Friday, 26 July 2013

How David Cameron's Stand Against Online Porn Goes Too Far


A few days ago Prime Minister David Cameron released new information on the steps he and the government are taking to protect today's kids from online pornography. However while some things he is doing are no doubt good, I have a real issue with how far he is taking it.

First of all, I'm all for trying to 'protect' kids from online porn. Porn has gotten to the stage where it is invasive of people's lives even if they don't want it there. Go online and even the most harmless of sites will often have dodgy ads, and mistype something into Google and you'll get some pretty promiscuous pictures pop up. Hell, I even searched for actress Grey Delisle and Google recommended I search for 'Grey Delisle cleavage'. It's clear you can't escape porn and sex when on the internet.

One consistently suggested thing that the government force internet providers to do is offer people optional 'filters' that allow them to choose whether they want explicit content to be available to them online. And the government has finally cooperated. And that's fine. I respect that. Next month we'll all get a call asking if we want these filters installed or not and if you are switching providers or just starting out you'll have the option from the get-go. It's not an issue for anyone because those who still want porn can get it and those who don't now don't have to have it invading their lives. Everyone is happy.

Well, everyone would be happy if Mr. Cameron had stopped there. But he didn't. Instead he decided to take it even further for reasons so blatant I don't even know whether or not to mention them. Well, I will, in a bit.

So what did he do wrong? Well, instead of just adding in filters he decided to turn porn into a massive issue, which it isn't. Only the media want to turn porn into a big problem and link it to every rape and murder that happens because, obviously, making people paranoid and angry is how they make their money. But of course David Cameron had to get in on the action too.

My first point isn't really about an individual thing he said or is doing, but it's something I took away from his speech that makes me uncomfortable. And this is that what you do on the internet is no longer private. While he didn't directly say everything you search for will be monitored, he did make it perfectly clear that the government knows what you search for. They know if you've searched for child porn. They know if you searched for porn relating to an unusual fetish you have. Whatever you've used the internet for, they know about.

One of the new things that's going to happen is if you search for things like 'child' and 'sex' instead of being shown instant search results, as you should be, you will now be given options on what to search for as your search terms were obviously controversial. Search for 'child' and 'sex' and you'll be asked if you meant 'child sex education' or 'child gender'. How utterly dumb.

I know what you're thinking: 'why would you want to search for child and sex or child-sex related things anyway?' But that's not really the point, although I can easily answer it.

You might want to find the Wikipedia page for child-pornography. You know, for research. Or maybe, like one of my sister's friends had to do, you need to research child porn for University.

However that's all irrelevant. Why? Because the point of Google and the internet is it allows you to find things instantly. It allows you to find every single thing you need that relates to what you specifically searched for in a split second. Monitoring and controlling how people search for things when they type in controversial and dodgy things like 'child sex' isn't 'safety' or 'preventing' people from watching illegal porn, it's stopping people from using Goddamn Google and the internet how it was made to be used.

If you DO type in 'child' and 'sex' no-one can know HOW you meant it and what INTENT there was behind you searching for it UNTIL you've completed the search and clicked on a few websites. If you tell a criminal: "There's a security camera there", that will stop them from stealing and you won't lose stock, but at the same time, you won't be able to catch them stealing either so they will still be at large.

It's similar to knife laws in this country too. You can't buy knives if you're under 18 years of age. That's predicting a potential knife crime before it happens and ultimately preventing it. But what if some 15 year old kid needs them because his mother wants them?

What I'm saying is, is this is control in the extreme. It's saying 'you can't use certain search terms because you MIGHT be a paedophile'. But that's ridiculous. This is why we have freedom of speech and the freedom do be judged by our actions as they happen. Searching for 'child' and 'sex' is harmless. Clicking on websites with information about child porn after searching for 'child' and 'sex' is also harmless. But if you search 'child' and 'sex' and THEN click on illegal websites, then you're guilty as charged.

It's clear David Cameron wants there to be more regulation online and it's clear as day that your privacy is of no concern to him in the least. What you search for; the sites you visit; none of it is private anymore.

What's more, controlling searches more is also pointless because steps to block and label with warnings illegal porn sites are being taken too, so why regulate how people search if they can't find illegal porn anyway? It's just another excuse to keep an eye on what you're doing at all times, because, let's face it, a large portion of our lives is spent online, and with the online being so open and 'free' and hardly regulated at all, the government wants to make sure they retain control.

Another reason his speech sucked is because David Cameron pointed out the obvious. "Kids are growing up too fast." No shit Sherlock. And what, you're putting that down to porn? Do you know nothing about society? Look at schooling. Look at todays culture and racism. Look at discrimination in general. Hell, I even got a comment on my KSI Is An Arsehole article from a guy claiming his friend now acts like a douche-bag because he watches KSI, so look at YouTube too. Today's society is all about how fast you grow up. It's not porn, it's just how we've let the world become.

Yet another issue I have with Mr. Cameron and his totally moronic take on pornography is his decision to outlaw certain forms of 'extreme' pornography, particular depictions of simulated (fake) rape. Now this is always going to be a touchy subject and no doubt I'll have a billion feminist psychopaths on my back for what I'm about to say, but trust me, I have basis for my argument.

Obviously real rape porn is already illegal just like things like beastiality are too. And there's no question of whether it should stay that way. In my opinion, anything sexual that is illegal to do in the bedroom or to another human being should be illegal in porn. It's a no-brainer. Like, a massive no-brainer.

But I am also of the opinion that if something is legal to do in the bedroom or to/with another person, that should be acceptable in porn too.

What David Cameron was talking about when he referred to outlawing 'simulated' rape is basically making it illegal to watch and possess role-play rape porn. And role-play is basically what it is.

'Simulated' rape is fake. It's role-play between porn actors. It's a porn director saying 'Let's make a fake rape porno', getting male and female actors, paying them and then getting the guy to 'pretend' to sexually assault the actress while filming it.

That doesn't sound very scary to me. It might be disturbing to watch for people who aren't used to that sort of porn or don't like violence, but these people no doubt get scared by violent movies too.

And that's exactly what 'simulated' rape porn is. Just like all other legal porn. It's a fucking movie. It's not real and it's legal to make and everyone is consenting and getting paid, so why is it now illegal to watch or possess this form of pornography? If something is legal to make or to do yourself in the bedroom then why the fuck is it illegal to watch online?

Cameron backed up his reason for banning it by saying it was for 'the kids'. But you've already got the Goddamn filters you moron. If parents have the filters, then why are you banning particular legal porn that they can't view anyway BECAUSE of the filters?

Another argument that will no doubt be made is: "because if people, even adults, watch fake rape porn, then they might go out and rape someone!".

Actually, I think the opposite.

If someone has a rape fantasy or fetish, what better way to relieve themselves of the sexual tension that builds up inside them revolving around that particular fantasy or fetish than by watching porn relating to it? it's legal, and no one gets hurt. Win win? Right? Right? No. Of course not. Because someone will always disagree and make another argument regarding how bad rape is and even how 'fake and simulated rape that is perfectly legal to make and no one get's hurt in is terrible'.

OK, you know what, rape IS terrible. It's a disgusting crime. A fucking horrible thing. And people that commit real rape crimes should be punished in the strongest possible way. So outlaw it. Outlaw this role-play porn. Go ahead an outlaw it. But if you're going to outlaw THAT because THAT contains fake rape images, then you better fucking outlaw films depicting rape too.

Yeah, it's true, this perfectly legal to make and film role-play porn is being banned but films like The Human Centipede part 1 & 2 (and soon 3) that revolve around a sadistic scientist torturing and raping innocent victims can be shown on the big screen in cinemas with a simple 18 age certificate. That, my friends, is hypocrisy. And the Human Centipede is far from the only series of films depicting rape and sado violence like this. Almost all these films are shown to the public in cinemas and can be bought on DVD in a SUPERMARKET. No, not in a sex shop, a SUPERMARKET where FAMILIES and KIDS shop.
And yet pornography depicting fake rape that is safe to make, legal and that no-one gets hurt through is being made completely illegal? I'm sorry, but this is ludicrous.

You know what makes all of this worse? The reasons behind David Cameron deciding to go this far with his stand against online porn. He is only going this far with it because he wants to suck up to all of the charities and families and organisations that are paranoid and have called for a block on porn for the past year or so because, quite simply, the election is coming up and he wants the majority on his side.

David Cameron: you are a fool, hypocritical and plain shameful.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Your Thought Box. Leave Your Thoughts Here.