Parental blocks. "Access denied" warnings. Don't you love them? Especially when you're not actually trying to access porn? Censorship is alive and well on the Internet, even though smart kids know all the ways around the traps. What's that site where you can go undetected to blocked sites, so the blocker can't catch you?
But that question's beside the point. Parents have the right to limit access to just about everything. In order to promote a proper learning environment, schools do too. But out on the wider world... does the government?
I'm talking about everything from red hot prose to steamy pictures. And I have an example. A man was recently fined in the UK for downloading stories from the internet that involved an older man having sex with a minor.
Being against all forms of censorship myself, I'm against any sort of regulations on porn, especially via the Internet, which is supposed to be a tool of democracy. But it exists, you know. progressiveu.org reserves the right to take down posts to keep itself legal, and part of that is the porn problem.
Thoughts?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
We do have free speech, but there is a limit. If you break the law, than you get in trouble. Would your thoughts differ if a story or pic involved a toddler and an older person? why or why not? I am ALL for free speech, but not when it involves underage people
I suppose my question is more about what the law should be. Do I want to see little kids naked? No. Is it wrong for people to want to see 'em? Yes. I think, however, that the act of taking the picture, and all attendant illegalities involved in treating a child that way, should be punishable. If money is changing hands for the pictures, then the person they're being shared with is implicated in the criminal act. BUT, if the sharing is free, the sharing itself should remain uncensored. Because the bad guy is the one who acts.
As for stories-- they are harming no one. So why censor them? Should they be accompanied by "No children were harmed in the making of this stuff?"
Why the censorship can be a problem, just for the everyday person: I assure you that medical tracts have pictures of little kids naked, because of a disease or something. Would a pervert get off on it? Maybe. Should it be censored? Are you kidding?!?
And text: what about a story trying to get across the visceral horror of a young prostitute's life? Should that be censored?
I support consistency in all things, and censors simply do not take anything in context.
You're really against all forms of censorship? What about child porn, and racist propaganda?
Re: racist propaganda. Voltaire: "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Re: child porn. See my comment/reply to contact_alvarez, above.
I also think censorship will eventually be circumvented. As the saying goes, "If there is a will, there is a way." I have an analogy to illustrate this. Let's say you are hungry and there is only one carrot patch in the world. You go to the owner and ask him if you can have one. He says "Access denied." On your way back, you walk across and take a carrot. The next day, you are hungry again. When you return to the carrot patch, you notice a fence. Hungry enough to do anything, you climb over the fence and get the carrot. The next day, there is a wall. You go on the Internet and find instructions on buliding dynamite and blow a hole in the wall and get the carrot. The next day, you encounter an army guarding the carrot patch. You and another hungry friend dig a hole in the ground and bypass the army and get the carrots. See the pattern?
-Mihir
I also understand that we have free speech, but at the same time, there should be regulations when it comes to media such as porn. A three year old child shouldn't be concerned about using protection so young, or know how babies are made by watching how, before even asking their parents about the birds and the bees. Likewise, the porn industry is booming because of the support it gains from the public. However, if you think about it, you're supporting young girls to be raped or young men even, and you're supporting women who do not value their bodies to have sexual intercourse with numerous men. So i believe there should be censorship involved.
If a parent doesn't want his/her kid learning about a sex-related topic, he/she has the tools and the ability to keep that sort of information out of the hands of his/her child's hands.
I do not see the connection between rape and the porn industry. There is still a line between the "sex sells" mindset of the ad industry and the "whatever copulations necessary to sell more videos" attitude of the porn industry.
The devaluation of women is due less to porn and more to history.
Cencorship is usually pretty rediculous. I was trying to research for a biology lab involving botany, and my schools internet blocked most of the sites. Why? Because botany usually turns everyone on.. its so scantalous. No, because its a hobby. I think that kind of blockage is just stupid. I think students should be able to access the material they need for school from school computers without having to sift through all of the blocked web sites.
However, I think that your example of the man who downloaded stories of underaged sex is a completely different example. My first question is, was he downloading this at work? And again, underaged porn and sex is illegal and maybe he should just be thankful that he didnt get put in jail as well as fired. If he reads underaged errotica, whats stopping him from getting underaged porn?
I think there are times when cencorship is ok, and others where it is just plain rediculous. There needs to be a middle ground.