Granted, it's just in Australia right now. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/111255-Australias-Internet-Filter-Switches-On-In-July
Hell of a precedent, though.
One company has already gotten scared; http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/111282-Hacktivists-Force-Pause-in-Australian-Net-Censorship Being the targets of internet vigilantes such as "Anonymous". A rather insidious bunch but hey, whatever gets people's attention.
I understand the original idea is to filter our Child Pornography, which is a great idea. But where will it end? Perhaps various internet companies feel porn altogether should be blocked. (And hey, even as a woman, I have needs!) Perhaps bad language next! Then all will have to suffer those annoying blocked sites when trying to do research in high school, where ever other source was pretty much blocked because it censors words, with or without context.
I think it's just the idea of someone having kiddie porn and knowing what they could be capable of if they let their urges get too much.
That to me is a point for allowing them to view such material as it gives them an outlet to quell such urges before they get to be too much.
Yeah and I think the main concern are the ones with people. Those are probably lesser concerns because they are made by artists and are don't have a good argument aganist it.
You'll notice through out this I've said the production of the real thing should still be illegal. We can supplement real for fake keeping demand down that way. We might not be able to completely eliminate the demand for the real deal. But by keeping it unblocked we stand a better chance of finding and stopping those producing such material.
But child pornography is harmful to children while bestiality harms no one.
I'm sure a few animals sadly do get hurt on reenactments. (sp?)
That to me is a point for allowing them to view such material as it gives them an outlet to quell such urges before they get to be too much.
I understand this and if it worked 100% i'd accept it, but the Irish papers are far to full of this backfirng and reading everyday that a child has been molested is simply soul crushing. If they used it just as an outlet and nothing more it would be maybe a little more acceptable - but you also have to think of the kids hurt in severe kiddie porn.
I understand this and if it worked 100% i'd accept it, but the Irish papers are far to full of this backfirng and reading everyday that a child has been molested is simply soul crushing.
Of course it's not going to be 100% effective. However isn't a good reduction of people actually committing such crimes at the very least a step in the right direction?
but you also have to think of the kids hurt in severe kiddie porn.
Again I haven't said the actual production of such material using real kids should be okay. I'm just saying the people who had nothing to do with it's production who are just looking at it aren't the ones we need to focus on.
Of course it's not going to be 100% effective. However isn't a good reduction of people actually committing such crimes at the very least a step in the right direction?
How would you know it would be a good reduction though?
Again I haven't said the actual production of such material using real kids should be okay. I'm just saying the people who had nothing to do with it's production who are just looking at it aren't the ones we need to focus on.
I'm totally with you in the watching - i guess. I mean i'll always have tat twinge of "oor kids" but what you're saying about simple watching is logical.
Of course any reduction is good/welcomes. But if you look at cases where people are caught making/watching (making being the obvious bad guy) child porn - that's maybe less than 10% of what's going on.
How would you know it would be a good reduction though?
Well just refer back to the study posted by grimml on page two.
But if you look at cases where people are caught making/watching (making being the obvious bad guy) child porn - that's maybe less than 10% of what's going on.
And the watching part is the only thing that will be effected by blocking it. Even then it's likely those producing it would find ways around the censors.
I think the maternal side of me physically makes me refuse saying child pornography is alright. I do know it's logic - watching it can help reduce offenders which is a good thing. I know this.
But the thought of knowing the ordeal children had to go through to 'help' lower the risk of offenders sickens me.
But the thought of knowing the ordeal children had to go through to 'help' lower the risk of offenders sickens me.
Which is why I say allow for the production of cartoons and realistic cgi. No real children involved that was. Here's how I see it.
Produce child porn using real children, illegal. Distribute child porn with real children, again illegal, treated as a lesser crime to the above. Produce and/or distribute child porn not using actual children, fine you haven't hurt anyone here. Download/look at child porn either real or fabricated, fine all your doing is fantasizing.
I personally think that censorship is ridiculous in most settings, especially at the absurd levels that many people seem to take it to.
Since censorship by an organization has been shown to be used in a irresponsible way in every other venue, why should we expect internet censorship to be any different?
