7 votes

EU to vote to ban all forms of pornography

MEPs will next week vote on a "ban on all forms of pornography" including censorship of the internet in a bid to "eliminate gender stereotypes" that demean women.

Controversy has erupted over next Tuesday's European Parliament resolution "on eliminating gender stereotypes in the EU", meant to mark international women's day, after libertarian Swedish MEPs from the Pirate Party spotted the call for a ban in the small print.

While not legally binding, the vote could be the first step towards European legislation as the EU's assembly increasingly flexes its political muscle within Europe's institutions.

The proposal "calls on the EU and its member states to take concrete action on discrimination against women in advertising... [with] a ban on all forms of pornography in the media".

Kartika Liotard, a Dutch left-wing feminist MEP, is seeking "statutory measures to prevent any form of pornography in the media and in advertising and for a ban on advertising for pornographic products and sex tourism", including measures in the "digital field".

The MEPs are also demanding the establishment of state sex censors with "a mandate to impose effective sanctions on companies and individuals promoting the sexualisation of girls".

Read more:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9917189/MEPs-to-v...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I said nothing about porn.

I'm not talking about porn, I'm talking about legislating morality. It's popular these days to claim that "you can't legislate morality", and my point is that all laws are based on someone's idea of right and wrong. That is legislating morality.

You want our laws to be based on your definition of right and wrong instead of another man's. It's not a question of whether, but whose.

Thought more about this

I thought about this statement more: "You want our laws to be based on your definition of right and wrong instead of another man's. It's not a question of whether, but whose."

I want everyone to be able to live by their own definition of right and wrong assuming they don't unduly infringe upon another's ability to do so.

In order for that to occur, there must be assurances that each person due life sans interference may actually live and be capable of expressing their notions of right and wrong. Right?

That means that we must generally have constrained any actions which jeopardize those due life and such freedoms interference from others.
Life and certain liberties must be protected from undue deprivation. Therefor at least one action which expresses right or wrong is deemed invalid (namely, murder.) If one action may be fairly deemed invalid then there is a standard by which all other actions may be fairly judged.

The undue loss of life is invalid due to one simple factor and no other, as above: it is an interference into an individual's ability to express right and wrong (restriction of free will.) Keep in mind we're talking not about law, but about principle as it applies to reason. It's an important distinction because law is not strictly a function of logic. Ultimately, that same standard should be applied to all other questions of societal interaction, be they permissible or restricted.

In other words, the only reason to ever restrict a person's action is if their action unduly restricts a third party's action. This is an act of defense. In nature we can't expect a creature to work contrary to its own survival, therefor defense is always a valid expression of free will in or out of a society. This can and should be applied to people and other non-person entities, like governments, corporations, etc.

This is internally and externally consistent, which is the traditional standard, and I challenge anyone to dismantle this axiom logically using rational or empirical means.

Morality is someone's idea of

Morality is someone's idea of right and wrong as it pertains to intentions and actions, not outcomes.
Legislating based on natural law is a matter of outcomes.
Natural law is opposed to positive law, which is what you're talking about, legislating based on 'someone's idea of right and wrong.'

Another Perspective

and the reason I try very hard to never watch porn. Notice I said try, I may be celibate but I'm still human.

In principle, I agree with most of what you said. I do not believe in legislating morality. No victim, no crime is a great starting point when considering any regulation of human practice and behavior, but it cannot be, nor should it be, the only consideration. I don't want cars racing down the street my grandchildren play on, but until they strike and injure a member of my family, no crime has committed. This is a true statement. And yet, common sense dictates that we cannot allow motorists to race around like Mario Andretti through the neighborhoods where our children are at play. No one wants anarchy, no one but sociopaths anyway.

I have some first hand experience with the sex industry, and I can tell you without any doubt that the majority of people engaged in the production of pornography fall into one of two categories, Predators and Victims.

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

You're saying you agree in

You're saying you agree in principle but we need the equivalent of speed limits in pornography to prevent harm?
If not I don't quite understand your premise.

As far as pornography being composed of predators and victims, so are many industries if you seek to apply the terms, but if an adult consents to be such a victim there's nothing immoral or illegal about it in my view.

Many dailypaulers are anarchists, including myself.
The philosophy of anarchy is diametrically opposed to the psychosis of sociopaths. This is an easily recognizable fact.
Anarchy requires that one intrinsically oppose aggression. Aggression in this context means the initiation of violence or coercion. Manipulation is a form of coercion. This theory is grounded on the premise that all people are equal and all have natural rights.

A sociopath however, refuses to accept the rights of others. This is a key component of their psychopathy.

Sociopaths are also typically hateful people possessing constant contained rage. They seek to dominate those around them by means of deception - coercion. Anarchy, even though the word has been senselessly conflated with 'chaos,' 'disorder,' etc. has essentially nothing more to it than the desire for a stateless society - one that is organized by the people without rulers. If one desires that there be no rulers, how can they themselves rule? Never heard of a self-defeating sociopath, maybe it exists... In any case, there could be speed limits in a voluntaryist society so that's not the best example.

Sociopaths seem most likely to be those most inclined to join government, not oppose it, because in government their decisions will affect others and they will be able to obtain power by manipulation and deception most easily. In other words, why abolish the ruling class if you wish to be the ruling class?

I encourage you to study the theories involved in anarchy. Though one might imagine a young punk with a silly red circled 'A' symbol on his shirt throwing a rock at riot police or spray painting public property, but anarchy is more sophisticated than first impressions allow.

Far out man,

you're a sophisticated anarchist, I'm an emperor penguin. Now that we've got the labels out of the way, could you please point me in the direction of the nearest Utopian society? Oh that's right, there are no Utopian societies, that's why they're called Utopian.

As far as political philosophies go, anarchism would seem to be about as useful as a pork sandwich at a Jewish picnic. But you have fun with that. And keep an eye on those speed limits.

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

So you just brought up

So you just brought up anarchy to be insulting and avoid civil discussion? Or are you just upset that I refuted your 'anarchists are sociopaths' claim? You seem to have shifted from it's crazy to it's not useful.

Sure, I'll play along.
What determines the usefulness of a political philosophy?
Isn't the purpose of political philosophy to discuss what political system is best - not limited to only systems currently in practice?

You're employing the is/ought fallacy though, you conflate what is with what should be.

Anarchists are not

Anarchists are not sociopaths, and they don't want everyone running around destroying things. Streets could be quite safe without a government running them.

End The Fed!
BTC: 1A3JAJwLVG2pz8GLfdgWhcePMtc3ozgWtz

Kudos

When you have nothing to say, at least you keep it brief.

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

you really think people that do those things worry about law?

ask those people in jail why the laws in place didn't keep them moral and from murdering, raping, kidnapping, etc.

I don't think people are naturally evil and immoral and that laws are keeping a "lid" on society. There's a portion of the population that's going to "do bad things" regardless of any laws IMO

Pornographos

From the Greek
porne - prostitute
graphe - to write

irony abounds

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

Literate prostitues?

That is what all the fuss is about?
Seriously, I don't like porn, think it is a waste of time at best and unhealthy for "real world" relationships. That said, I don't like opera much either. If they'd fire the sopranos, I could get into it but those really high notes do not impress me, they hurt me. So I don't go to the opera. I don't own any opera music, except one CD of the tenors. No sopranos on that one! And there is nothing in me that feels like we need to outlaw sopranos, or even stop writing music in that range.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Ha Ha

A bunch of "prostitutes" are "writing" legislation to prohibit writing about a bunch of prostitutes, which is the original definition of pornography. But you are much too clever to have missed that aren't you?

Where would the world be without sarcasm. : )

BTW, are you planning anymore videos about your rocket heater? I was thinking something instructional, kind of a how to guide?

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

We are.

My husband works days at a stretch, then gets long stretches off. His next stretch off, we will (hopefully) finish the cob work. When the whole thing is done, I will do a voice over "how to" and provide links to the sites we used.
And thanks for giving me too much credit, I had missed that. The irony gets pretty thick some days... I guess that is why it is best to keep your prostitutes illiterate, or they go and write legislation...?

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

LOL

a few more generations of public education and everyone will be illiterate. More irony?

Can't wait for the video. What part of the country are you guys in? I'm planning to be settled in up somewhere between Spokane and Kalispell before winter, anywhere near that area?

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

Are you moving here?

We are in west central Idaho, not really as close as it looks on a map. There is only one highway in Idaho connecting north and south, and it follow river drainages, there is no cruise control driving. But if you are heading this way from the southwest, let me know when you are headed this way, and what your route is. You will probably get very close on your way by. It would be fun to show off the dome to someone who understands what we are trying to do!

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

I'm moving into that general area.

Sandpoint is currently at the top of my list, but nothings written in stone. Thanks for the invite, hopefully I can take you guys up on it my next trip to Idaho.

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

Checked into Idaho County?

Much better climate, some amazing people in the area. Familiar with Bo Gritz?

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Not familiar with Idaho county,

but a few minutes on Google will fix that. I am aware of the Colonel though, and used to read his newsletter back in the early 90's. I was a bit more nationalistic in those days and had all that youthful zeal.

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

Well here is something to tempt you

http://www.kamiahpermaculture.com/Kamiah_Permaculture/Welcom...

Gritz has kept the local area pretty "awake."

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

I didn't see the Colonel referenced anywhere on the website,

Last I heard he was in Nevada, is he in Kamiah now?

I got into permaculture about 10 years ago while suffering through my second marriage. Had we stayed together I would probably be living in a dome of my own just down the road from you guys right now. :)

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

2 different topics

and you may be right about the Colonel. I have not kept tabs on him, I just know he was living there for a while. The permaculture is just another appealing thing about the area.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

no fan of EU

But this could be a plus imo.

Do not like to see the youth perverted in dating. I am hoping for more mutual respect. To me freedom of speech and expression does not equal freedom of perversion. Just look at hollywood for example and all the whoredom there.

donvino

What is this Perversion you Speak of?

There's a reason why women live in fear and don't express themselves sexually unless they absolutely trust the person. Being free to be sexually open is a good thing. Watch this video and prepare to have your mind blown...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?nomobile=1&v=okZEvv5-thY

Mmmm.... "sexually open."

I'm from the farm. Around here that means "in heat."
Sex has been cheapened to destroy family values. For what it is worth, I feel like my mother has possessed my fingers and is typing this to me 30 years ago. It is only watching the decay over generations that I can see the damage being done. I am not anti-porn, there was porn around when I was a kid and I never saw it. It crossed a line when it became prime time TV, and we are now at the point where we actually have parents dress their daughters in cloths that label their butt "Juicy."
Pedophilia is RAMPANT these days, and you just sit back and watch over the next decade or two. Pretty soon, the "sexually open" thing will apply to molesting children, too.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Molesting Children Infringes on Rights

When I speak about women being sexually open, I'm talking about a woman that has liberated themselves by not caring anymore what judgements are passed on them by other people and instead only doing what makes them happy.

Women love to have sex also, but in our screwed up society, any woman that has sex with multiple people simply because they enjoy it without care for committment or marriage is labeled a slut and her status and social reputation is destroyed. Women fear this, so either they try to keep their sexual activities hidden from public view or they just don't engage in their desires for fear of being outcast.

So being sexually open in my opinion, is being sexually active in whatever way they desire, with however many people they want without caring about the judgements of others. If group sex is their thing, a new guy every night without committment, or even just sex with a couple of close friends, if that's what makes them happy, all the more power to them.

Molesting children on the other hand is wrong because you're infringing on the rights of the child. In my examples above all parties are entering into sexual activites voluntarily.

Hide and watch.

I agree, there is an historic double standard for women, that I describe this way: Men want to date whores and marry virgins. That aside, we are being desensitized. They have used the "oppression of women" as cover for many vile programs. In 20 years, pedophilia will not be crime, unless we manage to pull off a miracle.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

well what if someone else thinks *dating* is immoral?

and they get the government to ban it?

You say you want mutual respect? How bout we start with getting the government out of peoples personal lives.

-That would be mutual respect.

Don't like porn "donvino"?

then don't watch it. Problem solved!!

You're certainly no patron of liberty

Legislating morality doesn't work, is not justified, and only short-sighted fools endorse it.

Laws against murder, rape, and kidnapping

is legislating morality. The question is not whether we legislate morality, because we always will, but rather whose morality will be legislated.