Ban Porn?

So, this Tuesday, the European Parliament is going to vote on a report to ban pornography as (supposedly) one way to promote gender equality.
They say this vote is non-binding but, depending which way it goes, it could have a huge effect on free speech rights, especially if some aspects of it are made into law.

Some articles referred to internet providers possibly taking an ‘up vote’ as a sign that it's okay for them to start policing their users - since the ban now stands to include all media forms. It's like big brother AND little brother are now watching.

Here are a couple of articles about it -

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/03/08/european-union-to-vote-on-banning-all-forms-of-pornography-in-the-media

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/national-international/NATL-European-Union-to-Vote-on-Porn-Ban--196306981.html

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/03/08/1692561/european-porn-ban-bad-idea/

I get the effort to stop the sexualization of girls and women. I do. And if this was about stopping sex trafficking and other abuses, it would make perfect sense. Unless I've got the whole point of this wrong, I don't see how women who choose to enter this profession are being hurt by it. If anything, they must feel empowered by their ability to make this type of choice - for themselves and for their own bodies. Not to mention their bank accounts. And if it is about stopping the sexualization of women, then will they ban Hooter waitresses next? Or Victoria’s Secret models? Gentleman’s clubs? Bikinis?

Part of the discussion centers on male sexual aggression and how it's enhanced by porn. Now, I've never done a study on this… but I would think a rapist is a rapist regardless how much, or how little, porn he watches.

This reminds me of comments pundits had about women and the (IMO horrible) book, 50 Shades of Gray (the one they obnoxiously called “Mommy Porn”). Because so many women were reading this book that contained strong elements of BDSM (a topic for another discussion), suddenly, all you had to do to please a woman was beat her.

I don’t mean to go off on a tangent, but it seems to me that there are those who refuse to see sex as a normal and healthy part of our existence and feel the need to squelch what they perceive to be a perversion of it. Like former US presidential candidate, Rick Santorum, who said contraception ‘allows people to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be’, and Mitt Romney who suggested he’d ban all forms of pornography if elected. I guess I expect such controlling crap from right-wing US politicians, but I’m kind of surprised by the EU.

I know. This post went all over the place – too much coffee this morning. Point it, there’s a vote being held this Tuesday that, depending on the outcome, could have some serious ripple effects.

Opinions?

I haven't read up on the EU proposal or the Icelandic one, but I would assume it has to do with the protection of women, rather than the denying of men's rights. So I would guess that there has been a weighing of the pros and cons, the rights of the individual vs. the harm or potential harm to victims of the lifestyle or job. Probably the same things considered when making prostitution illegal. Or certain drugs, or driving while drinking. Second hand smoke. Banning ads for cigarettes or hard liquor on TV, and the latest proposals to ban ads for junk food during children's programming.

So I would say that even though a person gives their consent for certain activities (say, an 18 year old girl wants to be in porn movies), if society believes those activities are harmful, then there is a precedent for society being able to put limits on damaging behaviors. Similarly, an 18 year old boy might think it is a good idea to drink 6 beers and then drive in a car race at 3 a.m. He doesn't have the experience or brains to realize or care that this could have negative and long term consequences.

There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG about pornography, in the case that

1) the viewers are adults
2) the actors are adults
3) the actors are doing it voluntarily

The so called "gender equality" is of course complete bullshit

[QUOTE] [b]Donna13 wrote:[/b] I haven't read up on the EU proposal or the Icelandic one, but I would assume it has to do with the protection of women, rather than the denying of men's rights. [/QUOTE]

I don't believe this is about denying men’s rights – every adult male or female has the ‘right’ to view porn, and thought it’s often billed as a man’s thing, plenty of women enjoy it, too. Beyond that, by banning porn, what are they protecting women from? Themselves? Their own poor choices? It implies that women are incapable of making their own decisions.


[QUOTE] So I would say that even though a person gives their consent for certain activities (say, an 18 year old girl wants to be in porn movies), if society believes those activities are harmful, then there is a precedent for society being able to put limits on damaging behaviors. Similarly, an 18 year old boy might think it is a good idea to drink 6 beers and then drive in a car race at 3 a.m. [/QUOTE]

I'm not seeing the connection between a person choosing to become a porn star and one choosing to drive drunk at night. One is a matter of personal choice while the other is about public safety. Since drunk driving has been proven to be a harmful activity, limits of that damaging behavior should be put in place. However, the choice to participate in porn is a personal one about which society should have no say. It’s like society deciding that since running into burning buildings is harmful and dangerous there should be a ban on firefighters. Or that since many people regret getting piercings or tattoos, those should be banned as well. Where does it stop? It might seem logical to try to control what others choose to do with their lives or their bodies if you hold negative views about those choices, but it’s simply wrong.

The ban on sugary commercials during kid’s programming makes sense, however. Poor nutrition has a direct impact on individuals as well as on society.

[QUOTE] He doesn't have the experience or brains to realize or care that this could have negative and long term consequences. [/QUOTE]

Does anyone at 18 realize or care about long term consequences? :-) They can vote at that age. They can enter the military. They choose college majors… We all make stupid choices at times. That’s how we learn what’s right for us as individuals.

I don't know, I'm still seeing this whole thing as dangerous overreach.

[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]

There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG about pornography, in the case that

1) the viewers are adults
2) the actors are adults
3) the actors are doing it voluntarily

The so called "gender equality" is of course complete bullshit[/QUOTE]

With this, I agree.

I'd say that many laws are just for protecting the not so bright among us - or for protecting the vulnerable or the disadvantaged. The laws regarding the advertising of cigarettes is a prime example. Mayor Bloomberg's proposal to make it illegal to sell really large sugary drinks is another.

If we could go back in time, the same "everyone is an adult" argument above could be made about the gladiators. A percentage of the gladiators were volunteers (they chose that lifestyle as young men for personal reasons), so in those cases, they were all consenting adults: those fighting to the death, those managing and training the gladiators, and those watching. And it was all legal and considered a valid and normal form of entertainment (kind of like how American football violence is considered "normal" by most people today). And I think people developed an appetite for seeing people getting killed in those days. And the majority would have probably also said that there was nothing wrong with it, especially if it was something they really enjoyed.

Seriously, the EU is actually debating something like this?? One of the dumbest moves and waste of time I've ever seen from their side of the pond lately!
Whether you agree with the material content or not, this is definitely going to affect free speech on some levels, and drive a whole load of activity underground.

My dollar is on the Vatican secretly funding this move big time.

Completely unenforceable.

This would be a disaster for me ;)

^^^

[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]

This would be a disaster for me ;)

[/QUOTE]

Personally or professionally? ;)

[QUOTE] [b]tero! 48531 wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]

This would be a disaster for me ;)

[/QUOTE]

Personally or professionally? ;)[/QUOTE]

Both :-)

It's not a ban on porn!!! It's a ban on porn IN ADVERTISING and media. Which is extremely different! Yes, women choose to get involved in porn (some are coerced, but that's a different issue -- many get into stripping/porn for money and know what they're doing). But porn in advertising is a totally different issue. It's commercialising women and using women's bodies to sell stuff. It makes it acceptable to view women as commodities, and advertising is public and kids can watch it. There are ads that are totally rediculous -- there was an ad for club orange that out last summer that was bordering on porn, and there are always some on that are flat out degrading. If it isn't blatant, it encourages people to think that it's ok for women to be seen in that light. It's not ok, and it means young girls are growing up in a society where they have to be pretty and they have to use their bodies to get ahead. And sure, people can learn to be ruthless and do what they have to do, but girls shouldn't have to flash to get ahead. And it also makes women seen (albeit in a subtle and unconscious way) as less serious then men. We're here to be looked at, and that's all we can really manage, rather then men who are portrayed in media and advertising as intelligent, powerful, etc. And down to kid's tv -- look at how the women are portrayed compared to the men. The women in High 5 are gorgeous and in small clothes, and that's aimed at very young kids (other programmes escape my mind right now, but it's not uncommon). I can't imagine that men would be too happy if there was a half naked brad pitt or aston cooper shoved under their noses all the time, advertising milk or crackers or cleaning products.
Maybe i missed the point of the vote, but i thought it was aimed at advertising and mainstream media, not at the porn industry.

[QUOTE] [b]catqueen wrote:[/b]

It's not a ban on porn!!! It's a ban on porn IN ADVERTISING and media. [/QUOTE]

It's all in the details. Article 17 of this report starts by stating it's a call "for the EU and its Member States to take concrete action on its resolution of 16 September 1997 on discrimination against women in advertising..."

However, it continues with - "which called for a ban on all forms of pornography in the media and on the advertising of sex tourism."

The words "all forms of pornography in the media" do not stipulate porn in advertising but rather suggest a much greater reach for control.

Regarding advertising, though, I agree completely with your comments.

So, ultimately predictably and perhaps properly rejected. I say 'perhaps' because we can't now know how this otherwise might have wound itself through the many layers between a general call to action and any eventual legislation. I say predictably because it seems to me the alarm bells were rather strategically rung just enough in advance to allow only general outrage, nervousness and scoffing to settle in the public consciousness. A more thoughtful approach from the time the text was first available last year might have resulted in a better draft and a productive discussion. Still possible of course, perhaps even likely, but deferred for a while at least to settle around predictable and boring poles. Pornography is a bit like religion in that it is not universally anything. Porn is at times pleasurable, positive, freeing, relieving, benign, awakening, irrelevant, deadening, destructive, dangerous, degrading, viciously addictive, depressing and on and on in both directions and in no direction at all. And it can be any or all of those things to any individual or group creating, consuming or absorbing it by osmosis at any life point depending on endless concurrent factors. That people are adults is a simplistic answer. Adults need information and experience and instinct and a measure of self awareness and self regulation to be healthy adults, and they benefit greatly from having had a fair shot at being healthy children first, and none of those things are particularly well served by electing to see a complex and extremely broad issue like pornography primarily or exclusively through principles of freedom and expression. I think almost all of us would agree that there is only a very limited role for government in the regulation of pornography and attendant industries and that restrictions should be few and intelligently targeted. I don't think the strategic spinning and likely overreaction to what was contained in the EU resolution was necessarily key to achieve that. I get tired and bored of endless slippery-slopeism on the one hand and moral panic on the other crapping all over the potential for public discussions that are truly interesting, truly intelligent, honest and informed rather than agenda driven, and uniting rather than dividing. Generally, yawn at this tempest in a phallic spouted teapot.

So these bastards did it :-(