[PLUG-TALK] Porn on the Net...

Michael Robinson plug_1 at robinson-west.com
Wed Oct 28 00:04:01 UTC 2009


On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 15:22 -0700, Aaron wrote:
> I don't mean any offence or anything, I enjoy a good debate.  This is
> good stuff.
> 
> I think that there should be more personal accountability in the
> choices people make.  I personally don't need the government to make
> moral choices for me.  That's up to me, and something I will have to
> live with.  I don't need the goverment babysitting me and what I am
> doing.  I feel that goes against the core of what this country was
> founded on.  The freedom of choice.  The freedom to make the choices
> of what we are okay with in our own lives.  
> 
> If someone has an addiction I think there are lots of
> resources--government funded, church or other religious resources,
> family and friends.  I think that if someone is doing something
> illegal they should be accountable for that and the law should be
> followed and enforced.  If someone is doing something legal and it's
> effecting their life in a negative way they should have the personal
> accountability to seek out the help to make their life better.  If
> someone doesn't care about the quality of their life it shouldn't be
> up to the government to make the moral judgements to make their life
> better.
> 
> I believe in personal accountability and making choices that bring
> positive things into my life--and I think it should be the persons
> responsibility to make choices that make the life they want. Not the
> government.

The production and consumption of porn, whether through the Net or by
other means, is always and has always been sex abuse.  Government 
is supposed to protect it's citizens against abuse.  As far as 
arguing with me that an addict has a choice, I have not seen one
convincing argument yet to back that up.  Porn is one of the easiest
things to get a hold of thanks to the Net and quite possibly one of
the most addictive.  I base this assertion on the fact that the adult
entertainment industry, and no that name does not make it legit, rakes
in over a billion dollars a year.  Before the Net, porn was limited to
magazines and seedy bars.  Most people were embarrassed if they got
caught with dirty magazines or were seen walking into a nude dancing
bar.  The Net has turned that upside down.  Nowadays, there is the
possibility of anonymously consuming porn, though one shouldn't assume
that they are anonymous.

Anonymous or not, consuming or producing porn is sex abuse.  Government
is supposed to prevent the abuse of it's citizens.  Abusers always hide
behind consent as an excuse for the way they are treating themselves
and others.  That doesn't make what they are doing right.

As far as the comment that I'm saying open source software is bad, I
never said that.  Free software that is open source does not 
constitute an act of abuse the way "free porn" does.

Sex is supposed to be private between a male husband and his female 
wife and open to children.  Porn violates the privacy part.  Porn 
also violates the open to children part.  Every child deserves to
be the result of a loving union between a husband and his wife, but
porn threatens that.  Consumers of porn are more likely to cheat on
their wives or become promiscuous in general.  Porn increases the
likelihood that STD's will spread.  Killing the woman is where porn
can ultimately lead do to it's failure to satisfy consumers, which 
is unacceptable period.

The issue of porn on the Net is NOT a matter of personal responsibility.
Porn when it exists is a social sin.  A social sin involves everyone.
The consumer of porn is as guilty as the producer of it.  To protect
children and those adults who will not pay for porn that could otherwise
become addicted to "free porn," government needs to do something.  I'm
surprised that no feminists are speaking up in favor of cracking down on
Internet porn.  Most porn involves women.  There is a sex trade in the
world and it is even alive here in the good ol USA, though it tends to
be a more serious problem in Islamic/Atheistic countries.

Outlawing "free porn" does not constitute babysitting people.  The
target of law enforcement will be web sites that are not in compliance
with the no "free porn," statutes.  The point of such a law will be to
take pressure off of the consumers and put it on the producers instead.
The consumers too often are the ones who get in trouble while the 
producers face no consequences.  Free speech has to take a back seat
to human rights.  There is a right to privacy with regards to sex
which porn by it's very public nature violates.  Attacking the source 
of porn by going after the producers of it leaves the consumer alone
and gives that consumer a chance to stop consuming porn without
anyone finding out that they have a problem.

I want to see an international standard get adopted with an
international police force to enforce it that puts an end
to "free porn" on the Net.




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list