Adult channels to be outlawed

Also the banning of porn would have increased criminal activity. It would have been sold on the black market, just as alcohol was done in the 1920's which is where the term bootlegging originated from.

So yes you are right there munch. It doesn't matter how good you claim your democracy to be. It counts for nothing if the politicians go against popular opinion.

It was also great to see the citizens take to the street on a protest demonstration with regards to this near vote.

Maybe we should plan a similar demonstation with regards to ofcom.

(17-03-2013 00:23 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Also the banning of porn would have increased criminal activity. It would have been sold on the black market, just as alcohol was done in the 1920's which is where the term bootlegging originated from.

Quite right and the present ban on TV porn does not help. Most people do not have access to a licenced sex shop, so many access totally unregulated porn on the internet. Who hasnt clicked a porn link, got to the end and found themselves on a page with links to granny porn or some of the freakier varieties? Some of it focusses on causing pain and suffering, real or acted.

Its the same with illegal sales of porn DVDs from the back of vans and plastic bags. Most people dont get a boner from seeing a woman whipped until she bleeds or forced to eat excerment, but a few do. The one area where I support a ban is where the activity is clearly harmful. Most varieties of sex are not - married couples have been having sex and able to see in uncensored detail for centuries without going off the rails. And most people will not watch a S&M, rape or incest video without feeling disgusted. The risk is that a few who are inclined that way will enjoy it, or think it is harmless fun, and go out and do it.

By banning satisfying porn on TV Ofcom are encouraging a wide audience to access extreme material they might otherwise never see. Unlike the legit market, backstreet DVD sellers don care if they are selling to someone over or under 18.

The other issue which we've barely touched upon in this discussion is what actually constitutes 'porn'.
It is my understanding that in Iceland porn has been banned for sometime, but the term is not actually defined, so the law cannot be properly enforced and hence porn mags and movies have continued to be freely available. The recent moves there against porn are more an attempt to clarify what porn is so the law can be enforced.

So who decides what is and isn't 'porn'? Will art galleries be raided and closed down for displaying nude paintings and statues? Will bookshops and even libraries be closed for daring to stock 'pornographic' literature like 50 Shades, or even Mills and Boon? What about hospitals and doctors surgeries that display graphic medical posters of the human body, will they fall foul?
It may sound silly, but we have been here before, Lady Chatterleys Lover is a famous case in english history, and I can recall in my lifetime, bookshops being raided for selling the works of Jean Genet with it's often graphic homosexual content. I also recall the furore when The Dead Kennedys sold an album with a poster by H. R. Giger, a well known and popular modern artist. The poster involved a series of penises entering vaginas, and many stores refused to sell the album outright. A compromise was reached where the album was sold in a sealed plastic sleeve with a warning sticker, and only sold to 'adults', but I seem to recall that people were arrested because of the incident, though I don't recall if anything came of those cases.
(On a slightly different, but sort of related, tack, I can also recall the attempts to prosecute the Monty Python crew for 'blasphemy' when Life Of Brian was released, and there were other blasphemy cases throughout recent years as well. A similar crazy, archaic, nonsensical law, thankfully consigned to the dustbin these days)


Relating this to what eccles is saying about things like 'violent' porn, I seem to recall reading something in the articles about this case where it was talking about trying to ban not porn in general, but 'porn which is degrading or abusive' or a similar terminology.
That may sound more fair and reasonable, but again, who decides what constitutes 'degrading and abusive'? There are those who would argue that all pornography is ultimately 'degrading and abusive' to women in general, so even that clarification becomes meaningless.

These things become the tip of an iceberg, first The Pirate Bay is barred by ISP's, now they are doing the same with the likes of KickAssTorrents and others. Who's next google's search engine which still shows those sites in their results? These things may start off with good intentions, but they open a door which may become very difficult to close again, and before we know it, we are just as bad at censoring our internet and other content as places like China.
In '1984', George Orwell spoke of Newspeak, a deliberate and conscious bending of the truth to keep the population happy, a defeat in the war becomes a marvellous victory, shops are shown with shelves bulging with produce, when everyone knows the shelves are actually empty. As we move towards 2014, here we are trying to censor the internet, and trying to shackle our press, we are moving ever closer to Orwells Newspeak!

(17-03-2013 11:09 )munch1917 Wrote:  Relating this to what eccles is saying about things like 'violent' porn, I seem to recall reading something in the articles about this case where it was talking about trying to ban not porn in general, but 'porn which is degrading or abusive' or a similar terminology.
That may sound more fair and reasonable, but again, who decides what constitutes 'degrading and abusive'? There are those who would argue that all pornography is ultimately 'degrading and abusive' to women in general, so even that clarification becomes meaningless.

Not a fan of the humiliation and degradation of women porn niche. Consenting adults getting a fair days pay for a fair days work who are producing this then fine. It's not my bag man.

A cursory rumble through the weird and wonderful world of the internet finds that humiliation and degradation of men is also a porn niche. All those dominatrixes whether studio produced or privately online suggests that human sexual desires are varied.

But going back to cliches, it's probably male OFCOM members who are handing out fines and male MP's campaigning against pornography who are phoning up the babe channels when their is the slightest hint of female domination.

What someone says in public about sexual mores should never be taken as their private habits which noone should have a problem with, as long as no law is broken, apart from the hypocrisy.

(17-03-2013 11:09 )munch1917 Wrote:  Who's next google's search engine which still shows those sites in their results?

Yes Google still shows those sites in their results, but they have recently downgraded them so that they don't figure so high in the results anymore.

(17-03-2013 11:09 )munch1917 Wrote:  Relating this to what eccles is saying about things like 'violent' porn, I seem to recall reading something in the articles about this case where it was talking about trying to ban not porn in general, but 'porn which is degrading or abusive' or a similar terminology.
That may sound more fair and reasonable, but again, who decides what constitutes 'degrading and abusive'? There are those who would argue that all pornography is ultimately 'degrading and abusive' to women in general, so even that clarification becomes meaningless.

At present the BBFC bans pissing and heavy S&M on those grounds. Not sure about fisting. But I used to know a lovely man, devout Christian, sincere and not at all preachy, who had difficulty with Vicar of Dibley ("a bit disrespectful"). There are people who dont watch and dislike cert 18 sex, horror or action movies, let alone R18. They would have difficulty with anything that goes beyond mainstream one boy one girl sex. Here is how they would rate some activities. Oral? Yuk. Facials? Ritual humilation of a woman to assert dominance. Anal? About female submission. BGG? Making two women go against nature for male gratification. Bukake? The humiliation of a facial x10. In public. Double anal? Is that even possible?

In fact some people would even have difficulty with that porn mainstay, the external cumshot.

Goalposts based on subjective rules get moved all the time, in both directions, without any laws changing. Rules based on absolutes, like harm, are harder to play with and harder to justify changing.

(16-03-2013 16:28 )shylok Wrote:  

(16-03-2013 14:58 )admiral decker Wrote:  

(15-03-2013 11:56 )shylok Wrote:  I wonder if there's any simple way of finding out which members (MEP's) voted which way? I'd love to know just out of interest...

The clause on banning porn was removed from the bill before the vote was held, was it not? Which means it surely doesn't matter which MEPs voted for the bill and which didn't.

Yes but I would like to know how the voting went (after that clause was removed). It can still be quite revealing... There's still lot of other stuff in the motion...

I'd also love to know who (behind closed doors) agree to vote yes if the porn ban clause was removed.. Politics! :-)

Shylok

For what it's worth here is the full list of who voted and the way they passed their vote.

http://www.votewatch.eu/en/impact-of-the...e-res.html

As with most government information it eventually get's put on the web you just need to look. There are many organisations watching what government's do.

Closer to home the Online Safety Bill is working its way through the house of Lords.

Quote:(1) Internet service providers must provide to subscribers an internet access service which excludes pornographic images unless all the conditions of subsection (3) have been fulfilled. .

(2) Where mobile telephone network operators provide a telephone service to subscribers which includes an internet access service, they must ensure this service excludes pornographic images unless all the conditions of subsection (3) have been fulfilled.

(3) The conditions are— .
(a) 10the subscriber opts-in to subscribe to a service that includes
pornographic images; .
(b) the subscriber is aged 18 or over; and .
© the provider of the service has an age verification policy which has been used to confirm that the subscriber is aged 18 or over.

Two amendments have been proposed that widen or change the scope.

Baroness Benjamin proposed:

Quote:leave out “pornographic images” and insert “adult content”

insert—
““adult content” means an internet access service that contains harmful and offensive materials from which persons under the age of eighteen are protected;
“harmful and offensive materials” has the same meaning as in section 3 of the Communications Act 2003;
“material from which persons under the age of eighteen are protected” means material specified in the OFCOM standards under section 319(2)(a) of the Communications Act 2003.”

after “content” insert “at an age appropriate level”

leave out lines 17 and 18 (“image” and “pornographic” have the same meaning as in section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

Baroness Massey of Darwen proposed:

Quote:after “pornographic” insert “and violent”

(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to set, and from time, to time to review and revise, standards for the—
(a) filtering of adult content in line with the standards set out in section 319 of the Communications Act 2003;
(b) age verification policies to be used under section 1 of this Act.
etc

and Baroness Howe of Idlicote proposed:

Quote:Insert the following new Clause—
“Secretary of State duty to educate parents of children under 18 on online safety
The Secretary of State must provide means of educating parents of children under the age of eighteen about online safety.”

Why all these comments about the banning of porn, I am right in thinking that porn is not what babechannel devotees want, Is It? I don't want porn on these channels,I just want a little bit of tittilation,

(26-03-2013 17:59 )RESPONSIBLE ADULT Wrote:  Why all these comments about the banning of porn, I am right in thinking that porn is not what babechannel devotees want, Is It? I don't want porn on these channels,I just want a little bit of tittilation,

I am watching a football match at the moment and it wouldnt be the same without the occasional goal.

I dont necessarily want nonstop hardcore, and enjoy tease, tittilation and the will she wont she suspense, but there are times when I want that bit more. There is no supsense, no tease if I know in advance that she wont.

Put it another way, its a bit like watching a Bruce Willis action movie with all the action removed. The excitement comes from the stronger content, whether it is an action movie, football match or babeshow. Remove that and you are left with an unsatisfied audience. "American editor and publisher Russ Kick, quoting a sexologist, states that men enjoy a 'sense of closure and finality about sex'" (Wikipedia).