Internet Porn (Don't worry, this is work safe)

[Mystech]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A lawyer for the Bush administration argued Tuesday that the U.S. Supreme Court should uphold a law that protects children from Internet pornography.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/02/online.smut/index.html

Right, well some of you may not be terribly savvy with all of these Right-wingers vs. civil liberties type cases, but in general once they get it into their heads that they need to protect every single child in America from viewing certain material, you can generally assume that they're going to go off the deep end, and someone's going to pay.

Solicitor General Theodore Olson told the justices that indecent material is "persistent and unavoidable" and causes "substantial psychological and physiological damage on children."

Substantial psychological and physiological damage to children? Ok, lets ignore psychological for a moment. . . but physiological? Is porn going to bite them? Is it going to knock them out of their chairs? Is Olson afraid that little boys are going to jerk too hard and yank their wieners right off? What physical harm, exactly is he afraid that porn is going to bring to children? The most feasible thing I could think of is that perhaps rapidly flashing banner adds may cause seizures.

As for psychological damage. . . they've got to learn about this stuff sooner or later don't they? I mean we're talking about a fairly natural and universal biological function here. . . yeah, sure glorified and made all flashy and glitzy, but isn't it the parent’s job to tell little Billy and sally what the difference is, and how it all works? What long term psychological damage could possibly be dealt to a child by seeing some pictures of naked people sticking various things in various holes? Europeans, help me out here, does seeing naked people at a young age warp your youth? Is it psychologically scarring? Do you need to go to therapy regularly because of your looser broadcast regulations?

To illustrate his point, Olson said he went on his home computer over the weekend, typed in "free porn" on a search engine and 6 million Web sites popped up.

This is just utterly absurd. Please remember from the previous paragraph that Olson's point was that porn is "persistent and unavoidable". Now how exactly does going on the internet and looking specifically for "Free porn" prove that anything is persistent and unavoidable? All that says is that if you look for it, then behold, you shall find. It's like shooting your own foot to prove that gun violence is "unavoidable". What a complete joke!

As much as boneheaded conservatives (and hell even a fair number of liberals [John Leiberman, this means you!]) seem to have this completely unrealistic idea that we need federal legislation to child-proof this entire nation, even at the expense of free speech and other liberties. Sooner or later they're going to have to learn that we can't try to completely shelter our children from every benign little quirk of society that we may happen to find morally objectionable. Knowing about these things builds characters and better prepares us to deal with every day life in the real world. If you try to keep your child completely isolated from such things, then he's bound to end up like li'll Johnny Ashcroft, afraid to see the pert tit of justice.

 

[sargentlard]

As for psychological damage. . . they've got to learn about this stuff sooner or later don't they?

The point is that this knowledge is kept to Later stages of life

I mean we're talking about a fairly natural and universal biological function here. . . yeah, sure glorified and made all flashy and glitzy

Thats an understatement, a gross understatement.

but isn't it the parent?s job to tell little Billy and sally what the difference is, and how it all works?

Lets skip the horrible awkwardness of it all here and go to the fact that even parents have their limit. Internet access is readily avaliable and it isn't exactly hard to dupe internet filters. Yes the parent should monitor the child's internet acitivites at home but for how long...30 min, 1hr, 2hr perhaps....they have lives and besides Libraray, school, friends house etc etc etc...everywhere net access is avaliable.

What long term psychological damage could possibly be dealt to a child by seeing some pictures of naked people sticking various things in various holes?

That is questionable and while most will only discover mastrabation earlier some kids can be and will be fucked up.

Europeans, help me out here, does seeing naked people at a young age warp your youth?

Changing clothes, showers (normal kind), Nude beaches with normal beach goer activity sans clothes....not a 38DD women bending over to have a gerbil stuffed in her ass.....BIG difference.

Is it psychologically scarring? Do you need to go to therapy regularly because of your looser broadcast regulations?

I am not too familiar with European broadcasting so I can't question you there.

...In the end, however, I agree with you. These bone headed tirades of these conservitives are useless and moronic at best. What they fail to realize is that social change is needed, not a law change. Have they ever tried to figure out why so many porn sites show up every day and why 11,000+ porn movies are produced each year?...no, why because looking past the do gooder attitude requires an open mind, public needs a ironhand leader, not a sensible one.

I find that these sites and this huge industry itself exists because it serves a purpose that U.S society has always denied - The natural urges. It is not the sole reason but a huge factor of the overall perverse money making machine. Europeans, Chinese, Japanese etc have a healthy attitude about sex and nudity. In Japan bath houses are a cultural gathering hotspot, in Europe men share beds together but in U.S nooooo....even basic nudity is supressed and viewed as anti-god or anti-Christian. Sex is taboo so it is rampant, nudity is looked down upon so plethora of sites exist solely to feed the need of seeing the human body naked. No law can make this attitude go away, only supress it create more advanced ways of spreading the virus and the remedy.

 

[everneo]

Changing clothes, showers (normal kind), Nude beaches with normal beach goer activity sans clothes....not a 38DD women bending over to have a gerbil stuffed in her ass.....BIG difference.

yeah, the difference between erotica and sexual perversion. the differnce between a couple making love and a sluts competing in a gang bang contest.
Generally children are not physiologically and psychologically ready even for erotica in their pre-teen.

 

[Mystech]

Well I'm a bit tired to argue some of the more subtle and subjective points, but you really mean to make me believe that viewing pornography will cause physiological harm? I mean I know that viewing a computer monitor for extended periods of time can be harmful to your eyes and vision, but that's not exclusive to porn. Is it going to burn the eyes out of their poor innocent skulls? Is it going to blow them right out of their chairs and break their poor little bones? What physical harm is going to befall those mischievous little rapscallions if they happen to stumble upon the site of a vile pornographer?

That's something that I just don't buy. This whole "problem" is being blown way out of preportion, and that's the main point I mean to make with this thread.

 

[everneo]

Psychological damages affect physical activities that help children grow-up healthy. Probably things like suddenly loosing interest in food, sports. And possible less-sleep, indulgence in too frequent jerking, fisting (infection) , peeping to see things live (eye-damage), getting beaten-up (for any of these) etc. Other nasty things by some of those 'mischievous little rapscallions' could possibly make you amputing some of their parts. BTW, is it not good that children being guarded away from trash (mostly) till they grow old enough to withstand that.?

 

[SwedishFish]

everneo, you're thinking of the difference between tasteful porn and the rest of it. seeing natural bodies in a normal light doing everyday things will not hurt children. seeing unnatural things such as gerbils in places they don't belong while the parents keep them from seeing normal nudity may however be conflicting.
story: i have a friend who was a nanny for a couple of kids. when they went swimming she would shower at the pool with them and acted normal even when the little girl was staring at her because she wanted them to know that bodies are normal and nothing to be ashamed of. yay for her and her awesome parenting skills.

mystech, didn't you know that masturbation causes blindness?

 

[tablariddim]

Children need to be focused on schoolwork and normal childhood things, you can't fill a 10 year old's mind with porno images and not expect some kind of negative reaction.

 

[Lemming3k]

can i just ask what age of children the thread starter is refering to exactly?

 

[Silverback]

What kind of physiological harm can come from young children viewing porn? Well, the sites don't normally carry the warning "Don't try this at home". In fact, just the opposite. Just like some kids start smoking at a very early age because it appears grown up, cool and/or fun, well, follow the logic.

That having been said, I do agree that some kind of harsh clampdown on the Internet is foolish and misguided. There are better ways of policing the Internet and better ways to filter what your children can access.

 

[rainbow__princess_4]

I love it for the use of the word "savvy".. i have nothing more to say

 

[alain]

most pornography sites have a warning "you must be over 18 to see this site"
if you changed this to "this site has content that may be offencive to people who dislike nudity", then what ould be the problem.

"better ways to filter what your children can access."
what misguided code of ethics gives u the idea that u shud be able to do that? if you wrote a law saying that adult women arent allowed to look at fashion magazines and adult men arent allowed to look at car magazines there would basically be an armed rebellion,

people have rights, these rights may not be broken or altered, however, people dont seem to count as people untill they turn 18

 

[Mystech]

Psychological damages affect physical activities that help children grow-up healthy. Probably things like suddenly loosing interest in food, sports. And possible less-sleep, indulgence in too frequent jerking, fisting (infection) , peeping to see things live (eye-damage), getting beaten-up (for any of these) etc.

You’re describing puberty in general, I think. You're also exagerating the risk. Infection? Eye damage? That's some pretty dangerous stuff right there! If this is a major concern you're probably going to die from some electrical or hard edged computer-case related injury before you come of age.

can i just ask what age of children the thread starter is refering to exactly?

It doesn't matter, really. Old enough to use a computer, but not yet 18, the range is well enough there. Most likely the pre-pubes won't even understand the images there seeing, where as those in puberty will probably giggle and snerk and start taking hour long showers (Oh hey, there's another downside to the issue, internet porn is bad for water conservation!) I don't see damage coming to anyone who views these things. I don't see damage coming to people who see pictures of bodies mutilated horribly in car crashes, maybe they'll learn a certain respect for driving carefully, but I think that serious emotional scars caused by viewing something generally only come from real visceral events, seeing a loved one die, or the like. Other than that talking about making the internet child-safe is like trying to put foam padding over the entire country so that no one can skin their knees.

Children need to be focused on schoolwork and normal childhood things, you can't fill a 10 year old's mind with porno images and not expect some kind of negative reaction.

Well, to be honest I don't think that anyone has suggested yet that we make internet porn compulsory viewing for children, so I don't see how this is really relevant.

mystech, didn't you know that masturbation causes blindness?

If that were true there wouldn't be a man alive who has the full faculty of his vision.

 

[Lemming3k]

In that case, i am old enough to use a computer, and am 17, so im old enough to know better than copy any of it, someone younger might not know better, problem is the pop up ads that come up on computers nearly every 10 minutes, some harmless enough ads, but some are porn, and apart from it being annoying, its also kinda gross. Also i once downloaded a music video on a file sharing program, and it turned out to be a video of a young girl, trust me you dont wanna know more. I think that kinda thing would scar most adults if they saw it though, let alone people younger, it was given a normal name and you didnt know what it was until it was downloaded, the downside of file sharing i guess, but people from the age of 10 use file sharing sites for music and music video downloads, its easy to get something other than what you were looking for. The unfortunate thing is theres very little you can do bout it, you cant ban porn, what would all the balding middle aged single men do in their spare time???
PS. Although most porn sites do have a warning about being over 18 before you view, they also have some pictures on the same page as the warning to advertise the content of the site.

 

[tablariddim]

I don't see damage coming to people who see pictures of bodies mutilated horribly in car crashes, maybe they'll learn a certain respect for driving carefully, but I think that serious emotional scars caused by viewing something generally only come from real visceral events, seeing a loved one die, or the like.

I disagree, I think viewing images of badly mutilated bodies for entertainment, is rather strange, even for adults, because, who would want to view images like that in the first place?

I'll try and answer that; first, it's people who are merely inquisitive; they might look, feel disgusted and leave it at that, or they might not feel anything in particular and just study the images with a morbid fascination such as most of us have for mangled bodies and car wrecks etc, then there are the researchers, who might want to study the images for their own academic reasons, then there are the people who actually enjoy the images, who laugh at the inherent tragedies behind the images, who might get so obsessed by the sight of blood and guts and squashed brains that they fantasise about seeing it in the flesh so to speak, who might even instigate a scenario where their fantasy is realised.

You may think I'm just expressing paranoia, but just think, these people do exist in society, always did and always will; they are like kindling wood, all they need is a few sparks to set them alight.

Children don't need to see these types of harrowing images. Even though most of them are already disensitised to horror, due to TV and videos, the perceived fact that the images are of real people, is bound to create nightmares at the very least for some and even worse psychological/emotional scarring for a few others.

Well, to be honest I don't think that anyone has suggested yet that we make internet porn compulsory viewing for children, so I don't see how this is really relevant.

That's not the point. The point is that all this stuff is available and accessible by any child and it shouldn't be so.

Children, like adults, are inquisitive, the pre-pubescent who has heard about porn, will surely try to check it out. I don't think a 9 year old would have a problem with recognising what's going on in the pictures. The stuff he/she is likely to see, will totally distort his perception and expectation of what is considered normal loving sex between 2 consenting adults and again, there's kindling wood in some of those kids, porn will ignite them and we'll see higher promiscuity , more cases of sexual abuse between children, more children growing up obsessed by fetishes, more pregnancies and a hell of a lot more sexually transmitted diseases from a younger age group.

I'm not suggesting that anything is banned or censored, but I think that only adults should have absolute free access to the internet.

How? With a special key.
First, all websites are compulsorily given a rating according to their content. All the sites that fall into adult territory can only be accessed with a special code number, even to search for them.

Second; the telephone company that transmits internet to your home, gives you, the adult subscriber/customer, a special code number that you must use if you want access to adult content. By this method we can also cut out the dubious practise of giving our credit card details to the porn merchants, because our code word will be proof enough of our age.

 

[everneo]

everneo, you're thinking of the difference between tasteful porn and the rest of it.

I just pointed out various degrees of porn. I would not suggest any for children. I think you are right, nudity won't come under porn unless it was made to mean it.

 

[static76]

That's not the point. The point is that all this stuff is available and accessible by any child and it shouldn't be so.

Parents are responsible for watching over their kids. The actions of kids under 13 should be monitored, which is easy to do with the vast amount of parental control software out there.

If a parent isn't capable of watching thier kid, then they shouldn't allow them on the Internet.

 

[SwedishFish]

If that were true there wouldn't be a man alive who has the full faculty of his vision.

or woman. anyone who denies it is a liar.

 

[Mystech]

I'm not suggesting that anything is banned or censored, but I think that only adults should have absolute free access to the internet.

How? With a special key.
First, all websites are compulsorily given a rating according to their content. All the sites that fall into adult territory can only be accessed with a special code number, even to search for them.

Second; the telephone company that transmits internet to your home, gives you, the adult subscriber/customer, a special code number that you must use if you want access to adult content. By this method we can also cut out the dubious practise of giving our credit card details to the porn merchants, because our code word will be proof enough of our age.

You really haven't got any idea how the internet works, do you? What you propose would be impossable. Not just difficult, not just logisticaly improbable, flat out impossable, as it does not accurately describe the sort of control that anyone could asscert even over the world wide web (let alone other internet services).

 

[Lemming3k]

I'd consider page 3 adult, but because its in a newspaper anybody can buy it, would you propose they ask for identification to buy this newspaper? to coincide with your proposed internet key? its a good idea but its near impossible to implement.
And for the person that said parents should watch their kids, i'd consider it invasion of privacy, would you like someone watching over you while your on instant messenger? reading everything thats said to you?
*for those who havnt heard of page 3, on the 3rd page of certain english newspapers there is a picture of a topless model everyday.*

 

[static76]

And for the person that said parents should watch their kids, i'd consider it invasion of privacy, would you like someone watching over you while your on instant messenger? reading everything thats said to you?

???

How is parents knowing and monitoring what their kids do on the internet an "invasion of privacy"?