|
Censuring of the internet
|
View this Thread in Original format
| St_Andrew |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3797563.stm
So, in sweden right now the police together with all the major ISPs are starting to implement a filter to ban all the child porn sities. Which pisses me off big time, not because i want to surf child porn, but because its insane that you censur the internet like that... and apperntly this has been used in the UK for some time now already (as i found out in that article posted above)...
Stop the censuring before its too late! Internet is supposed to be as free as free can be!
:whip: :whip: |
|
|
| Massive84 |
i dont understand, they are preventing child porn as you just said.
Whats so bad about that?
Child porn shouldn't even exist. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
Ahh. Good old Prohibition Sweden. Hope this stupid initiative won't smitten the Danish police.
| quote: | Originally posted by Massive84
Whats so bad about that?
|
First, it's a total waste of money. CP-addicts can get their fixes from other means than web-sites. And all it takes to outsmart a filter such as this is to pack the stuff up in a encrypted zip-archive. Any fool can do that.
Second, it's an invasion of privacy (sniffing in people's TCP/IP-packets). Further, this sniffing is not warranted by suspicion, as it's going to encompass everyone's packets.
Third, it's an ostrich's technique. Just because you prevent Swedes from seeing CP, doesn't mean that it disappears.
Fourth, it's a declaration of mistrust. Swedes are not trusted to be capable of acting responsible in case they enter a CP-site.
Fifth, it cannot be done without blocking out innocent websites (think spam filter).
Sixth, philosophically this is unwarranted. We have as a society established the judical system to punish those individuals that break the law. That is, those who do things that society has decided are bad. Therefore, there is already a system for dealing with CP-addicts, and this is a superfluous addition, which might lead to complications later on (e.g. the CP-addict caught with porn can blame the filter for letting it through).
EDIT: Actually, I feel kind of sorry for pedophiles (meaning those who have an intrinsic lust for sex with children), as they're not really being given much to work with. Some time ago I saw a Danish newsbit with a pedophile, who was aware of the conflict between his desires and generally accepted ethics, and consequently went to see his doctor for help. But the doctor couldn't help him and suggested that he might go see a psychologist instead. However, doctors are free in Denmark, and they have places to send people with other mental disorders, whereas psychologists are extremely expensive. If we as a society has decided that pedophilia is wrong, then we ought to have a program for helping people get rid of it, just as we have it for helping people drop alcohol and drug addictions. |
|
|
| Renegade |
I was originally going to come in here and ask why the censorship of child-porn sites would ever be a bad idea but, trancaholic, you raise some good points:
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Ahh. Good old Prohibition Sweden. Hope this stupid initiative won't smitten the Danish police.
First, it's a total waste of money. CP-addicts can get their fixes from other means than web-sites. And all it takes to outsmart a filter such as this is to pack the stuff up in a encrypted zip-archive. Any fool can do that.
Second, it's an invasion of privacy (sniffing in people's TCP/IP-packets). Further, this sniffing is not warranted by suspicion, as it's going to encompass everyone's packets.
Third, it's an ostrich's technique. Just because you prevent Swedes from seeing CP, doesn't mean that it disappears.
Fourth, it's a declaration of mistrust. Swedes are not trusted to be capable of acting responsible in case they enter a CP-site.
Fifth, it cannot be done without blocking out innocent websites (think spam filter).
Sixth, philosophically this is unwarranted. We have as a society established the judical system to punish those individuals that break the law. That is, those who do things that society has decided are bad. Therefore, there is already a system for dealing with CP-addicts, and this is a superfluous addition, which might lead to complications later on (e.g. the CP-addict caught with porn can blame the filter for letting it through). |
But, to run through them one-by-one:
1) But surely if it restricts the ease with which paedohpiles can access material that exploits children - even if it only restricts the habits of a small few - it's worth the money? How technically adept can we presume these paedophiles are in the first place?
2) An invasion of the privacy of innocent people is almost always unwarranted. If these are the means by which paedophiliac material is detected, then I'm not sure if such measures can be justified.
3) It's Sweden's responsibility to curb the behaviour of Swedish paedophiles, just as it is the responsibility of other nations to curb the behaviour of their own paedophiles. Just because other nations may not be as adept at curbing such behaviour as the Swedes, should that preclude the Swedes from trying?
4) There is not much justification for entering a CP site, but I agree: there should always be a presumption of innocence. You cannot presume the everyone is guilty by checking the browsing habits of random internet users and still maintain a healthy legal system at the same time.
5) Innocent websites should not be blocked. If this is a result of the legislation, then - again - it's probably not something we should be eagerly prepared to embrace.
6) If the legislation assists authorities to detect users of CP, though, then - disregarding the infringement on civil liberties - I'm not sure that the argument that "there is already a system for dealing with CP-addicts" is any reason not to enhance the abilities of the law-enforcement agencies to find and capture them. Like I said, if there is a severe infringement on civil-liberties then the methods need to be questioned, but I still would not - in principle at least - have any problems with increasing our chances of having those complicit in the exploitation of children being prosecuted.
| quote: | | EDIT: Actually, I feel kind of sorry for pedophiles (meaning those who have an intrinsic lust for sex with children), as they're not really being given much to work with. Some time ago I saw a Danish newsbit with a pedophile, who was aware of the conflict between his desires and generally accepted ethics, and consequently went to see his doctor for help. But the doctor couldn't help him and suggested that he might go see a psychologist instead. However, doctors are free in Denmark, and they have places to send people with other mental disorders, whereas psychologists are extremely expensive. If we as a society has decided that pedophilia is wrong, then we ought to have a program for helping people get rid of it, just as we have it for helping people drop alcohol and drug addictions. |
Although most (myself included) would baulk at the though of affording paedophiles the slightest degree of sympathy, I'd have to agree with you here. Looking at it from a moral standpoint, there is nothing any more wrong with "fantasising" about sexual relations with children any more than there is something wrong with fantasising about any other immoral activity (such as murder, bank-robbery etc.). However, the distinction with paedophiles is that they often have an inability to prevent these fantasies from manifesting themselves through action - that is, while there is nothing intrinsically immoral about fantasising about paedophiliac behaviour, as soon as this behaviour is acted out, then we have a problem and those who act-out their fantasies in such a way deserve to be punished.
So, if we view paedophilia as an inherent sexual disorder (not dissimilar, say, from the mechanisms that drive homosexual behaviour), then it is something that can probably not be "cured" - regardless of the severity of the penalties associated with it - but only "prevented". That is, if someone has an inherent desire to engage in sexual activities with children, then we probably cannot dissuade them from that, only try to get them to understand why they cannot act out their fantasies and why to do so would be grossly immoral. I think that the high recurrence rate of convicted paedophiles released from prison indicates that these people have a desire that cannot be quashed by heavy-handed penalties, only through therapy that allows them to understand why the molestation of children is intrinsically wrong.
So, like you said, I think it would benefit society to ensure that these people get the treatment they need, rather than just throwing them in prison and watching them reoffend within weeks of being released. |
|
|
| occrider |
If they ban child porn the next thing they'll try to ban is animal porn and you know that would ruin St_Andrew's day :p.
Anyway, I think this is dangerous legislation that potentially creates more problems than it solves. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
If they ban child porn the next thing they'll try to ban is animal porn and you know that would ruin St_Andrew's day :p.
Anyway, I think this is dangerous legislation that potentially creates more problems than it solves. |
Oh snap! That thread is paying dividends! |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
If they ban child porn the next thing they'll try to ban is animal porn and you know that would ruin St_Andrew's day :p. |
Oh man. St Andrew started a thread about sexual deviancy and I missed the opportunity to crack a few bestiality jokes? Where the was my head at...? :p |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Oh man. St Andrew started a thread about sexual deviancy and I missed the opportunity to crack a few bestiality jokes? Where the was my head at...? :p |
Seriously ... this is no place for insightful commentary. Obviously you need to drink more. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Seriously ... this is no place for insightful commentary. Obviously you need to drink more. |
Man, aren't you passed out yet, Renegade? Or did you kick back a few red bulls in the process? |
|
|
| Renegade |
Well I have a ridiculously bad sleeping pattern normally, even worse on weekends, so this isn't so bad for me. I got home at about 4am (it's just after 7am now) which was pretty damn early compared to the time I normally get home on Fridays, so I've decided to compensate by providing you people with my fractured take on the world of politics until I feel tired enough to sleep.
Only problem is, I've had a couple more beers and feel even more awake now than I did before... :-/
Anyway.
[/derail] |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
[/derail] |
Yes, we need to get back to the topic of this thread: St_Andrew's sexual deviancy. Where is he anyway? No doubt my words inspired fear in him and he's out dling all the beastiality he can before the Swedish government cracks down on him. :p |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Dude, St. Andrew likes animal pron?
Man, I guess you just don't know people 'till you know 'em. |
|
|
|
|
