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!

European Parliament Decides Not To Ban Internet Porn

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the decides-not-to-be-overthrown dept.

Censorship 397

An anonymous reader writes "The European Parliament passed a proposal Tuesday which included a blanket ban on pornography, including Internet porn, in European Union member states. However, Members of European Parliament (MEPs) removed explanatory wording from the porn ban section, essentially limiting the ban to advertising and print media. The proposal, titled 'Eliminating gender stereotypes in the EU,' was put to a vote in Strasbourg. MEPs passed it 368-159."

cancel ×

397 comments

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

well... (5, Funny)

iamnobody2 (859379) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155521)

the internet is for porn

Re:well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43155589)

then get thee hence, fool

Re:well... (-1, Troll)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155743)

I wouldn't mind a porn ban, to tell you the truth. Or maybe no free porn, with everything costing a dollar on your CC.

Re:well... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43155765)

so, you support restricting freedom of speech on the internet?

Re:well... (-1)

readin (838620) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156467)

Porn isn't "freedom of speech". "Speech" implies that words are communicated. Speech is important for political communication, for discussing ideas, for rational thinking, for debating. Porn isn't.

We've got it completely backwards when we make porn protected "speech" while making laws to limit how much money you can spend on real speech during a political campaign.

Re:well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43155771)

+1 - Who really cared?

Re:well... (2)

Entropius (188861) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155807)

So "Show me yer tits!" "Okay!" is illegal, but "Show me yer tits!" "Gimme a buck first" is not?

Because *that* makes sense.

Re:well... (1, Troll)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156027)

just saying, i think the world would be a better place if porn weren't ubiquitous. it's always going to be there, but at least if it were behind a paywall it wouldn't always be in yoru face.

It isn't ubiquitous. (4, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156197)

I think the world would be a better place if porn weren't ubiquitous

I browse a number of websites all day and none of them ave porn.

Readily accessible is NOT THE SAME AS ubiquitous.

It wouldn't help the earth, or the people on it, one bit if porn were less easy to find.

Re:It isn't ubiquitous. (0)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156305)

I would like it if porn were more difficult to access. also, by ubiquitous i mean a google search away. I remember in my day we had to hustle to find some titty pictures!

Re:It isn't ubiquitous. (1)

readin (838620) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156473)

I agree.

Re:It isn't ubiquitous. (2)

davester666 (731373) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156553)

It's obvious that unless it is illegal, the NY Times, Washington Post and every other daily newspaper in the US would have nude chicks on every page, just to boost circulation. Except the entertainment/arts section, which would have nude guys.

Re:well... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156477)

I never seen porn unless i go looking for it.

The world would actually be a far worse place. Do you understand the amount of rape and child molestation that took place in the days before easily accessible porn? Before the early 20th century, rape was a constant. The majority of women experienced it at least once in their lives, many as adolescents. That is the consequences of a chaste society, a hell hole where people are hurt and no one talks about it.

Re:well... (2)

Byrel (1991884) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156501)

Citation needed

Re:well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43155909)

Can't tell if trolling or douchenozzle.

Re:well... (0)

geminidomino (614729) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156033)

Obviously a trolling douchenozzle.

Duh.

Re:well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156239)

What the hell are you smoking? I'll pass.

Re:well... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43155795)

Just not porn Advertisments.

Honestly though if they want to stop the 'sexualisation of women' in the media, they really should have just gone ahead and banned advertising altogether.

Re:well... (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156189)

And the government isn't for regulating sex.

Members of Parliament said (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43155531)

"Wait, if I support this then I can't watch porn on the internet!"

Re:Members of Parliament said (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43155555)

Exactly, then what would they do all day?

Re:Members of Parliament said (2)

gagol (583737) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155571)

Surf on foreign servers!

Re:Members of Parliament said (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43155581)

Chase after constantly changing porn sites and search for new VPN providers.

Re:Members of Parliament said (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155663)

Chase after constantly changing [-porn] sites and search for new VPN providers.

Sorry, are we still talking about porn or have we moved to TPB again?

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43155579)

They still passed the advertising and print media part, which is considered bad to anyone with a brain.

But to my knowledge, it isn't as if all countries in the EU will suddenly ban these things if they haven't already.

Re:Well... (5, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155635)

Many European governments are deep into repressive practices already. From suppression of Nazi paraphernalia to various modes of speech, they emulate the worst leaders of past repressive regimes in a misguided effort not to become like them. Pretty sad, really. Of course, I'd be more concerned about it if we weren't showing all the signs of repeatedly trying to go down the same path here in the US.

The worst US citizens are coming to believe -- and being quite up front about it -- that they have a right not to see and hear things they don't like in the public space. There could hardly be a more dangerous mode of thought for a country that supposedly honors freedom of speech.

Re:Well... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43155773)

The worst US citizens are coming to believe -- and being quite up front about it -- that they have a right not to see and hear things they don't like in the public space. There could hardly be a more dangerous mode of thought for a country that supposedly honors freedom of speech.

I believe I've seen a comment posted on this very site to sum this up: "The antithesis of free speech is the perceived right to never be offended".

Re:Well... (2)

gmanterry (1141623) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156195)

The worst US citizens are coming to believe -- and being quite up front about it -- that they have a right not to see and hear things they don't like in the public space. There could hardly be a more dangerous mode of thought for a country that supposedly honors freedom of speech.

I believe I've seen a comment posted on this very site to sum this up: "The antithesis of free speech is the perceived right to never be offended".

This may be an AC, but he's spot on. There is no Constitutional guarantee against being offended. Liberals are offended by Conservatives and Conservatives are offended by Liberals. Without offense, there is no freedom of speech at all.

Re:Well... (-1)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155819)

The worst US citizens are coming to believe -- and being quite up front about it -- that they have a right not to see and hear things they don't like in the public space. There could hardly be a more dangerous mode of thought for a country that supposedly honors freedom of speech.

Um, you got that exactly backwards.
  In fact I'm having a great deal of trouble figuring out how you went from your first paragraph to you last one without even noticing that they are in fundamental opposition. You hear people in the US bitching about prostitutes walking around near school zones, precisely because they CAN walk there, and bitching is easily the favorite national past time.

Those attempts to ban things in the US are noticeable because of their loud failure mode. NYC finds out its still legal to sell 20 OZ drinks, meanwhile French business owners still can't work more than a certain amount of hours at their own business.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156313)

You hear people in the US bitching about prostitutes walking around near school zones, precisely because they CAN walk there, and bitching is easily the favorite national past time.

That's true, but they sometimes succeed. Public nudity laws and that recent law against the Westboro Baptist Church (?) are two examples.

But you're right that they fail often, and for that I am glad.

Re:Well... (-1, Troll)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155871)

It's not naziism, it's "Sharia compliance". The ban on pr0n was defeated, for now. As the weak Europeans edge toward Eurabia expect more and more liberties to be challenged, successfully at first, and then eventually legislated away. The idiots running the EU do it in the spirit of "niceness" and "political correctness". Political Correctness is the *mortal enemy* of Free Speech. Every time a Slashdotter stands up for niceness and political correctness over Free Speech they are aiding an abetting those who seek to take liberties away (not just the Islamists, but the political Left as well).

Re:Well... (2, Insightful)

dave420 (699308) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155925)

Stop peddling this nonsense. You are so woefully incorrect in every single assertion you made it's tragic. I'm sure fellow idiots slap you on your back when you make such statements, but people who know more than you about these subjects just lower their shaking heads and sigh in disbelief that society can produce such ignorant people. I guess you are a demonstration of how a caring, just society protects you enough to survive this long while being so utterly deluded about existence. Grow up - I beg you.

Re:Well... (0)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156559)

So, what justification do you have for the EU dictating what the citizens of the member states can think or not think. Where is the justification and consent of the populace in granting the EU that? how come the EU thinks it can do it.

What is certain is that you almost certainly don't understand what is going on globally. You may be in the mainstream with orthodox views but are still wrong. Please watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6lmUlT38_U [youtube.com]
The Obama Administration is in denial and working against freedom due to their leftist views. The european elite are even more clueless. And it sounds like you have zero idea of what is going on as well. My position is not because I don't understand, it is because I understand far far more than those that listen only to the mainstream media (who are repeating a narrative that is flatly false). All decent analysts have the same conclusion, which goes against the narrative of the mainstream media. So don't be so smug, you know far less about what is really going on than you think. Please do the research - I beg you. We are running out of time.

Re:Well... (1)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156117)

The people in question are hardly only a problem for proponents of Islamism. Organizations like the Golden Dawn in Greece, or the Italian neo-fascists, are a big problem for a lot of other people, too, and it's quite important that they be opposed as strongly as possible. It is Nazism, in a quite literal sense: the leader of the Golden Dawn has written multiple pro-Hitler articles, and their logo resembles a swastika, and not due to coincidence.

Re:Well... (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155873)

Hee hee, "deep into..."

Re:Well... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155959)

From suppression of Nazi paraphernalia

It's worth remembering that the suppression of Nazi paraphernalia IS literally a form of oppression, completely planned as such. After WW2 it was pushed on certain countries as a form of oppression, to keep the Nazis from rising again. None of the Allies wanted the Nazis to rise again, and that was one way the decided to make sure that happened.

Re:Well... (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156207)

So? Trying to suppress a philosophy is still a violence against freedom of thought, no matter how warped the philosophy may be. Trying to legislate belief is a sure way to a dystopic society that would make Nazi German seem like paradise on Earth.

Re:Well... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156491)

Yes, it is a violence against freedom of thought. Which is why it's hilarious to hear Ahmajinedad justifying his own oppression by saying, "Germans do it too."

Also, it's not an attempt to legislate belief, it's an attempt to keep belief from spreading, or at least slow it enough until it dies out. And sadly, that is something that can be effective.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156309)

The worst US citizens are coming to believe -- and being quite up front about it -- that they have a right not to see and hear things they don't like in the public space.

On one hand, we can't stop them from demanding "no offensive stuff" if we are consistent about free speech.

On the other hand, point out to them that you are deeply offended by their demand for "no offensive stuff". Now, if they are consistent in their belief - they should shut up. But of course they won't, so just shoot them. :-/

A disturbance in the force (4, Funny)

Grayhand (2610049) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155585)

As if millions of Eurogeeks breathed a sigh of relief.

Re:A disturbance in the force (2, Funny)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155849)

As if millions of Eurogeeks breathed a sigh of relief.

Yes, of course. Now there's no ifs or buts!
1.a woman should be accepted for modelling on "Fusion HydraGel Tough Beard Shave Gel" (irrespective of the toughness of her beard).
2.a male can now apply without any barrier as a model for the cover of ... what's the name?? Victoria secrets?...

If any of them be rejected, one should only whisper... "You know... presenting lingerie on female / shaving products by men models is... a... stereotype! Are you sure?"

thought police (5, Interesting)

fche (36607) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155603)

"The proposal, titled 'Eliminating gender stereotypes in the EU'..."

What an Orwellian purpose.

Re:thought police (1, Insightful)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155647)

Yes, lets simply ignore that men and women are biologically different in many many ways and try to force them to be equal, regardless of any objection they may have.

Re:thought police (2, Informative)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155709)

And actually what they will be doing is promoting positive female and homosexual stereotypes, and censoring negative stereotypes; while discouraging positive straight male stereotypes, and ignoring negative stereotypes.

Re:thought police (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43155759)

Because being naked / having sex is a negative stereotype for women, right? Wait... something smells like cognitive disconnect.

Re:thought police (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43155851)

Because being naked / having sex is a negative stereotype for women, right? Wait... something smells like cognitive disconnect.

Is that what happens when it's dark and you stick your face in the wrong hole?

Re:thought police (4, Insightful)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155799)

Who are you (or them) to define what are "positive" and what are "negative" stereotypes. You seem like the 16th century puritanists censoring everything they thought unfit accordingly to their beliefs. Just the religion now is the politically correct.

I am all for giving people equal rights regardless of any difference they may have among themselves, but that has already been achieved. What you are trying to do is exactly the same the religious extremists did centuries ago. To enforce your moral standards upon others.

Re:thought police (0)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155907)

Well said. Even more insidious, the EU leadership believe they can regulate what is acceptable for citizens to *think*. There is no point having "Free Speech" if you can't actually exercise it. The EU administrators should be taken to task for this. They have *no right* to dictate what citizens may think. So EU citizens don't passively take this power grab lying down! complain ffs!

Re:thought police (1, Informative)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155695)

Orwellian would be if the proposal was titled "Eliminating gender stereotypes in the EU", and it told companies they had to have gender stereotypes in their ads. Instead, take a look at the actual proposal [europa.eu] . They are concerned about the uneven usage of sexuality to sell products, and the message that sends. They have clearly screwed up the logistics of tackling that issue, but the relationship between the bill itself and the content is not Orwellian.

Re:thought police (5, Informative)

fche (36607) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155737)

"They are concerned about the uneven usage of sexuality to sell products, and the message that sends."

They do much more than that.

"... In order to tackle the problem of the lack of women at the higher levels of economic and political decision-making, the persistence of gender stereotypes in all levels of society need to be addressed. ..."

IOW, affirmative action at the "decision-making" level, accomplished by thorough social engineering, by e.g. deliberate suppression of traditional ideas. That's pretty drastic stuff, not just about commercial speech - i.e., advertising with attractive models.

Re:thought police (1, Insightful)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156007)

This affirms my point that the bill matches the title. Aka, they are eliminating gender stereotypes in a bill titled just that. You may disagree with eliminating gender stereotypes. You may consider gender stereotypes "traditional", and "traditional" you may consider desirable. You may think the usage of attractive models means those models MUST be advertised as meat, showing off their bodies whilst male models are fully clothed, and that this is traditional and desirable. You may think using attractive models in advertising that displays equal gender roles is unethical, social engineering, and evil. Great for you, internet warrior. That execrable point of view does not erase the fact that the bill's text matches the title.

Re:thought police (1)

Intropy (2009018) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156265)

You seem to think that to be Orwellian a policy must purport to do something when it actually aims to do the opposite. While that is a feature of ingsoc in 1984, the term Orwellian is more general, referring to rule through misinformation, pervasive interference in daily life, propaganda, policing of thought and speech, etc. So yes, the bill matches its title. But it also is clearly an attempt to control speech in an attempt to mold thought. That's Orwellian. I understand you think it's also a noble purpose. Great for you, internet secret police. That execrable point of view does not erase the fact that the bill's purpose is Orwellian.

Re:thought police (1)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156453)

Nope, I don't. Looks like you missed my post below where I linked to the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian) (easy to overlook, it being in a lower thread and all). In any case, fche's post DID in fact affirm that the bill matches the title, which was my point. I totally concede that I was referring to an aspect of Orwellian, not the whole.

That you call me internet secret police is pretty off the mark. Sad. I disagree with the bill's regulation of the internet. I think the other aspects of the bill, namely restricting sexist advertising in print media, has a solid point worth debating. I think the defense of the status quo to support free speech is admirable. I think the defense of the status quo to support "traditional" ideas, and the implications about attractive models and affirmative action made by fche are far from admirable - those I consider pathetic.

Re:thought police (4, Insightful)

readin (838620) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156403)

Or you may simply recognize that men and women are biologically different both in the brain and in the rest of the body, and consider attempts to force people to believe otherwise can only succeed through an increasingly totalitarian supression of what our sense and our rational thinking tell us.

The very definition of "Liberal Fascism" (3, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156165)

The problem with a very liberal way of thinking is, that if the state knows better than you naturally it follows that the state should control all aspects of your activity.

Thus as you say, social engineering is no longer scary, but required in all actions you take so you have only "right minded people" in your populace.

Human nature is not something to understand, but to be ironed and whitewashed over to get that perfect homogenous bland - er, I mean, blend.

Re:The very definition of "Liberal Fascism" (3, Insightful)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156431)

It baffles me that there are men out there so oblivious to the impact of sexist advertising on women and women's role in society. Paranoid, misguided men who think that removing sexist advertising is a plot to turn everyone into the same person. Sad.

Re:The very definition of "Liberal Fascism" (1)

readin (838620) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156483)

Since advertising necessarily involves speech, how do you remove sexist advertising without restricting speech? Even if you restrict the images that aren't speech, there will still be written words and voice-overs.

Re:The very definition of "Liberal Fascism" (3, Insightful)

Byrel (1991884) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156551)

the impact of sexist advertising on women and women's role in society.

Fairly negligible. Sexist advertising is the symptom of sexist culture. Advertisers are very good at adapting to cultural expectations. Whether sexist culture is good or bad is a normative judgement, and hence likely to be contentious.

And the 'cure' in this case is almost certainly worse than the disease. Social engineering of this sort can only be justified through a paternalistic view of government; that it's the majority of us trying to keep us individually on the 'right' path. Which is dictatorship. Benevolent and majoritarian dictatorship, but dictatorship nevertheless. [1] And hence should be anathema to the true liberal; much worse than individuals making choices we personally disagree with.

[1] Blatantly plagarizing from Milton Freedman, Capitalism and Freedom

Re:thought police (4, Insightful)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155921)

Wrong. What is Orwellian is the belief of the EU that it has the right to regulate the thoughts of its citizens, for any purpose. This is utterly wrong on a fundamental level, and should be opposed. I hope you see that now that it has been pointed out.

Re:thought police (4, Informative)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155981)

Apparently we are all incorrect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian [wikipedia.org] . Yay.

Looking at the actual law, can you point out how they are regulating thoughts? K, thanks. Because it looks like they are regulating advertising.

How to regulate thought (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156181)

Looking at the actual law, can you point out how they are regulating thoughts?

By controlling what inputs people receive, to some extent you limit or reduce possible thoughts that result from them.

It's the same line of thinking that bans all publicans of anything with Nazi logos.

Re:thought police (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156399)

Their intention is to eliminate stereotypes (from people's minds) by suppressing information. Basically it is exactly the same idea and method used in 1984.

In 1984, by using propaganda, eliminating words that had unwanted meanings from the language (newspeak) and applying other forms of "education" (read brain washing) you aim to produce only individuals that accept the government ideas. It is the wet dream of any totalitarian regimen.

Re:thought police (1)

Byrel (1991884) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156575)

This is exactly the Orwellian part; government is making normative judgement about thoughts, and attempting to impose that view on part of people's public life. (Specifically the published part.)

Declaring what is and is not 'right' for people to believe, and then attempting to enforce it, is so far outside the proper role of government in a liberal society that it's appalling. It's as bad, from a principled standpoint, as attempting to ban works critical of the government. Trying to regulate the expression of ideas is inevitably an attempt to regulate the ideas themselves, which is Orwellian, tyrannical, evil, and quite a few other unpleasant adjectives.

Re:thought police (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43155843)

Sounds like Animal Farm.

Re:thought police (2, Insightful)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155893)

What an Orwellian purpose.

What is wrong with some stereotypes? each individual may be different but in aggregate they can be adequately described by stereotypes (as a first-order approximation). It is indeed Orwellian that the EU believe they have the right to create *thought crimes* instead of promoting free thinking. In fact this is the biggest and most retarded mistake of the political Left. They are for diversity and every perversity - except for the diversity that actually matters, *diversity of thought*. It is anathema to the political Left to allow views that are against their orthodoxy and they will suppress other views ruthlessly (which is what we see here). Orwellian is a great word to describe the belief of the EU governors that they have the right to regulate the thought of EU citizens. So don't scoff so lightly at this.

Re:thought police (0)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156187)

As a first-order approximation, you sound like the European version of a Klansman.

Re:thought police (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156235)

Very Orwellian indeed.

They seem more and more like the 16th century puritanists, who censored everything they thought unfit accordingly to their beliefs. Just their religion now is the politically correct.

I am all for giving people equal rights regardless of any difference they may have among themselves, but that has already been achieved. What they are trying to do is exactly the same the religious extremists did centuries ago. To force their moral standards upon others, by actually suppressing any alternative viewpoint.

Beta (0)

dark grep (766587) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155607)

I suppose if a government wanted to go the way of Betamax, banning porn would do it.

Why not all stereotypes? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43155623)

I saw a charity advertising film where someone who was supposed to stereotype a wealthy executive didn't give money to a beggar on the street. How can I get those responsible jailed and the stereotype completely eliminated from the public sphere?

The European Parliament... (1)

spiritplumber (1944222) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155667)

...decides to not make itself irrelevant.

why are stereotypes so bad? (3, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155669)

They are based on elements of truth, and while basing judgments solely on them will result in incomplete understanding, purposefully avoiding them by whitewashing the media with contrarian examples also denies reality. In many cases, it'll end up denying more of it! Ideology is not reality no matter how much the society is filtered.

If you read the latter link from falkvinge, it becomes obvious very quickly that this is a white knight feminist power grab. Only they would push for such draconian demands to prevent 'the sexualization of girls', whatever that means. There are segments of the legislation that scare the shit out of me, and should scare anyone potentially living under its influence. Frankly, the fact any politician in the supposedly 'free' west would draft such a thing at all should be cause for concern. No amount of 'suffrage' or other outdated 1950s era rubbish justifies a police state. None. This kind of thing is a perfect example of ideology going so far as to eat its own tail.

I actually read TFA and these thoughts were running through my head the whole time. American or European, we gotta stop voting these idiots into office.

Re:why are stereotypes so bad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43155685)

Nobody voted the EU into power.

Re:why are stereotypes so bad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43155815)

Actually that is wrong, before joining the EU most countries held a referendum on it.

Re:why are stereotypes so bad? (0)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155757)

State propaganda and censorship is at the core of socialism. Europe never was and never will be free.

Re:why are stereotypes so bad? (4, Interesting)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155987)

It is imperative that people be judged based on their individual characteristics. It is a simple undeniable fact that variation within large groups of people FAR exceeds the variation between the means of the groups. It is the idiocy of stereotyping that ignores this fact. It is appalling that people do not understand this basic truth.

Let me give you an example of how this stupidity affected me, personally.

My wife is a Hispanic immigrant. She came to the US as an English medieval lit PhD candidate on a Fullbright scholarship to an elite university after studying in Europe for 3 years. She graduated from university at age 17. At one time she held the highest score ever achieved in the Oxford English Competency exam by a South American.

That ethnic background meant my children were automatically stereotyped by the schools they attended. In particular one of them was misdiagnosed as having an English deficiency when in fact he had Asperger's.

This diagnosis was done on the basis of my wife's ethnic background despite the fact she speaks English better than 99.99+% of US citizens.

The harm done to my son from of this cannot be undone.

Re:why are stereotypes so bad? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156075)

So basically your anecdotal evidence proves all stereotyping is bunk. You are a fool.

Re:why are stereotypes so bad? (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156411)

"That ethnic background meant my children were automatically stereotyped by the schools they attended. In particular one of them was misdiagnosed as having an English deficiency when in fact he had Asperger's.

This diagnosis was done on the basis of my wife's ethnic background despite the fact she speaks English better than 99.99+% of US citizens.

The harm done to my son from of this cannot be undone."

Do you mind my asking what irreparable harm was done?

IS THIS PORN ?? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43155683)

http://goat.cx/ [goat.cx]

I'm glad this got resolved so quickly... (4, Funny)

sootman (158191) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155727)

... because I remembered a joke after reading the last story, too late to post it. :-)

"I'm fairly sure if they took porn off the Internet, there'd only be one website left, and it'd be called 'Bring Back the Porn!'"
-- Dr. Cox, Scrubs

PHEW!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43155749)

Just finished downloading my second terabyte of Brazilian horse cock tranny porn.

In other news... (4, Funny)

hawks5999 (588198) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155761)

The European Parliament also decided not to rescind gravity.

Re:In other news... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156065)

You're joking, but there was a case in the US where one state was trying to change Pi from an irrational number dealt with as 3.14 to just plain 3. Granted, it was in the south, but no amount of just meth and bibles will make you that stupid. THAT takes being a career politician.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156149)

What is more fair, the Volume is 3.14blahblah Times X, Or 3 Times X? When Most Can Barely Count to 3? It Was Trying To eliminate Taking advantage ofless literate Folk.

What was the reason for wanting to ban it? (2)

dixonpete (1267776) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155775)

I thought violence against women went down when porn was available.

Re:What was the reason for wanting to ban it? (-1, Troll)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155935)

That's what the stats say. However the EU is becoming increasingly "Sharia compliant" in the name of "tolerance" and "political correctness" - which are antithetical to Free Speech. Furthermore, the fact that the EU believes it can regulate the thought of its citizens shows how it is grabbing rights and powers it does not have. The eurosceptics were correct when they foresaw that the EU would turn into a monster that cares not a whit about its citizens, and cares more about the agendas of the bureaucrats running it. The EU has *no right* to dictate what Europeans may or may not think.

Re:What was the reason for wanting to ban it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156133)

Well, at least they're (mostly) not speaking German!

Phew! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43155839)

Thanks be to God! Redtube is the best way I have to get close to my bandwidth allocations.

Re:Phew! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43155971)

Amen! Raise you hand (well, your free hand) for interwebs freedom!

Well, thank goodness! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43155859)

Surely, with the law on their side, Europe would've never seen porn again!

Re:Well, thank goodness! (5, Insightful)

pitchpipe (708843) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155881)

Surely, with the law on their side, Europe would've never seen porn again!

Right?! This would have been an even bigger failure than the war on drugs. How in the fuck did they think they could stop it?

Better yet, how do morons of this caliber get to be so high up in government?

Re:Well, thank goodness! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156041)

They could have made Greece in to Australia 2.0, the prison industry is a great stimulus package.

Great! (0)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156011)

Way to go EU! [ponychan.net]

so no epidemic of pregnant men? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156019)

Or breastfeeding men?
Or women forgetting to put the seat down?
Europe is a strange place...

Haven't you learned anything? (4, Insightful)

slick7 (1703596) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156141)

Banning porn, like drugs, alcohol, weapons only profits the criminal element and their exorbitant prices. This is also a two-edged sword, make money from an illicit trade and then prosecute the users for more money. The government has learned well from the criminal element. Most bans are for behavior modification, do this but not that, or else. Cha-ching. What is needed is an understanding of why something is banned. Answers like it's for the children or national security are just jingoistic catchphrases which may or may not have credence. If you cannot understand the logic of a situation, then follow the money, you may be surprised where it leads.

Re:Haven't you learned anything? (2)

Symbha (679466) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156351)

Surprised? I think not... It's either a company that can't compete in the free market, or a church.

Re:Haven't you learned anything? (0)

readin (838620) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156437)

I was amazed and disappointed when Slashdot first reported the proposed law that there was so much concern about the elmination of porn and so little concern about the attempt to control what people think about gender differences. The purpose of "free speech" is to allow free thought, not for getting your jollies. Whether or not getting your jollies is a necessary component of free speech, we should always remember that freedom of thought is what really matters.

WTF Europe!? (1)

proca (2678743) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156449)

Banning porn would undermine everything that democracy has provided. I hate to conjure up bad metaphors, but how much more fascist can you get than banning porn?

Well fuck... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156513)

This now means porn magazines and DVDs are now illegal.

Though in my case, it'd be importing eroge and dakimakura. (That's right, I like 2D girls!)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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