Tag Archives: censorship

Pornography; Good For Us?


Reprinted from an article in The Scientist (1st Mar, 2010) and published here as a reaction to the Australian Government’s plan to filter legal adult porn (and political discussion) on the internet.

Pornography.

Most people have seen it, and have a strong opinion about it. Many of those opinions are negative—some people argue that ready access to pornography disrupts social order, encouraging people to commit rape, sexual assault, and other sex-related crimes. And even if pornography doesn’t trigger a crime, they say, it contributes to the degradation of women. It harms the women who are depicted by pornography, and harms those who do not participate but are encouraged to perform the acts depicted in it by men who are acculturated by it. Many even adamantly believe that pornography should become illegal.

Alternatively, others argue that pornography is an expression of fantasies that can actually inhibit sexual activity, and act as a positive displacement for sexual aggression. Pornography offers a readily available means of satisfying sexual arousal (masturbation), they say, which serves as a substitute for dangerous, harmful, and illegal activities.

Some feminists even claim that pornography can empower women by loosening them from the shackles of social prudery and restrictions.

But what do the data say?

Over the years, many scientists have investigated the link between pornography (considered legal under the First Amendment in the United States unless judged “obscene”) and sex crimes and attitudes towards women. And in every region investigated, researchers have found that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased.

It’s not hard to find a study population, given how widespread pornography has become. The United States alone produces 10,000 pornographic movies each year. The Free Speech Coalition, a porn industry–lobbying group, estimates that adult video/DVD sales and rentals amount to at least $4 billion per year. The Internet is a rich source, with 40 million adults regularly visiting porn Web sites, and more than one-quarter of regular users downloading porn at work. And it’s not just men who are interested: Nelsen/Net reports that 9.4 million women in the United States accessed online pornography Web sites in the month of September 2003. According to the conservative media watchdog group Family Safe Media, the porn industry makes more money than the top technology companies combined, including Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Amazon.

No correlation has been found between exposure to porn and negative attitudes towards women.

To examine the effect this widespread use of porn may be having on society, researchers have often exposed people to porn and measured some variable such as changes in attitude or predicted hypothetical behaviors, interviewed sex offenders about their experience with pornography, and interviewed victims of sex abuse to evaluate if pornography was involved in the assault. Surprisingly few studies have linked the availability of porn in any society with antisocial behaviors or sex crimes. Among those studies none have found a causal relationship and very few have even found one positive correlation.

Despite the widespread and increasing availability of sexually explicit materials, according to national FBI Department of Justice statistics, the incidence of rape declined markedly from 1975 to 1995. This was particularly seen in the age categories 20–24 and 25–34, the people most likely to use the Internet. The best known of these national studies are those of Berl Kutchinsky, who studied Denmark, Sweden, West Germany, and the United States in the 1970s and 1980s. He showed that for the years from approximately 1964 to 1984, as the amount of pornography increasingly became available, the rate of rapes in these countries either decreased or remained relatively level. Later research has shown parallel findings in every other country examined, including Japan, Croatia, China, Poland, Finland, and the Czech Republic. In the United States there has been a consistent decline in rape over the last 2 decades, and in those countries that allowed for the possession of child pornography, child sex abuse has declined.

Significantly, no community in the United States has ever voted to ban adult access to sexually explicit material. The only feature of a community standard that holds is an intolerance for materials in which minors are involved as participants or consumers.

In terms of the use of pornography by sex offenders, the police sometimes suggest that a high percentage of sex offenders are found to have used pornography. This is meaningless, since most men have at some time used pornography. Looking closer, Michael Goldstein and Harold Kant found that rapists were more likely than nonrapists in the prison population to have been punished for looking at pornography while a youngster, while other research has shown that incarcerated nonrapists had seen more pornography, and seen it at an earlier age, than rapists. What does correlate highly with sex offense is a strict, repressive religious upbringing. Richard Green too has reported that both rapists and child molesters use less pornography than a control group of “normal” males.

Attitudes towards women .

Studies of men who had seen X-rated movies found that they were significantly more tolerant and accepting of women than those men who didn’t see those movies, and studies by other investigators—female as well as male—essentially found similarly that there was no detectable relationship between the amount of exposure to pornography and any measure of misogynist attitudes. No researcher or critic has found the opposite, that exposure to pornography—by any definition—has had a cause-and-effect relationship towards ill feelings or actions against women. No correlation has even been found between exposure to porn and calloused attitudes toward women.

There is no doubt that some people have claimed to suffer adverse effects from exposure to pornography—just look at testimony from women’s shelters, divorce courts and other venues. But there is no evidence it was the cause of the claimed abuse or harm.

Ultimately, there is no freedom that can’t be and isn’t misused.

This can range from the freedom to bear arms to the freedom to bear children (just look at “Octomom”). But it doesn’t mean that the freedom of the majority should be restricted to prevent the abuses of the few. When people transgress into illegal behavior, there are laws to punish them, and those act as a deterrent. In the United States, where one out of every 138 residents is incarcerated, just imagine if pornography were illegal—there’d be more people in prison than out.

Adapted from “Pornography, Public Acceptance and Sex Related Crime: A Review,” Int J Law Psychiatry, 32:304–14, 2009.

Milton Diamond is a professor in the department of anatomy, biochemistry and physiology at the University of Hawaii and director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society.

Australia, Strangled by Censors


Here in our gloriously free and oh so safe country, Australia, yet another Government is working hard to ensure our happiness, safety and contentment.

Having just been told that our internet is going to be fixed so that we are no longer menaced by internet  nasties that our guardians don’t like we now have a Governmental intent to change the laws on what is and isn’t art.

The New South Wales Government has released recommendations to scrap the defence of ‘artistic merit’ in relation to child pornography.

It is part of a report compiled by police, the DPP and Legal Aid in an attempt to make a clear legal distinction between pornography and art.

So now we will have artistic merit determined by Government Committee.

Just like Germany and Russia during the 1930’s and Eastern Europe in the 1950’s and 1960’s what is considered acceptable in architecture, music, theatre and the visual arts is soon to be decided for us by those who were once our elected representatives.

The talent of Bill Henson has once again been the excuse for this brutal slap in the face for Australia’s arts community.

Regardless of the fact that this law allegedly can only come into force once an item has been declared “Child Pornography”, once that decision is made, apparently by the Director of Public Prosecutions, then “artistic merit” goes out the window and is not even considered. Not a good start for any defense to a crime which is simply “In the eye of the beholder”. There is no objective way of defining “pornography” whether adult or child.

This new law suddenly appears just weeks after Senator Conroy announced in Federal Parliament that the “Great Firewall of Australia” will be fully operational by 2011. If that measure goes ahead in its current form then Australia will be off the internet map. All the little special interest groups will have their special interest desires met.

The “Pro-family” groups will have total censorship of pornography. Not just the “Kiddie Porn” of which those of us who oppose this measure are assumed (by Senator Conroy) to be devotees but adult porn which is currently legal under Australia’s censorship laws. They will also be able to block all sites which mention voluntary euthanasia, safe drug use or abortion.

The “anti-gambling” groups will have succeeded in banning, in Australia, all gambling sites on the internet.

The Religious Right will get their jollies because atheist websites and “alternative religion” websites will be banned, blocked or shut down.

How long will it be until a political party takes advantage of being in office to ban all sites promoting their opposition?

The “Clean Feed Filter” which is going to be used is almost exactly the same as the filter the Chinese Government, a noted liberal regime, was going to use but then decided that it was unworkable.

So, between these two arms of Government, it seems we Aussies are in for – I was going to say, “An interesting time.” In reality we will regress to the drabness of the Puritan regimes in both England and the then new Americas.

The art work comes from, in order; Mike Fitz, Bill Henson, Phil’s Phun, I Am your God.
Visit here for background on this issue.

Click on each image to biggify and run your cursor over the images.

Censored Nude Camel Toes and Beavers


Every day I check the statistics on my blog. Just the total visitors. After all I am not a fanatic.

Much.

But occasionally I look at the other statistics WordPress provides. It is interesting (to me) to see what brings people to my blog.

So here are the ten most viewed articles on the archive over the past 30 days.

Pornography, Censorship and Art. Same old, Same old!

The Best Camel Toe Picture Ever Taken

Nude Gymnastics and Swimming

Second Best Camel Toe Picture Ever Taken

Shaving Her Beaver

Nine Inch Nails Meets Harry Potter

The Seven Dwarves

Blonde Chick with a Nice Pussy

What Is The Speed Of Light?

It is fascinating that top of the list is a serious article although I realise it has only gained popularity because Google decided to use the image of a young girl from that post as their top image for a search on “Bill Henson”.

I’m not sure just why an image lifted from “Looks Just Like” has jumped up into sixth spot or why three innocuous cartoons are in the list.

The entry which leaves me shaking my head is at number 10. Out of 3,399 posts on the archive (this is post No. 3,400) a serious – well, sort of –  post on science rates this highly. It doesn’t seem to fit with the other nine which could be grouped as “Sex, Celebrity and Censorship”.

Et Tu, Conroy


Friends, Aussies, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Internet, not to praise him.

The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Internet. The noble Conroy
Hath told you Internet was evil to our kids:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Internet answer’d it.

Here, under leave of Conroy and the rest–
For Conroy is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men–
Come I to speak in Internet’s funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Conroy says he was evil to our children;
And Conroy is an honourable man.

He hath brought many ideas home to Australia
Whose knowledge and enterprise did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Internet seem evil?
When that the poor have cried, Internet hath wept:
Evil should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Conroy says he was evil;
And Conroy is an honourable man.

You all did see that on the Internet
We all grew in our knowledge of the world,
And we gained many friendships: was this evil?
Yet Conroy says he was evil;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
I speak not to disprove what Conroy spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.

You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;

My heart is in the coffin there with Internet,
And I must pause till it come back to me.

Goodbye Internet. It Was Good While It Lasted.


Australia has moved closer to a dictatorship than it ever has before.

The internet in Australia will soon become just what the bureaucracy has been wanting since 1995. Controlled, censored and emasculated.

Senator Conroy’s legislation which will soon reach the Parliament includes some wonderfully inventive ideas.

87percentsmThe whole system will be based on an ISP-based filter  which is being touted as 87% effective.

What is the purpose of the filter?
To protect the young from pornography and paedophiles. Nothing there to create a fuss. Unless you live in a childless home. Then you still won’t be able to access any of these sites, even if you are legally an adult. But that is OK, only perverts and deviants want to see pornography. So normal, God-fearing Christian Australians won’t be disadvantaged.

How does the filter work?
It is fed a list of banned sites. The list of sites – managed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) – is designed to catalogue sites containing child pornography or other criminal content. This will slow broadband surfing to dial-up speeds but that is a small price to pay for Internet Safety.

Who adds sites to the filter list?
The ACMA. Who checks that the sites ARE deserving of being banned? The ACMA.Who checks the ACMA? The ACMA!

But we will know what is banned, of course.
Well, actually, no, we won’t. And the ACMA threatens fines of up to $11,000 a day for linking to sites on its secret, unreviewable, censorship blacklist. Yes, just imagine if you were fined for speeding because the government refused to put up signs showing the speed limits. Hmm, now there is an idea for the revenue hungry bureaucrats!

So we won’t know what sites are on the list but we will be fined for linking to them!

But that is no problem. The list is aimed at pornographic sites.

Do I have bad news for you! The secret list has been leaked to the “Secret Revealers” at Wikileak. That list is truly amazing.  Alongside child porn, bestiality, rape and extreme violence sites, the list also includes a slew of online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist.

Other Australian sites on the list are canteens.com.au (“Tuckshop and Canteen Management Consultants”) and animal carers MaroochyBoardingKennels.com.au.

The dentist, Dr John Golbrani from Samford, west of Brisbane, was furious when contacted to inform him that his site, dentaldistinction.com.au, appeared on the blacklist.

Oh dear, it seems I just set myself up for $44,000 worth of fines when this travesty becomes law!

Those sites can be removed from the list.

Well, those ones can be, but what about all the sites we know nothing about? And do we really want alternative religions, lifestyles and anything else which raises the ire of an unknown group of faceless bureaucrats to be censored? What happens when it turns political and we can no longer criticize the Government of the day?

Colin Jacobs, spokesman for online users’ lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia said: “The prospect of mandatory nation-wide filtering of this secret list is pretty concerning from a democratic point of view.”

It is already a bit far from just “Protecting the Kids”!

If you are disgusted with this situation

and want to know more about how all this happened,

click on the image below.

Libertus.net: Say No to Net Censorship

Libertus.net: Say No to Net Censorship!

I Live In A Free Country


Or so my Government keeps saying.

A free and open society.

So why does one of the Amnesty International programmes, Irrepressible Info.com show the following map?

censormap

Just a small quote from the the information on Australian ISP Filters.

“For offensive content hosted outside of Australia, the ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority) itself determines whether content is prohibited and notifies a list of certified Web-filter manufacturers to include the prohibited sites in their filters. To obtain certification, these certified “Family Friendly Filters” must agree to keep lists of prohibited sites confidential.”

Yep, I am feeling freer by the minute! I am free from knowing what I am unable to see on the internet.

How does your country rate?

Pornography, Censorship and Art. Same old, Same old!


I am severely lacking in writing inspiration today.

Not that I don’t have a lot to write about. I have a very important subject to write about. It is just that the words wont come out in a satisfying way.

Australians will know what I want to write about when I mention the name “Bill Henson“.

Considered by many to be Australia’s foremost photographer, he is fascinated by twilight, the space between day and night, by adolescence, that space between child and adult. The moment of hesitancy. He has been exhibited around the world and his work is hung in some of the most prestigious galleries.

Online, some of his work is visible and much more can be seen on the net – just google the name and then click on “Images”.

Now to the the subject, the controversy. The best way to follow the developments is through a series of news items.

It began five days ago when police raided a Sydney art gallery. Within hours, the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd weighed into the debate and the police began questioning the photographer. Betty Churcher, head of Australia’s National Art Gallery gave her opinion while some of the subjects themselves spoke out. The controversy widened to another gallery while more than 40 of Australia’s leading writers and artists supported Henson. Today the police have rejected the art world’s outcry, while two prominent politicians have supported the photographer.

In another report today, Louise Adler, the head of Melbourne University Publishing, one of 44 prominent figures who have signed an open letter urging Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to rethink his condemnation of the photos as “absolutely revolting”, calls the controversy a ‘beat-up’.

“I don’t believe that paedophiles and pornographers are going to rush to Roslyn Oxley’s gallery to find Bill Henson’s work for stimulation,” she said. “The question is, is it a private matter, one of taste or is it that the community has to come down and make a judgement?

Do we need to be chaperoned by the state on these questions?” she asked.

I don’t believe we do. Although I know a lot of people will disagree with me.

Everyone’s comments are welcome, although I do reserve the right to adjust the wording, but not the intent of some comments, where those comments may be viewed as offensive by some readers of the archive.

So that truly informed debate can take place, the image which originally sparked this controversy is over the jump.

Continue reading