A Clockwork Orange in your computer.
Without government filtering, overseas websites will still be accessible here. Bandwidth is so cheap that they offer full movies completely free with no payment or age verification. They make all their money from ad revenue and these free porn sites are consistently some of the most viewed sites on the net.
Even if you somehow banned all the websites in the world, people will continue to privately trade files forever and ever more anonymously. The horse left the barn long ago with the creation of the global internet.
The only solution is to encourage parents to actually watch what their kids are looking at online and have a real talk to them about porn. More legislation will do NOTHING but make things worse.
How many people can’t say “no” to their child?
As someone who has been addicted to porn myself, I recognize the harm it can do; however, I have to disagree with the article:
“But when they see sexual violence, domination, rape, and other similar acts so commonly depicted in modern-day pornography, as today’s children do, they will act out those, as well”
I can honestly say, in all the years I had an addiction, I never saw any of this sexual violence, rape, etc. Anything out of the ordinary you have to seek out. I think anyone viewing and getting off on rape was probably already sick and didn’t just become violent by looking at niche porn. Kind of a chicken/egg argument.
Porn causes a lot of problems, but for the millions of people that look at it and are not rapists or have any disire to rape or view rape, blaming porn on this is not helpful to the argument that it has its evils.
...and I kept hearing that porn is a ‘victimless’ crime.
porn did no such thing.
The truth is Britain is being flooded by radial Muslims who ENCOURAGE their kids to rape the infidels in their mosques and madrases
I smell rats here. The entire argument is based on the definition of “sex offenses”, which in Britain have been reduced to any not just sexual offense, but *gender* offense. Hopelessly politically correct.
Without permission, a young girl hugs a classmate. A sexual offense. A five year old boy tells a five year old girl that she is “cute”, which is clearly “gender harassment”, a sexual offense. Boys don’t invite girls to play ball, a blatant sex offense.
All attributable to pornography, mind you.
The original article, in The Telegraph, is hopelessly nebulous. (emphasis mine)
“The children *may* have seen pornography...”
“...shared a bedroom with teenagers and witnessed inappropriate behaviour, or could have been allowed in a room while parents were watching sex scenes on the television.”
This is crap journalism.
Neither liberals nor many conservative libertarians will like this. It is true that without gov. control of the Internet it may not be stopped, and it is the work of the NT type church to bring souls to be controlled from within, so that they need not be controlled from without, but for those who will not be governed by God and conscience, harsh penalties should be meted out to those who publish porn, and esteem of modesty be what is manifest.
But the perhaps they will think the first lady in beach clothing would get more approval ratings.
Should take the typical leftist approach, and just start referring to it as “Big Porn.”
Hmm, I don’t see any mention of the US - I guess we must not have a problem. Or, is it that we choose to not recognize the problem???
After the seeing the number of elitists involved in the Savelle scandal, something tells me many of the kiddos have had practical experience to go with the internet porn sessions. One of the leaders of the perv pack at the BBC is at the NYT now. Aren’t we so lucky.