It looks like the United Kingdom is taking steps to limit access to online porn and ISPs will be asking for customers to declare their preference:
While I am usually not into having government or big-business tell people what to do, I think the idea of requiring an up-or-down vote on filters for internet service is a good idea. Why?
My opinion is that internet porn is becoming a health issue. There are definite physiological and psychological ramifications to its usage, and so I think the argument that it is absolutely a matter of 'free speech' is becoming more and more ludicrous as we see the effects:
We limit access to alcohol and drugs, right? I think there definitely need to be limits on the new pornography just like there are limits on the old print variety. There are real problems with this.
Of course, this does nothing about the bad taste exhibited in 'almost-porn,' which is found in advertising and pop culture. Kanye West and Kim Kardashian in a obscure-nude music video is just another example. These images are being drilling into young people's minds without any regard for a child's right to remain shielded from adult sexual fetishes. Of course, you can't expect these 'celebutards' to respect common decency... they are too busy making money to think about other people as anything but walking wallets waiting to be pilfered.
There will come a time when people figure out that this constant bombardment with sexualized images is damaging us and that we need to return to common decency. At least, I hope that time will come...
H/T: Ad-Orientem
I agree with you on this issue. An "opt-in/out" option makes a lot of sense to me.
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind, that the idea that porn is somehow "protected speech" is a very recent idea. When the Constitution was written, the First Amendment applied only to restrictions upon news reporting and political advocacy, and applied only to the Federal Government ("Congress shall make no law ...."). Things like porn and obscenity were left to the plenary "police powers" of the several States.
To me, the idea that certain things should be confined to brown paper wrappers (or their electronic equivalent) is not "tyranny" or "oppression" of any kind. All societies constrain the behavior of their members in some way, either by moral and social custom, or by statute. Take away the "tyranny" of custom and you get the worse tyranny of the State. The Founders often said that "if God does not govern the affairs of men, then tyrants will."