Time for censorship?
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3459755.stm

Many of us have advocated no censorship and "whatever floats your boat" or "anything goes, so long as noone gets hurt".

People do get hurt.

Vigil, people will always get hurt, somewhere, somewhen.

Muslim people scandalised by the facial depictions and rampant

alcohol consumption in areas they have moved into.

Devout Christians aghast at "Life of Brian" and other heresies.

Fundamentalist Jews subjected to the smell of frying bacon.

Nihilists who have existance thrust on them.

We feel for each and all of them, but life is biased towards the majority.

People get hurt when some moron, inflamed by a stripper or a porno

movie goes to a park and attacks a girl (or boy).

Too many governments are enacting laws "for our own good because

we can't be trusted to look after ourselves."

If you can pick where to draw the line, you're either a wiser person than I,

or self-deluded enough to think you know all the answers.

Your cotton wool wrap is waiting, sir.

The speed limit is a line that is drawn, rightly or wrongly.

The age of consent

Alcohol levels for drivers

and yes there is an international ban on the abuse of children for pornography.

This is a question about censorship and whether the majority should have their way and the difficult thing is to what point?

Do you start at the bottom of the barrel and work up?

Do you think that sites that promote extreme violence to women (or men) should be uncensored? We have a law against inciting racial hatred/violence, why not against hatred and violence to anyone?

Vigil,

I am confident that I would dislike a standardized world – unless it conformed to my standards.

Who here is ready to embrace this modest proposition?

NO.

No, no no.

The murder victim was exactly that, the victim of a murder. She was not a victim of pornography. Whether or not the pornography fuelled the murderer's desire or not, he still had to make a decision to kill, unless he was actually driven insane, and the story does not indicate that insanity was ever alleged.

ok.. im going to put this in anotherl ight for you guys.. because it seems to me most of you live in europe.. and i've been there hehe and well there's nothing realyl censored.. i'm in the US where.. *snickers* if you didnt hear recently our censorship has become so disfigured and dellusioned that during a mid game football show. a famous pop singer had her clothing torn asunder and her breast exposed.. but it had a covering on it.. yet the channel that aired the show is being sued now.. by so many groups of people its outrageous.. believe me.. sometimes.. censorship is not the answer.. maybe inforcing strickter internet trafficing laws.. but its the net.. NO ONE has control over what someone else creates... especially on the net.. this is kind of a rant.. but i thnk you get my point..

My opinion is you could censor all you want, there will still be sick perverts out there who will do things like that killer did to that poor woman.

It is my experience that the few who abuse something, ruin it for the rest of us.

We are adults who enjoy an adult sexually orientated site. If we do not condemn sites that advocate violence and brutality, we will end up losing even this type of site because the overly zealous meddlesome makers will censor us all back to the middle ages.

If you can develop the web, you can certainly develop border controls by State, Country and Continent. And different limits will apply as they always do. I, in Europe will be OK, but if you are in a State of the US where sex toys, anal and even oral sex are illegal - be sure you won't be having much fun on the internet either.

Sites depicting necrophilia are sick. No doubt about it. Did any of these sites make him commit murder? No.
John Lennon's assailant claimed his actions were a result of reading a book, The Catcher in the Rye. Some people were for the banning of that book, but the book didn't kill Lennon.
I don't believe there is a way to 'killer-proof' the world from these types of people. There were child molesters and murderers and necrophiliacs before the internet and I suppose that there may be a case made that there has been an increase since the internet made depictions of these readily available. But against what data? I was molested as a child, but back then you didn't talk about such things. Back then, in a lot of families (well, mine anyway), you weren't a victim... you got in trouble. It was not reported as often.
I think a killer will eventually prove himself, unless he seeks help.
Just my opinion.

"It is my experience that a few who abuse something ruin it for the rest of us." The one bad apple spoiles the cart use is an expedient way and only acts as a band aid for some very complex problems. It has also been my understanding that the overly zealous meddlesome makers will try to censor any thing they find offensive anyway.I have been pondering these issues for a long time to.I would have to ask why,with all of our freedom to to explore sexual issues on the world wide web,does there still exist some very depraved sites devoted to showing the extreme humiiliation and abuse and sometimes worse treatment of another individual? WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? What are they thinking? What are their "values"if any? Is mysoginy, racial hatered,homophobia,child abuse and an all around hatefull view of human sexuality alive and well in the porno industry? Has it been there all along? I avoid these sites like the plague.There is nothing there I can either learn from or feel good about.But perhaps their existance is a price we pay for the overall freedom to view that which we choose to view.Remember,there are people out there who would stop at nothing to censor even Pixies.

There's nothing wrong with mind control and censorship, as long as they're *my* brand of mind control and censorship.

Remember when the only set of breasts available to

a young man was in National Geographic?

Do we really want to go there again?

People are ultimately responsible for their own actions, and

need to know that they will be held accountable.

I agree with almost all of what is being said here.

Censorship doesn't get rid of problems - though there is evidence that it contains or restricts activities.

Which of your freedoms would you forego if it helped stop a child being abused?

My big problem is with the activists. I have come to the conclusion, that whether they are trying to stop smoking or pornography or abortions or whatever, they are actually motivated ultimately just to make themselves feel better.

But they are powerful because the rest of us just sit there - I'm afraid that we are at the beginning of a movement against internet freedoms.

Vigil,

Yes, we are.

China already has extensive political control over the WWW content accessible in that country. Attorney General John Ashcroft would jump at the chance to purity Web content. There are many, many people who would feel comfortable with what would be termed “content regulation”.

There was a saying at the onset of the WWW that it would respond to censorship as damage and “route around it”.

That has been proven to be false. A government, though one of its regulatory agencies, say the FCC here in the States, imposes regulations on the major POPs, which are business and liable to regulation. It will, of necessity begin with the most notorious of sites, say ones that promote child abuse as “Menplay” or some other acceptable euphemism. I believe (and I’d like some feedback here) that the FBI’s “Carnivore” email intercept application has already passed legal review.

Once the principle has been established, the question changes to “how much” and “which ones”.

Many posters here at Pixies have taken exception, to one degree or other, with my position that political involvement is not only unavoidable, but necessary and good. While it may be a distasteful activity, being politically active in the defense of the freedoms we enjoy is the only way to maintain them.