Iceland considers porn ban

[Panzersharkcat]

I'm guessing it won't pass but I'm not exactly familiar with Icelandic politics. Anybody in Iceland know more about this and the likelihood of it succeeding?
Link.

The government is considering introducing internet filters, such as those used to block China off form the worldwide web, in order to stop Icelanders downloading or viewing pornography on the internet.

The unprecedented censorship is justified by fears about damaging effects of the internet on children and women.

Ogmundur Jonasson, Iceland's interior minister, is drafting legislation to stop the access of online pornographic images and videos by young people through computers, games consoles and smartphones.

"We have to be able to discuss a ban on violent pornography, which we all agree has a very harmful effects on young people and can have a clear link to incidences of violent crime," he said.

Methods under consideration include blocking access to pornographic website addresses and making it illegal to use Icelandic credit cards to access pay-per-view pornography.

A law forbidding the printing and distribution of pornography is already in force in Iceland but it has yet to be updated to cover the internet.

The proposals are expected to become law this year despite a general election in April.

"There is a strong consensus building in Iceland. We have so many experts from educationalists to the police and those who work with children behind this, that this has become much broader than party politics," Halla Gunnarsdottir, a political adviser to Mr Jonasson told the Daily Mail.

"At the moment, we are looking at the best technical ways to achieve this. But surely if we can send a man to the moon, we must be able to tackle porn on the internet."

The proposed control over online access, that mirrors attempt in dictatorships such as China to restrict the internet, is justified as a defence of vulnerable women and children.

"Iceland is taking a very progressive approach that no other democratic country has tried," said Professor Gail Dines, an expert on pornography and speaker at a recent conference at Reykjavik University. "It is looking a pornography from a new position - from the perspective of the harm it does to the women who appear in it and as a violation of their civil rights."

Section in bold because it strikes me as really idiotic. They voluntarily enter the porn industry, therefore they had their civil rights violated... by themselves...

[K. A. Pital]

That sounds like a good idea to get your government overthrown. Chinese filters do not block porn. Oh they do not.

[The Vortex Empire]

We don't want children to see porn, so let's ban it for everyone. Smart. Violence is fine, of course.

[Zixinus]

That sounds like a good idea to get your government overthrown. Chinese filters do not block porn. Oh they do not.

Do I sense that you have a fun story behind that? Or at least an interesting factoid?

[Eternal_Freedom]

I find it curious they say:

"We have to be able to discuss a ban on violent pornography, which we all agree has a very harmful effects on young people and can have a clear link to incidences of violent crime" emphasis mine.

Incidentally, what the hell is an "educationalist?" That's a new one to me.

[Zadius]

I think they successfully banned strip clubs a few years ago. Sexual repression has never improved the lives of women (or men) anywhere before, so why on earth do they think it will now? This will only give ammunition to the nutballs who rant about Feminazis. The article quotes Gail Dines who likes to compare porn to rape and violence. That's not feminism.

[Scrib]

Vulnerable women would probably be better served by tighter regulation and promotion of porn sites that pass those regulations. But hey, let's shut the entire thing down and somehow hope that the loss of a few million in a market of hundreds of millions or billions ends all our problems!

Bullshit. Just scream "THINK OF TEH CHILDRENZZZ!". No need to supplement that time-honored battle cry.

[Grumman]

The article quotes Gail Dines who likes to compare porn to rape and violence. That's not feminism.

Eh, I certainly don't like that branch of feminism, but I still call the anti-sex feminists feminists.

[Zadius]

The article quotes Gail Dines who likes to compare porn to rape and violence. That's not feminism.

Eh, I certainly don't like that branch of feminism, but I still call the anti-sex feminists feminists.

Feminism becomes a meaningless term if you can be anti-choice and a feminist. They are telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies, after all.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

It's not meaningless because, whether or not you believe they're misguided or outright wrong, those views are held and promoted under a belief that they will improve the lives of women and help dismantle societal inequalities.

There's many branches of feminism and a few hold views I find outright abominable but that doesn't mean they aren't feminists.

[hongi]

They voluntarily enter the porn industry, therefore they had their civil rights violated... by themselves...

Porn is bigger than the big porn industry. There's lots of porn around that are spread without the consent of the people involved or were made under duress (some financial difficulty etc).

Anyway, before anyone goes knee-jerking about how evil this ban is, the pro-banners should make a case. If porn is as bad as they claim, and they have evidence to back it up, then I'd be for banning porn. But if it's not harmful, which is probable, then they shouldn't ban it.

[Korto]

Hongi, please don't include vague "financial difficulty" as duress, otherwise most of the population of the world only works "under duress".

[Zadius]

They voluntarily enter the porn industry, therefore they had their civil rights violated... by themselves...

Porn is bigger than the big porn industry. There's lots of porn around that are spread without the consent of the people involved or were made under duress (some financial difficulty etc).

Anyway, before anyone goes knee-jerking about how evil this ban is, the pro-banners should make a case. If porn is as bad as they claim, and they have evidence to back it up, then I'd be for banning porn. But if it's not harmful, which is probable, then they shouldn't ban it.

Unless they have some secret government research there is no evidence to back it up. It's not like researchers haven't studied this before.

It's not meaningless because, whether or not you believe they're misguided or outright wrong, those views are held and promoted under a belief that they will improve the lives of women and help dismantle societal inequalities.

And George W. Bush was a pacifist because he believed the invasion of Iraq would bring about a lasting peace...

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

If you're truly worried about the sanctity of feminism maybe you should think twice before you declare your male perspective to be the final arbiter in what women can do for the sake of feminism :L

[Serafina]

Feminism becomes a meaningless term if you can be anti-choice and a feminist. They are telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies, after all.

Feminism isn't defined as "women being allowed to do with their bodies what they like". That's part of most feminist philosophies, but hardly all there is to it.
The most basic definition is "defining and establishing rights for women".
Notice the "defining" there - after all, you can't establish rights if you don't know what those rights are supposed to be.
And "be protected from sexual exploitation, such as pornography" is very much a right, such as the right to bodily inviolability (=right not to be injured and such).

Now you can of course disagree (and i do) that all pornography is sexual exploitation - some certainly is, but most western pornography isn't by my definition because it involves informed consent and appropriate value exchange.

[Serafina]

If you're truly worried about the sanctity of feminism maybe you should think twice before you declare your male perspective to be the final arbiter in what women can do for the sake of feminism :L

Ugh, yes....
We're having WAY too much of that in Germany right now. A social media campaign about sexism and sexual harassment started a "public" (=mainstream media) debate.
Cue men getting invited to various talk shows to proudly declare their uninformed opinions on whether Germany has a "sexism problem". Because obviously you can determine whether there is a society-wide problem from your personal experience as a member of a group that wouldn't be affected by it anyway

Anyway, going around and saying "well they're sex-negative so they can't be feminists" is just plain stupid, whether you're male or female.

And yes, men can be part of feminist debates, movements and whatnot - just like a white person can fight against racism. Their informed opinion can be valuable, they can come up with good ideas, pass legislation to reduce sexism and whatnot.
But a lot of men go ahead and put their own agenda first, take primacy of definition etc. - which ultimately boils down to "i know better than those women" and is pretty much sexist. Because it's not their rights that it's about, and it's not them that have to be happy with them. And you don't get to define terms that describe another person - such as defining what sexual harassment or sexism is when it affects others than you.

[Zadius]

If you're truly worried about the sanctity of feminism maybe you should think twice before you declare your male perspective to be the final arbiter in what women can do for the sake of feminism :L

Oh for fuck's sake... I guess feminism can be about teaching women how to make the best damn apple pie in town, if enough people start using the term in that way. So, I guess technically you're right, if your original intent was to nitpick me on semantics. But, I certainly never said anything remotely implying that I, as a man, am in a special position to tell feminists what they can't do as feminists. In fact, I think I've been clear that I'm generally just pro- 'do whatever the hell you want.' I merely pointed out what I see as a contradiction (defending women's rights by taking away rights, including a woman's right to use her body how she chooses).

[Dominarch's Hope]

We don't want children to see porn, so let's ban it for everyone. Smart. Violence is fine, of course.

I think its the combo thats offensive. Rape Culture and all. Although it might also inculde BDSM and other kinky stuff.
.......

[humor]
In unrelated news, German porn exports have taken a small but significant decline.
[/humor]

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Oh for fuck's sake... I guess feminism can be about teaching women how to make the best damn apple pie in town, if enough people start using the term in that way. So, I guess technically you're right, if your original intent was to nitpick me on semantics. But, I certainly never said anything remotely implying that I, as a man, am in a special position to tell feminists what they can't do as feminists. In fact, I think I've been clear that I'm generally just pro- 'do whatever the hell you want.' I merely pointed out what I see as a contradiction (defending women's rights by taking away rights, including a woman's right to use her body how she chooses).

This isn't some semantics game or anything. The debate over how to consider porn, sex work, BDSM, and similar stuff was a big issue in feminism a few decades ago and is at least part of the reason for the separation of the second and third waves of feminism. Anti-pornography feminists are still active today and while I disagree with their views I'm not going to strip them of the title of feminist because we have different beliefs over what is best for freeing women. I'd suggest you give a serious consideration of their views yourself before making judgements, too, because it seems pretty clear you've no idea why they feel pornography is an issue.

But, I certainly never said anything remotely implying that I, as a man, am in a special position to tell feminists what they can't do as feminists.

You may not have declared you're in a special position to do so but you certainly attempted to do it anyway.

[TheFeniX]

We don't want children to see porn, so let's ban it for everyone. Smart. Violence is fine, of course.

I think its the combo thats offensive. Rape Culture and all. Although it might also inculde BDSM and other kinky stuff.

I read one article where the criteria (what net hounds were looking for) for "violent" was any kind of hair grabbing or even "forceful thrusting." "Degrading" could be covered by pretty much any cliche one-liner given by an actor. Basically, unless your porn is missionary with no talking, you're supporting violent and degrading porn. Not to say this is the route they're going, but it honestly wouldn't surprise me if they're looking for a scapegoat.

My problem with banning actual violent porno is it being largely hypocritical when you can watch/read media where murderers and thieves are not just acceptable, but glorified. And why aren't "gay for pay" actors part of this "degrading" business? That's pretty much the definition of doing something you don't enjoy for money (unless I'm honestly supposed to believe women don't enjoy sex, even when not paid).

"We have to be able to discuss a ban on violent pornography, which we all agree has a very harmful effects on young people and can have a clear link to incidences of violent crime," he said.

I would really like to see this "clear link" because I've never found anything on it, besides the odd researcher who seems less concerned with valid data and more concerned with getting his name in the news when someone gets violent and happened to have play DOOM.™ I'm pretty sure the "violent X makes people violent" line has been debunked numerous times over the years, not to mention issues with the "chicken or the egg" problem even if there is a link.

[Dominarch's Hope]

No, its not "Hypocritical". I hate how people abuse that term now. Hypocritical would be lessening punishments for actual sexual assaults and covering up and suppressing prosecution at the same time.

They are going after a very specific type of porn apparently and for a very specific reason. Whether or not the reason is logical has nothing to do with it.

Gay for pay cant be argued to implicitly advocate forcible rape, and murders and thievery are entirely different crimes. Whether or not the gay for pay guys earnestly enjoy it or not is irrelevant to the on screen depiction of consent. And they (usually) consent to doing the movie anyways.

Hell, this isnt about the enjoyment of sex at all, its about the consent and possible coercion of it and it being depicted on screen period, whether in a positive or negative manner.

[Zadius]

This isn't some semantics game or anything. The debate over how to consider porn, sex work, BDSM, and similar stuff was a big issue in feminism a few decades ago and is at least part of the reason for the separation of the second and third waves of feminism. Anti-pornography feminists are still active today and while I disagree with their views I'm not going to strip them of the title of feminist because we have different beliefs over what is best for freeing women. I'd suggest you give a serious consideration of their views yourself before making judgements, too, because it seems pretty clear you've no idea why they feel pornography is an issue.

Wow, I didn't even realize I could "strip them of their title" from a message board. I don't know why you're inferring so much self-importance from my posts. We don't even seem to disagree on anything other than that.

[Guardsman Bass]

I think the key there is "Iceland already has a law banning the production and distribution of pornography, but it just doesn't cover the internet".

But in general, I'm not surprised, since this is the same Prime Minister who pushed for and got a ban on strip clubs. It only makes sense that you'd move on to pornography, if you feel that any commercial display of female sexuality is immoral.

[Scrib]

No, its not "Hypocritical". I hate how people abuse that term now. Hypocritical would be lessening punishments for actual sexual assaults and covering up and suppressing prosecution at the same time.

They are going after a very specific type of porn apparently and for a very specific reason. Whether or not the reason is logical has nothing to do with it.

Gay for pay cant be argued to implicitly advocate forcible rape, and murders and thievery are entirely different crimes. Whether or not the gay for pay guys earnestly enjoy it or not is irrelevant to the on screen depiction of consent. And they (usually) consent to doing the movie anyways.

Hell, this isnt about the enjoyment of sex at all, its about the consent and possible coercion of it and it being depicted on screen period, whether in a positive or negative manner.

Except they're not. They're opposed to the very idea of pornography. They banned strip clubs and porn before, this is just the logical conclusion. They have a problem with the "sale" of women so to speak and they've been clear on that.

[K. A. Pital]

That sounds like a good idea to get your government overthrown. Chinese filters do not block porn. Oh they do not.

Do I sense that you have a fun story behind that? Or at least an interesting factoid?

Don't know if it's interesting or not, but here it goes; as some know, the official story behind the easily circumventable ISP banning of Twitter and Facebook is that they "spread pornography". However, we never had any problems with watching dozens of free porn videos. None of the free porn neither any of the pay porn sites were banned at the time I was in the PRC.

Also, I find it really funny that this happens in a North/West European nation. North-Western European porn has, to my knowledge, some of the best working conditions in the industry, if not the highest pay rates.