Reykjavik’s proposition to ban internet pornography in Iceland has drawn fire from international anti-censorship campaigners. Last month saw the country’s lawmakers introduce legislation that would extend the island-nation’s longstanding ban on printed porn to the web. Officials said the move is intended to protect children from being exposed to sexually violent content.
Now, the International Modern Media Institute in Reykjavik – which is chaired by WikiLeaks activist and Icelandic MP, Birgitta Jónsdóttir – has gathered support from academic and political figureheads from more than a dozen countries who agree that such a ban is not in line with the fundamental necessities of a free society. The group said that the effort would require technology similar to what is used to block web content in North Korea and China.
The organisation said in an open letter sent to the Icelandic government last week, “Everything must be examined automatically by unsupervised machines which make the final decision on whether to allow the content to continue or not. This level of government surveillance directly conflicts with the idea of a free society,” The Guardian reports.
It added, “The internet is not the source of violence, it is merely a medium by which violence is made apparent. Iceland has positioned itself as a model democratic state in global context when dealing with freedom of the press, the open process of drafting a new constitution and open review of information regulation. Therefore, we implore you to reject censorship as a viable option and seek more effective means of improving society, both in Iceland and abroad.”
Meanwhile, officials in Reykjavik continue to defend the effort. An advisor from the office of interior minister Ögmundur Jónasson, who has championed the ban, told the media in an interview last month, “what is under discussion is the welfare of our children and their rights to grow and develop in a non-violent environment” and said that the move is “not anti-sex, but anti-violence.”
[…] deserve to live and develop in a non-violent environment, therefore, the resulting law is “not anti-sex, but anti-violence.” What’s potentially more concerning is that this feminist backlash against commercial […]
[…] deserve to live and develop in a non-violent environment, therefore, the resulting law is “not anti-sex, but anti-violence.” What’s potentially more concerning is that this feminist backlash against commercial […]
I live in Canada. On a farm. I had to get the internet for work. I find it difficult to resist the temptation to watch porn instead of be productive with my time. I visited Iceland, in apprecaition of how Icelanders must live in isolation.
Personally, I find internet porn a scurge in my life and society. It negatively affects my relationship with others in the world as it tends to promote an objectification of woman and move me away from apprediating people as spirit beings.
The argument about children I think is only used as it demonstrates a clear hazard and wrong in society. Interestingly, if it is used in such a way it may also be used as an excuse where porn is permitted and frankly thrown onto the pubic.
I have never paid for porn, yet I can see as much of it as I like. This raises questions for me. How can that be? And, what role is it playing in our society if it is offered for free?
I have come to believe that it is used to suppress the society, deplete its will forces, to better succumb to greater powers.
I have followed what news is available about Icelands acts during the banking crisis, and now have bookmarked this news porthole to stay tuned.
I don’t know if a ban on porn is the answer, as it perhaps is in conflict with other esteemed values of your society, but porn, particulary free porn is a scurge that will have no benefit to anyone, except tyranical leaders.
choose wisely
jack
The saddest part is the claim that there is a “scientific” “consensus” regarding the effects of pornography. That is not true. The evidence for presence of negative effects is flimsy, and there is some evidence that there are actually socially positive effects (though this kind of evidence is also not very strong), so claim of scientific consensus is blatantly false both de-jure (no international scientific body made any meaningful declaration about effects of pornography) and de-facto (there is a wide array of opinions in modern scientific literature).
http://www.sexscience.org/dashboard/articleImages/SSSS-Pornography.pdf
Yes, I think you should continue with the ban! But rather not actively enforce it by censorship of the Internet. Instead it might be more advisable to enable a fine for violating the ban. A fine range between Euro 10000 to 1000000 seems appropriate and which will be implied in case of a proven abuse. Abuses will by time make itself known in most cases.
Kind regards
Jürgen