressive approach...

When People talk progress remember remember the earth is round.

Porn is bad for the mind (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42898185)

In excess and over time, porn disrupts the mind. Masturbation can also lead to further disruption as it depletes vital vitamins and minerals that must be replenished afterwards. While moderation appears to be important, porn and the acts it creates seem entirely unnecessary and contrary to our natural being.

Re:Porn is bad for the mind (2)

ebunga (95613) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898347)

Porn is almost as bad for the mind as fluoridation. Do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk, ice cream? Ice cream, Mandrake? Children's ice cream!...You know when fluoridation began?...1946. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works. I first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love... Yes, a profound sense of fatigue, a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I — I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence. I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women, er, women sense my power, and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women, Mandrake...but I do deny them my essence.

fuck tfa (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42898281)

"It is looking a pornography..."

man, before we try to clean porn off the internet can we fucking have some journalistic effort to properly form sentences?

it is not my intention to ask for much here. I mean fuck spelling, punctuation, capitalization, etc, etc... but can we at least form some fucking understandable sentences? leetspeak is easier to read some times.

Conservatist solution : rename it progressive (1)

aepervius (535155) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898289)

Pornography is mostly produced by willing people in the US/EU. But icelandic politic rather than admit they have a big dildo stuck in the ass and are conservative wanting to censure why they don't like, rename the issue as "progressive" and paint women doing porn as poor poor fragile forced doll unable to decide for themselves and which have to be protected against themselves and ban porn. In other word people stuck in the middle age thinking women are unable to decide for themselves, or horror , wanting to work in porn. *shrug* if the icelandic people keep electing conservatist, their problem, it is a democratic society, but calling the decision "progressive" irks me.

No porn here, down with that sort of thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42898297)

Porn is illegal in the UK, the ban works very well, downloading film and music without payment or at least the right holders agreement is also illegal and is the reason why HMV goes from strength to strength, every second shop in the UK is an HMV, Virgin Megastores being the other shop.

Re:No porn here, down with that sort of thing (1)

blowdog (993153) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898399)

Don't forget the odd Tower Records or MVC

Paid pornography and coercion (0)

accessbob (962147) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898371)

There is a valid argument for banning paid pornography because of the difficulty in ensuring that performers are not coerced into the profession. Not all are coerced, but some may well be. Human rights are always exist in balance with each other, and protecting people from coercion should definitely figure in that balance.

Truly amateur porn with no financial gain for the participants is different. But again, only so long as you can prove that there is no financial gain.

Fine by me (5, Interesting)

Psyborgue (699890) | about a year and a half ago | (#42898383)

Just leave the gay porn. It's not as if any males were ever exploited to make porn. No. t the frail, fragile little women-folk who need to be protected from their own decision making capability.

sexism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42898401)

what about all the harm that it does to the poor defenseless men

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...