OFF: Cyber Sleaze

[M Holmes]

Andy Gilham writes:

> Um.  I'm in two minds here, because I think this is really off-topic, but I'm
> quite interested in it as well...

As someone pointed out: if the internet is to be censored then it isn't
off topic in any group on the internet.

> Surely the point about internet porn is that what was previously only
> available by jumping through lots of hoops might now be easily available to
> everybody - people that might never go into a porn shop for fear of being
> recognised, or whatever, can log onto alt.sex.with.animals and perv out to
> their hearts' content.  Yes, you do still have to seek it out, but it's
> really easy to seek it out.  Thus, the worry is that the internet might make
> pornography much more widespread.  Now, many people (including me) feel that
> porn, especially of the hard-core kind, can do actual social harm, both to
> the users of porn, the families of users of porn, and also to the people
> (usually women) that are photographed for porn.

What kind of harm and what evidence do you have for this apart from a
feeling? We can hardly be justified telling people how to run their
lives based only on feelings.

> (If you think that coercion
> isn't a normal part of procuring women (or children) for the sex industry,
> and it's just a freely undertaken transaction, then that's just naive.)

As far as children are concerned, they cannot give consent and therefore
any child porn is evidence of a crime. It's already illegal pretty much
everywhere. Why would we need a new law for the Internet?

As far as adults are concenred. Coercion is illegal and can be actioned
in Court. Still no need for a new law. As for coercion being standard in
the sex industry, I've recently been in touch with a woman who worked in
the sex industry for years and she claims that while it exists, it is
rare, at least in western countries.

> Of course, the pornographers and their sympathisers are more than happy to
> defend their degrading practices by shouting "freedom of speech".  This isn't
> what most people think of as freedom of speech.

Nevertheless it's still freedom of speech.

> Freedom of speech in a
> constitutional context means, principally, being able to freely debate
> political or religious issues without fearing the knock on the door at 3 am.

It applies to more than just debate. Check Supreme Court rulings in
America or Court rulings elsewhere if you doubt this.

>  All countries have laws against libel and slander, for instance,

Those are laws which cover recompense for someone exercising their right
to freedom of speech in a way which harms others. I'm very much in
favour of freedom *and* responsibility. Where it can be proved that
making or viewing porn has harmed anyone but the creators or viewers,
I'd be in favour of them taking their case to Court. The law doesn't
need to be any more strict than that.

> I don't believe
> that such laws constitute "censorship" in any sinister sense.

Nope. However saying that certain things ain't allowed, rather than that
they'll be prosecuted *if* they cause harm, *is* censorship.

> An interesting text is Michael Moorcock's essay "The Case against
> Pornography", in the _Casablanca_ collection (a-ha, some HW/BOC relevance!).

Maybe I should read that.

> - Andy

FoFP