Can you imagine a politician running on a platform that praised pornography as good? There are people that think all sex is bad, especially that which is enjoyed by others, and these people vote frequently, early and often. Such is politics.
Cite?
Rysler, in spite of the impression that many hysterical interest groups do their best to promote, when you actually examine Canada’s hate speech legislation, it becomes quite clear that it presents no unreasonable limitations on discussion, debate, or statements of opinion.
The law is specifically worded to afford protection to Canadian citizens from actual harm, – not “hurt feelings.” The only way someone can run afoul of it is by advocating genocide or attacks against people or their property based on their ethnicity, religion, and, now that the bill that appears to threaten so many halfwits has passed as expected, sexual orientation.
Some people are making a lot of chicken-little noises about supposed stifling of opinion up here. Most of the documents returned on a Google search for “Canada Hate Speech” have alarmist titles like “WorldNetDaily: ‘Bible as hate speech’ bill passes”, “Parts of Bible ruled hate speech in Canada.”, “Is the Bible Hate Literature? Canadian Parliament debates C-250”, etc.
Concerns like these quickly evaporate when it is noted that the law itself contains language to ensure that:
As the law stands, even an asshat like Fred Phelps has plenty of room to give vent to his views. The only speech that’s proscribed here is that of the “Hey! Get those guys!” variety.
It’s pretty straightforward–
(Legally) acceptable speech:
“Catholicism is idolatry. All those graven images!”
“The Bible is quite clear: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
“There are too many darned immigrants coming over from Hong Kong. We ought to toughen up our entry requirements.”
Speech that will get you in hot water if given in public:
“Jews are controlling this country. Hitler had the right idea, and we should do the same thing.”
“Gays are an abomination and should be stoned to death.”
“Those dirty slants are going to give us all SARS! Let’s all meet in Chinatown at 3:00pm – bring plenty of gasoline!”
(Sorry for the hijack, I know it’s not as much fun as porn.)
Pornography is getting out of hand. Did you know that statistics have shown that, if you have porn in your house, you are 37 times more likely to have sex, with or without a partner? I even heard Fox was going to run a new special relating to this problem–“When Pornography Attacks”.
I applaud the Bush administration for taking a proactive approach to the problem of porn. We need to keep porn from attacking innocent people who, through no fault of their own, rent or buy porn and watch/read/view/eat it.
Actually, depending on context, “Gays are an abomination and should be stoned to death” may still qualify as protected speech.
Damn.
Well ABC News is helping out with this charming ‘news’ story.
It seems expousure to porn causes serious problems.
Yes it seems that porn causes fear of commitment.
IANAL, but there is a significant difference between Statements 1 and 2 and Statement 3. The first two sentences are vague threats, and in the US would be fully protected under the First Amendment. The third, however, is an incitement to a specific act of violence and is not protected. One would think that Canadian courts would also recognize this essential distinction.
It’s a pretty divisive subject in feminist circles. Feminism is not monolithic, and there is a good amount of debate and controversy surrounding many of the subjects they are interested in- especially sexual subjects.
There is still a large contingent that says that pornography and other sex work is dangerous and degrading to women. Some believe that even soft porn is bad. They believe it inspires violence, perpetuates a culture of submissive women, shows an unobtainable body and harms the women who participate in making it. In my experience, this comes from a rather old fashioned attitude about the sacredness of sex. They believe it to be a private, somewhat shameful affair and get uncomfortable when it is out there in the public.
There is another equally loud group that believes that pornography is great, even empowering. They believe that it represents rare sexual power being held by women, plays into the world of fantasies which is pretty morally neutral, and empowers women to create more money and have more sexual fun that they would in many of the other avenues they are channeled to.
I am a part of this group. I believe that part of the Right’s revulsion towards pornography is that it represents women making economic choices (I still can’t figure out how working at McDonalds for minimum wage isn’t degrading, but making porn is) and willingly choosing sex- which we all know no real woman would do. The prevelence of white slavery myths perepetuates the idea that it is unthinkable that a woman would actually choose a sexual line of work out of her own free will. The idea of banning abortion except in cases of rape and incest also plays in to the idea that women should be punished for choosing to have sex. It is all about controlling women’s choices, especially when it comes to their economic and sexual power.
[hijack]
We Canadian’s don’t have freedom of expression if any government feels like taking it away from us:
[/hijack]
So that fact that one of my neighbor friends and I used to sneak a look at his granddad’s Playboys when I was 6 and 7 mean I’m the next Ted Bundy? Is that what made me gay? :rolleyes:
It does, to a degree. The law is separated into two sections. Advocating actual genocide, (outside of private conversation,) is specifically forbidden. When it comes to simple hate speech, the burden is on the state to prove that the speech itself is likely to create a breech of the peace. The first statement is just plain illegal as public communication-- I guess there’s a compromise based on the idea that freedom from genocide is something to be valued over freedom to promote genocide. The second statement would be allowable in just about any situation, I guess, unless it was amended with “Everybody bring a box of rocks down to West Vancouver and we’ll win one for the straight guys!” Apart from advocating genocide, which is a strict no-no, it has to be shown that the speech “is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.”
It’s ironic that I would pick a hypothetical that seemed to confirm the Henny-Penny’s fears. Lucky for them I’m not Supreme Dictator of the Great White North.
I know (very vaguely, in a distant usenetty sense) one of the people who runs an organisation called 'Feminists Against Censorship '. (Let’s see if I got that URL code right. Whee!)
A related essay she wrote is here: http://www.whump.com/misc/censor.html
“I think strippers and porn people and other sex-entertainers are
wonderful._ They add to our lives with their beauty and daring and
frankness and sense of fun._ It’s a branch of show business, and I’m
proud to call myself their colleague.” --Teller
Larry Mudd, and matt_mcl, thanks for the very polite and reasonable Canadian side of the bill, which we only get through soundbites and editorials. If I seem abrasive, its only because I’m groggy and have a cold. I deeply appreciate what you’ve said.
My take:
As a member of an oppressed minority that lots and lots of people hate and consider “deviant”, I can envision laws like that being applied against people like me. Makes me a bit nervous, even with the best of intentions.
All of the examples of “troublesome” speech you gave, while offensive, I can’t see as being anything but perfectly acceptable. Hell, under Canada’s Hate Speech legislation, our own president and cabinet wouldn’t be able to say half the shit that gets said.
That doesn’t creep anyone else out? Then again, the SDMB has the “No advocating death” rule too, and I’m a pretty happy clam here.
I have sort of a “Who is next” reaction. KKK and Neo-Nazis today, homosexuals and pornography tomorrow. :eek:
I’m not writing just as a loud-mouthed American, but as a snooty librarian, brainwashed by organizations like the ALA to believe all speech is precious, and to be a control freak about “offensive” and “hate-filled” materials such as Huckleberry Finn and the Harry Potter series. Defeating hate is the same as defeating ignorance–Silence is not the weapon of choice.
And, while offensive to many, and perhaps offensive and gross and repugnant, words don’t really hurt anyone. Just like… the OP!
I have gotten us back on track!
::ducks::
sven, glad to see your cool feminism in another thread. Zebra, as I rambled on about before, the connection between pornography and the position males hold in society–including expectations of commitment–are quite fascinating.
Well, I had a busy weekend ahead of me full of alcohol and orgies, but now I see I’m also going to have to write porn. I can’t believe he actually created work for me, but you know, whatever I can do to be a good American and exercise my Constitutional rights.
Which is why I have every intention of teaching my children not just about sex but also specifically about pornography when the time comes.
To a son:
"I know you’re probably interested in stuff like this (e.g. Playboy, assuming heterosexuality). You’ve probably already seen this kind of thing, either at a friend’s house or sneaking around the magazine rack at the drug store or whatever. [Side note: The first porno mag I saw, around the age of eight, was found on the back of a toilet in a fire station when I had been dragged there by a parent for some neighborhood function.] You may have even acquired some and hidden it in your room, or printed it off the Internet. That’s completely normal, and I don’t want you to feel bad about it. Porn is entirely acceptable in the proper context, and when put to its intended use.
"But you need to be aware of two things.
"First, it does not represent reality. Porn is not a training manual and should not be treated as such. Most women are not really like this, either emotionally or physically, and you must not make the mistake of taking any practical lessons from it. Porn is fantasy, pure and simple, and when it’s treated as fantasy it’s natural and normal. If you try applying what you see in porn to reality, you’re going to get in trouble in one way or another.
"The second thing is, most people don’t have a healthy relationship with porn. They think it’s dirty and keep it a secret, or they don’t understand the fantasy aspect of it and get confused. They feel bad about the gigantic dicks and boobs in the pictures and movies, or they try to live up to the physical positions or ‘porno chatter’ or whatever, and they find their sexual lives unsatisfying because they don’t compare to the fantasy. So while I’m being completely open with you about it, you should be very circumspect about repeating or continuing this conversation with other people. Either they’ll think you’re a dirty bastard for liking porn, or they’ll think you’re an effeminate wimp because you think cumming in a woman’s face is icky and strange. Or worse, they’ll call me an abusive parent because I’m talking about porn to my kid, even though there’s nothing creepy about this in any way. So please, think carefully before you talk about this to anybody.
“I’m happy to continue this discussion whenever you want. I’ll even provide a video if you want to watch it on your own and see what I’m talking about. My only condition is that we talk about it afterwards.”
To a daughter:
Much the same conversation, with the added twist that she needs to be aware that at least some, and perhaps many, of the sex partners she encounters (again, assuming heterosexuality) will have the same misconceptions about sex due to what they’ve learned from porn as I’m trying to warn the son away from above, and that she needs to be ready to deal with them. To wit:
“A man who doesn’t know anything about sex beyond what he’s learned in this magazine or this video is probably not going to be a very good lover, and if you want the sex to be any good you’ll have to figure out how to help him and teach him without insulting his manhood. You may or may not want to look at this magazine and/or this video to see what I’m talking about; they’re here if you want them.”
(These conversations will happen by the time the children are sixteen, no later, but perhaps earlier depending on my evaluation of their level of maturity.)
In short, I’m the conservative moralist right-winger’s worst nightmare: not just because I’m going to be open and honest with my children and encourage them to think that porn is normal and useful in its place, but because, even worse, due to my honesty on the subject, my kids will be smarter and better adjusted than their kids.
Sad, isn’t it?
hmmm…i looked at playboys as a lad as well, and didn’t kill people. Hef should be worried he’s making all this defective porn that isn’t causing us to crack open skulls and feast on the gooey goodness within. Where has the quality control gone?
…because that would disprove your point?
Not to defend Georgie too much (I think he’s an idiot) but pornography can damage families.
My “addiction” to porn was driving a wedge between my wife and myself. The availability on the internet was an enabler to this habit of mine. My family life was damaged by porn. Should it be illegal? Emphatically, NO! Was is damaging? Yes.
Just yesterday in MPSIMS, an upset women was lamenting her husband’s use of porn while he was simultaneously sexually starving her.
Porn, misused, like drugs misused (insert strawman here) can be harmful.
Now, defending George’s scriptwriters a bit more, the Whitehouse didn’t say that porn equals child abuse in that press release. You’re expounding vehemently against things that haven’t been said.
This, IMO, is the relevant portion of that press release
If they’re targeting child porn, the creators of child porn, and the users of kiddie-porn, I say “more power to them”.
If they’re saying that pedophiles & other sexual predators use pornography, then “No, Duh!” yes they do.
If they say that pornography causes pedophilia, then they’re wrong - although the press release, IMO (again), doesn’t even imply that.
I know I’m going against the air of permissiveness that permeates the boards but I do think you’re ranting about something basically positive.
Earlier this week I was at a website that sells pornographic DVD’s. Never having seen porn before ( 
), I thought that I would purchase a movie. The site told me that based on my location, in Texas, they couldn’t ship any offensive materials in accordance with local laws.
How does the first amendment work? Does it only relate to the federal government? Are state governments allowed to curtail freedom of the press with no ill effects? Should I call the ACLU?
I think you’re focusing on the wrong thing if you think that drug abuse is a strawman. It wasn’t the porn that hurt your marriage, it was the abuse of ( in this case ) porn that did. The same thing can be said about the abuse of almost anything, from drugs to alcohol to porn to sports. All are “neutral”, it’s how they are used ( or abused ) that causes the problem.