Pornography on the Internet

[socrates]

I was amazed a couple of years ago, when I first went online, about the amount of pornography which floated about in cyberspace. Being a sociology scholar, I naturally pondered on this and asked many questions in my head as to why and how and what and where and if etc etc.

Recently here in Ireland the Garda Siochana(Police) conducted raids on about 100 homes and businesses throughout the state in a bid to crack down on child pornography, which reulted in about one or two arrested based on these individuals downloading images of child pornography. What struck me was that it seems to be deemed okay to view this material but it is illegal to download it.

Many questions went through my mind.

How can I protect my children whilst using the computer?
Isnt all pornography wrong?
Is it possible to distinguish wrong by one downloading as opposed to browsing?
Do different states have different laws concerning this stuff?
Are there dedicated law enforcement teams monotoring these sites?
If one is arrested for downloading material, why not stop it at the source?

Question two got me. If the abuse of children is wrong, which of course it is, isnt the abuse of non consenting adults as bad. These poor individuals who are humiliated may not be compus mentus due to drug/alcohol addiction etc. When is a child not a child? Adulthood as we all know is a social construction. It is not a biological fact. Two kids who turn 16 on the same day may be deemed to be adults in my country but are they both mentally mature to make decisions such as getting involved in pornography. Wouldnt it make sense for states to impose an age 25 rule to give a wide margin of error?

Downloading as opposed to Browsing. Morally who can seperate them? The act of browsing obviously could be done by many individuals with alternative goals. One could be sinister, one could be monoring, one could be researching, one could be innocently stumbling on a site. So to actually prosecute would be impossible. But to download and take physical custody of images is different, but still vague. ie a hard disc as opposed to a cdrom/floppy, a hard disc as opposed to cyberstorage? Again very difficult to prosecute.

Another question came to mind. I am a christian and believe this stuff is morally wrong. But whose to say I am correct? Sites which offer content for and by consenting adults are I suppose legally supportable. But there is a distinguishable difference between the legal and the moral.

When doed the line blur between abusive pornography and hard core, hard core and soft core, soft core and 'tasteful' modelling, 'tasteful' modelling and modelling. There are no demarcation lines drawn in the sand. Also how would one know if they were browsing particular sites. ie A site may offer 'teen photos' but who can prove they are teens, they could be older or younger.

Another question which came to mind was this. Isnt the internet the champion of freedom. No holds barred. The ultimate in free information and exchange. When does the internet become another instrument which has been suddenly become the intellectual property of a particular state or goverment.
Also, who would prosecute whom in case where 'x' is one country, viewing something in another country whilst the server is in another country being fed by 'y' in another country? Mind boggling.

Not the nicest of subjects, but I am sure many of you out there have considered many of the points I have put, and I think thius is a valid topic for discussion.

Good Health
[font=courier new]

[jaguar]

By browsing you are downloading the content to view it. I assume in most legal cases though downloading is defined by acutally intentionally saving the content. One conundrum solved.

Also, who would prosecute whom in case where 'x' is one country, viewing something in another country whilst the server is in another country being fed by 'y' in another country? Mind boggling.

X is in country one. The server is in country two. Unless the content is live and is being streamed from another location then only two counties are involved. X would be charged by the laws of the country he is in. The server adn the streaming location could also be charged under their own laws.

How can I protect my children whilst using the computer?
Isnt all pornography wrong?
Is it possible to distinguish wrong by one downloading as opposed to browsing?
Do different states have different laws concerning this stuff?
Are there dedicated law enforcement teams monotoring these sites?
If one is arrested for downloading material, why not stop it at the source?

1: You can't. get over it. It won't kill them.
2: Not in my book. That is entirely a matter of personal opinion. Child porn is very different to overage porn.
3: See the top of my post.
4: Yes
5: Yes.
6: Because the sorce is hard to find, moves like quicksilver and is often in countries with lax laws.

A site may offer 'teen photos' but who can prove they are teens, they could be older or younger.

Yup. Welcome to the internet mate. Its the closest we have to an unregulated communication medium. As a result its full of scams, lies, porn and blogs full of teenage agnst. Its also full of free discussion, different and interesting ideas and raw creativity.

[Undertoad]

How can I protect my children whilst using the computer?

Raise them in a loving atmosphere where they know they are loved and where they know they have a safe house to ask questions and communicate openly. Make no subject taboo but give sincere direction, explain what you feel is best for them and why.

You can't shelter them from the world; but you can give them a perspective from which to see what the world is.

Isn't all pornography wrong?

When made and viewed by consenting adults, not at all.

Is it possible to distinguish wrong by one downloading as opposed to browsing?

Technically no, but actual downloading indicates intent, which may or may not be a part of your legal system. If I were to stumble across some child porn by accident and it wound up in my browser's cache, I should hope I would have legal standing, as opposed to the knob who downloads it specifically for consumption.

Do different states have different laws concerning this stuff?

I would doubt if any two states' laws are the same.

Are there dedicated law enforcement teams monotoring these sites?

Regular porn: if they are not against the law, then I would expect that the enforcement agents are monitoring them on their own time. Child porn: they seem to be attacking the problem pretty aggressively.

If one is arrested for downloading material, why not stop it at the source?

The US's approach to porn in general has been one of "community standards". I think this is kind of a historical approach because pre-cable, pre-internet, what was considered acceptable in New York City was quite different from what was considered acceptable in the more Victorian areas of the country. Nowadays it seems to have "evened out" but that may just be my perception.

Obviously different cultures have different standards. I could be prosecuted for Image of the Day in some of the countries out there.

Wouldnt it make sense for states to impose an age 25 rule to give a wide margin of error?

That would be downright trampling on the individual rights of almost everyone aged 24, 23 etc. Personally, I find that concept sicker than most of the worst porn I've seen.

But there is a distinguishable difference between the legal and the moral.

As a Christian, you are familiar with the idea of a supreme being that would grant his people the free will to sin. The free will is part of the equation.

As a parent, you know that you can't mold your children into exactly what you want them to be. You can only guide them as best you can, show them what you believe to be right and gently encourage them towards it.

Nobody is moral without having the option of immoral behavior.

[vsp]

Originally posted by socrates
[b]I was amazed a couple of years ago, when I first went online, about the amount of pornography which floated about in cyberspace. Being a sociology scholar, I naturally pondered on this and asked many questions in my head as to why and how and what and where and if etc etc.

I'm amazed that _you_ were amazed, honestly.

For various reasons, religious and otherwise, many countries and societies have well-known taboos about displays of nudity and/or sexual activity. Where the line is drawn between "art" and "porn" is always open to debate -- our courts here in the US certainly haven't found any easily-applicable standards, and taboos will vary widely from group to group.

The Internet is a venue where those who wish to purchase or consume nude/sexual media don't have to skulk in the shadows, deal with angry and morally-disapproving neighbors, travel to sleazy shops on the wrong side of town, or sneak materials around under plain brown wrappers. There's little to no human contact involved in most transactions (adult or otherwise); no salesclerks to deal with, no faces to remember, no chance of someone walking by and saying "Hey! [your name]! How are you doing... say, is that an inflatable sheep and a Rotating Butt-Blaster you're buying there?" Generally, the decision of what to view and what to purchase is strictly between the consumer and his/her credit card.

It's also incredibly easy for content providers to get started on the Internet. An email address and a web site's about all you need to say "Hello world, I'm offering [content], come and buy it" and have people actually find your offerings. Increasingly-ubiquitous webcams offer those of an exhibitionist bent an opportunity to bare themselves to the world (metaphorically, literally, or both) and express themselves. Online stores allow easy sales of products that might well run afoul of zoning regulations, local laws, picketing neighbors and more in a brick-and-mortar environment.

So, combine a venue essentially free of sales/content prohibitions, relative anonymity for consumers, and the forbidden-fruit nature of the product, and what do you get? Massive bandwidth overload, that's what you get.

Another question came to mind. I am a christian and believe this stuff is morally wrong. But whose to say I am correct?

You are to say that... for YOURSELF. Morality is not a black-and-white issue; everyone looks at issues and concepts a little differently. Each person draws their own beyond-this-point-is-unacceptable line.

Prohibitions against minors in sexual contexts are there for the obvious reason -- minors are not considered mature enough to consensually agree to participate.

Beyond that, in the realm of consenting adults, all bets are off. If your next-door neighbors have an adult webcam and you're disgusted by it, you're obviously not a consenting viewer -- and there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself. If their actions violate your morals, you have every right and reason to disapprove. (If you respect their right to approve of and create these materials, and they respect your right to disapprove of and refuse to view them, everything's as it should be.)

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Nobody is moral without having the option of immoral behavior. [/b]

And nobody is free without the freedom to decide what is moral for themselves. Socrates, do you distinguish between illegality and immorality? And do you beleve all immoral things should be illegal?

[socrates]

MaggieL wrote...

Socrates, do you distinguish between illegality and immorality? And do you beleve all immoral things should be illegal?





I do think there ia a very great chasm between morality and legality. I studied this area for about two years and found that like everything else it is culturally diverse. Anthropologists have discoverd great evidence to show that what we in our 'western' cultures take as 'natural'/'normal' are indeed wholly unnatural or abnormal in other societies.
To use a simple one to explain. In the middle east it would appear 'normal' legally and morally for a male to marry several wifes and have sexual relations with various others at the same time. We call that bigomy. It is illegal in Ireland. It is morally accepted to be wrong also.
But what is legal is not also moral and vive versa in the eyes of the beholder.
ie In the UK they have what I would describe as a liberal and legal abortion regime, but find that it is morally wrong.
Another example would be in my birthland of Scotland it is legally forbidden to walk through someones land to access say a mountain for recreational purposes, but to me that is morally acceptable to roam one's homeland as long as you are not disturbing or damaging or settling on one's property.
I suppose the whole point is this. How do we conceptualize morality?
To answer the last part...

And do you beleve all immoral things should be illegal?

No. I think people should have the freedom to choose their own destiny as long as they dont impede or harm others on the way.

Cheers

[vsp]

Originally posted by socrates
I do think there is a very great chasm between morality and legality.

As well there should be.

Legality is primarily concerned with actions that cause actual, measurable harm, typically physical or economic harm. Morality is concerned with rightness and wrongness of actions, an entirely different matter. Both morals and laws can change dramatically over time, and from place to place. When the two are mixed, strange things result.

For example, let's look at prostitution. My favorite common-sense position on prostitution comes from George Carlin:

"Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?"

You can be arrested for performing a sexual act as a service where money changes hands, but performing the same act FOR FREE is perfectly legal. Does that make sense?

Rationale one: Prostitutes are often dirty, diseased and drugged-up, so it's a public health issue.
Response one: A promiscuous amateur can have just as many diseases and be hooked on as many drugs as a prostitute. Should police start sweeping neighborhood bars and college dormitories for signs of promiscuity?

Rationale two: Prostitutes are often underage.
Response two: Statutory rape laws exist to cover this aspect.

Rationale three: Prostitutes are often abused in many ways by their pimps.
Response three: Very true. Of course, many non-prostitute women are abused in many ways by their husbands or boyfriends. Should those women be barred from having relationships? The crime is in the action of the abuser, not the profession of the abusee.

Rationale four: Prostitution destroys marriages and relationships.
Response four: Ah, now we get to the core of it; now it's a morality issue. Tradition and religion have made a one-to-one monogamous sexual relationship the standard in US society, and prostitution changes that dynamic. (So shouldn't single, non-attached people be allowed to pay for it, then?)

Is it adultery for a married person to visit a prostitute? Sure. Are there existing divorce laws that cover that adultery, whether the third party is a prostitute or not? Sure.

I'm happily married myself, and have never paid for sex, nor do I ever plan to. But I also think that prostitution should be legal; bringing it into the open may help reduce the disease-and-drug factors. Would a majority of Americans still openly disapprove of and condemn the profession and its practitioners? Of course. But that's different than _prosecuting_ them.

I suppose the whole point is this. How do we conceptualize morality?

To me, morality is the next checkbox after legality when contemplating an action. "I'm _allowed_ to do this... but _should I_?"

[SteveDallas]

Originally posted by Undertoad
The US's approach to porn in general has been one of "community standards". I think this is kind of a historical approach because pre-cable, pre-internet, what was considered acceptable in New York City was quite different from what was considered acceptable in the more Victorian areas of the country. Nowadays it seems to have "evened out" but that may just be my perception.

The whole "community standards" thing is with us and has resulted in rulings people on both sides of the issue would regard as skewed. In one case, a BBS was successfully prosecuted by Tennessee authorities because people in TN were able to download the naughty pictures, and the pics violated the community standards of TN. (I forget where the BBS was located, but as I recall nobody attempted to argue that the adult material in question was illegal there, only in TN.)

On the other hand, a video store in Utah was prosecuted on obscenity charges. The owner's lawyer argued the case successfully on community standards grounds. What he did was subpoena pay-per-view sales numbers from various hotels in the area. He then argued, based on the number of adult PPV movies that were purchased in Utah hotels, and the content of those movies, that his client's stock of video was not in fact inconsistent with the community standards.

If you're interested in the history of censorship law in the US, "Girls Lean Back Everywhere" by Edward de Grazia is a good read (though he deals mostly with books as opposed to pictures or movies IIRC).

[hot_pastrami]

I think of laws in a democracy as something intended to reflect a community's lowest common moral denominators. Well, not lowest per se, but obviously it indicates the majority's threshhold of where something crosses the line from immoral to Just Plain Wrong. Case in point, in the county where I currently reside, it is unlawful to sell/purchase any alcohol on Sundays. Outside of deep Mormon country (help!), this wouldn't be the case, it is a horrifying, nasty law. But here it's the norm. Blah.

What I think is interesting is to explore why morals exist at all, and how they came to be. My take on it is that if you peel away the layers to any moral value deeply enough, you'll find our oft-present friend, self-preservation. From self-preservation naturally follows the do-unto-others credo, since the most effective way to avoid having unpleasantness done to oneself is to refrain from imparting unpleasantness upon others. Of course factors such as opinion and culture entangle themselves at this point and muck up what would otherwise make a nice, tidy flowchart.

But on the topic at hand... is pornography immoral (regardless of the medium in which it is procured)? Of course there is no Right Answer to this question, and circumstance plays a big part (married, single?), but ask yourself this... say an attractive, consenting adult of, er, your preferred gender (must... not... open... can of worms...) offered to let you look upon their naked body, in privacy, for the purposes of pleasure. Would it be immoral to accept? Is anyone harmed by this? And if it is wrong to look at pornography created by consenting adults, would that not indicate that it is also immoral to create the image of a nude person in one's mind, whether the imagined person really exists or not?

Personally, my only objection to pornography which is created and viewed by consenting adults is that it can tend to socially retard people. That's just a consequence. But as far as child pornography goes, I consider it unspeakably, unforgivably evil, because more than just socially retarding people, it can lead to actions which are wholly on the side of Wrong.

Wow, all that text and no real point. I need a drink.

Nobody is moral without having the option of immoral behavior

Best. Point. Ever.

Hot Pastrami

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by hot_pastrami
I think of laws in a democracy as something intended to reflect a community's lowest common moral denominators.

Funny, I don't think of democratic laws as properly a mechanism for enforcing morals. I think of them as a mechanism to help people with *different* moral values to share a society without doing great harm to each other.

[hot_pastrami]

Oh, I certainly agree that laws are not a proper mechanism for enforcing morals, and often they are not effective in their aim... but I look at them as an attempt to find a common minimum moral thread for all people in a community. Perhaps I should have put some emphasis on "intended" in my opening sentence.

But what is a law if not an enforced moral?

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by hot_pastrami
But what is a law if not an enforced moral?

In my view a law in a democracy is an agreement or contract among the representatives that none of the people will engange in the specified behavior.

By counterexample, there are lots of things that are illegal that may or may not be particularly moral. If I drive without my auto insurance card, for example I am breaking the law, even if I *do* have insurance. But I'd be hard pressed to call that "immoral"; to my mind that's morally neutral.

[hot_pastrami]

Hi again, Maggie... allow me to put another slant on your example....

I think most would agree that unless a person is wealthy enough to absorb liability costs themselves, it is immoral for that person to operate a motor vehicle on public roads without auto insurance. Therefore, a law exists to enforce that moral, requiring a person to have insurance in order to drive.

To make enforcing this law easier, and to help discourage uninsured mororists, the contract between the government and the driver dictates that the driver must carry proof of insurance in order to drive. So the failure to carry an insurance card is "immoral" in that it breaks the covenent made when the driver's license was procured. Certainly this isn't a huge breach of moral virtue, but of course morals come in degrees, which is often indicated by the punishment allocated to breaking the law which that moral reflects.

Even by my argument, however, there is no denying that some laws utterly fail to reflect the morals of the people those laws govern, because many laws are bought (example: DMCA). But I think that is their aim, regardless of their success rate.

By the way, Maggie... I am persistent in this matter only because I relish a debate with intellectuals, not because I have some grander point to make. Also, I am relatively certain theat "grander" is not a word.

Hot Pastrami

Also, I am relatively certain theat "grander" is not a word.

Alas, it is.

[russotto]

Originally posted by hot_pastrami

I think most would agree that unless a person is wealthy enough to absorb liability costs themselves, it is immoral for that person to operate a motor vehicle on public roads without auto insurance. Therefore, a law exists to enforce that moral, requiring a person to have insurance in order to drive.

Well, I don't agree with that. The principle that no one should engage in an action which may impose more liability upon him than he can afford is not something I can accept.

To make enforcing this law easier, and to help discourage uninsured mororists, the contract between the government and the driver dictates that the driver must carry proof of insurance in order to drive.

The acceptance of laws devised simply to make the police's job easier lead inevitably to a police state.