um guys, no.. I am an Icelander, and I'll have you know this: Iceland is not going to ban porn!
Ögmundur is just one guy, he does NOT represent Iceland in whole. he wrote a bill that he wanted to pass up for voting, and that bill hasn't even reached that stage yet and if it ever will, it will not pass.
also, Ögmundur is highly unpopular among Icelanders and he will not be a part of a new government after the upcoming election in spring.
I'm sure this will be successful. It's very similar to how sharing of movie and music files across the Internet is prohibited, and now no one gets movies or music without paying for them. Same thing with the War on Drugs - it's been so successful that no one takes any illegal drugs any more.
But seriously, has anyone in Iceland ever heard of a proxy?
Seems to me that this is the whole correlation and causation thing (a 'questionable cause' logical fallacy). There are probably great benefits that come from having access to the Internet. The question that needs to be answered here is whether or not having access to porn is a requirement. This has not been shown by /Slate/ in their article.
The article goes on to say that, because access to the Internet does not reduce the prevalence of homicide but does lower the prevalence of rape, having access to the Internet reduces rape.
Here are some other reasons rape might be down (just off the top of my head):
* As a society, we're getting better at catching rapists before they rape again (and before they rape the first time)
* Sex crimes are less acceptable than they were some years ago
* There is more help available for those who are prone to this type of crime
Porn is already banned in Iceland (punishable by prison!), so they're past the free speech arguments. The current discussion is about stronger enforcement. And if I understand correctly, extending criminal punishment to possessing porn, in addition to distributing or publishing it.
There's no source cited in the linked article other than The Daily Mail. For the unfamiliar, they're a British 'news outlet' who are notorious for writing articles that grossly misinterpret source data, to forward their own agenda.
(In Google translation) he says porn is already illegal in Iceland (which it is [1], punishable by prison), and he's advocating more enforcement of this, with police resources.
Just what citizens need: a the government watching everything you do! Regardless of how you feel about pornography or other "obscene" content, this kind of power will be abused. Even if Iceland, arbiters of good taste, manage to use it entirely within the given bounds, that kind of information could be pilfered and used by more malicious people. Even big tech focused companies are not immune to data theft, so why would Iceland do any better?
As the saying goes: let's collect data on how everyone in Iceland browses the web; what could possible go wrong?
The title is misleading. This isn't about to happen. One conservative legislator is making a proposal. You can probably write a headline like this for any number of crazy ideas in most countries.
Even if Jonasson's claims are checked out by evidence, nannying a country's population by censoring offensive material is not the right course of action. You do not change public perception or progress society through censorship.
The internet is a new phenomena that has given individuals unprecedented power to indulge in all forms of media. Instead of arbitrarily obstructing information that they deem to be corrupting, the Icelandic government should recommend their citizens to learn the psychology behind desire and addiction [1], perhaps even Stoic philosophy [2], and how to set up a web filter for their children. They should trust that the adults of their country are generally smart enough to think for themselves and do the right thing; anything less is an insult to their intelligence and is likely to foster a mistrust of their government.
I really like social experimentation (to a sane degree, of course). Why shouldn't Iceland ban pornography (if it does so through a democratic process)? I'd quite like to see what happens.
If it's voted on, go for it. It is bad for women IMO. Treats them as objects for the most part. Plum, men then get depressed because they expect life to be like a porno.
What about porn made by women?[1] What about the millions of women who like and enjoy porn?
"Sorry darling, you can't do that, but it's for your own good!"
What we need isn't paternalistic censorship. If mainstream porn is bad - and I certainly agree it is - we need better porn, and more openness discussing it.
Japan has half the reported rape incidence of Singapore, and does not attempt to censor porn. Let's consider other factors before endorsing the methods of repressively religious police states.
Kind of ironic that Iceland is on one hand being held up as the freedom/free speech haven of the world, and on the other hand they want to ban porn. I suspect this is just one whacko politician, not the mainstream, though -- most of the Icelandic people I know are fairly pro porn :)
Of course not. That's why societies have things like police and prisons. Making it illegal is, of course, about reducing its prevalence, but it's also about society saying, 'these are our standards'. One will never stop all men from beating their wives, but I would not care to live in a society where it became legal.
>He argues that easy access to online porn increases the frequency and severity of sexual violence against women and causes longterm damage for children who view it at an early age.
Does he actually argue that, or does he just claim that? Wouldn't an argument come with some sort of evidence?
Technically he could be forming a logical argument with only his personal opinion as backing axiom. It wouldn't be a good argument, but it would technically be an argument.
Not that this really matters. Evidence or "GTFO". Even then though that doesn't mean it is a valid plan. I could have all the evidence in the world that sending all men and women to separate prison camps would reduce domestic abuse, but that does not mean such a proposal, correct as it may be, is acceptable. I get that Iceland is their own country with their own laws and standards, but to my American sensibilities this seems to be clearly crossing the line.
In other words, you can form a real argument with undisputed facts, but even that is not sufficient.
>Does he actually argue that, or does he just claim that? Wouldn't an argument come with some sort of evidence?
A society's standards, including moral standards, are not something that has to pass "evidence".
I find it silly that we ask to justify any and all decisions and laws a society takes with some deterministic, scientific evidence.
Do the "right to freedom" needs any evidence? In fact, there's no evidence at all for that, it's just a moral guideline. Scientifically, we could do the exact opposite.
Do we need "evidence" that black people are the same as white?
Or, (in a case where evidence tells us people are not as capable as us), do we need "evidence" to not treat the physically/mentally ill as inferior?
Do we need evidence that rape is traumatic? And what kind of evidence should that be? Maybe we should not believe it until we actually see changes in a brain scan in post-rape victims (then again, why assume those changes should be for the worst?). Surely trusting what they tell us is not enough -- personal feelings is no evidence.
Now, the case for "increased frequency of sexual violence" against women might, or might not, be quantified.
But the case for "longterm damage for children who view it at an early age" doesn't need to. Living as a society doesn't mean adhering as a robot to scientific notions and discoveries. It involves preferences, choices, and even risk. A society might prefer even a negative outcome, over what is considered healthier and better "scientifically" (E.g they might keep their customs re food , despite evidence that said food can be harmful or some other cusine is more nutricional. Or they might prefer to fight and die instead of collaborating with an invading army (which gives you the scientific benefit of being alive)).
[+] [-] jtheory|13 years ago|reply
Edvin Dunaway 22 minutes ago
um guys, no.. I am an Icelander, and I'll have you know this: Iceland is not going to ban porn!
Ögmundur is just one guy, he does NOT represent Iceland in whole. he wrote a bill that he wanted to pass up for voting, and that bill hasn't even reached that stage yet and if it ever will, it will not pass.
also, Ögmundur is highly unpopular among Icelanders and he will not be a part of a new government after the upcoming election in spring.
[+] [-] theorique|13 years ago|reply
But seriously, has anyone in Iceland ever heard of a proxy?
[+] [-] nostromo|13 years ago|reply
There's more evidence that porn reduces sex crime than increases it. (Obviously "more evidence" doesn't mean "is true.")
Slate had a good write up: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2006/1...
[+] [-] lovek323|13 years ago|reply
The article goes on to say that, because access to the Internet does not reduce the prevalence of homicide but does lower the prevalence of rape, having access to the Internet reduces rape.
Here are some other reasons rape might be down (just off the top of my head):
* As a society, we're getting better at catching rapists before they rape again (and before they rape the first time)
* Sex crimes are less acceptable than they were some years ago
* There is more help available for those who are prone to this type of crime
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] justincormack|13 years ago|reply
Iceland is pretty pro free speech generally eg see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Modern_Media_Inst...
[+] [-] uvdiv|13 years ago|reply
http://www.dv.is/frettir/2013/1/22/vill-loka-klamid/ (Icelandic source, pre-dates Daily Mail tabloid by weeks)
http://ogmundur.is/annad/nr/6578/ (Interior Minister's viewpoint)
Porn is already banned in Iceland (punishable by prison!), so they're past the free speech arguments. The current discussion is about stronger enforcement. And if I understand correctly, extending criminal punishment to possessing porn, in addition to distributing or publishing it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_by_region#Iceland
Iceland and its free-speech friends:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pornography_laws.svg
[+] [-] meaty|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mozboz|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uvdiv|13 years ago|reply
http://ogmundur.is/annad/nr/6578/
(In Google translation) he says porn is already illegal in Iceland (which it is [1], punishable by prison), and he's advocating more enforcement of this, with police resources.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_by_region#Iceland
nice map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pornography_laws.svg
[+] [-] TDL|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theevocater|13 years ago|reply
As the saying goes: let's collect data on how everyone in Iceland browses the web; what could possible go wrong?
[+] [-] nixy|13 years ago|reply
Why would porn fall outside of the bounds for good taste, and where is the line drawn between fine art and porn? And who draws the line?
There is no need to go any further than the proposed law itself to find that it is wrong.
[+] [-] Fzzr|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reinhardt|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ayding|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Skoofoo|13 years ago|reply
The internet is a new phenomena that has given individuals unprecedented power to indulge in all forms of media. Instead of arbitrarily obstructing information that they deem to be corrupting, the Icelandic government should recommend their citizens to learn the psychology behind desire and addiction [1], perhaps even Stoic philosophy [2], and how to set up a web filter for their children. They should trust that the adults of their country are generally smart enough to think for themselves and do the right thing; anything less is an insult to their intelligence and is likely to foster a mistrust of their government.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKDFsLi2oBk
[2] http://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-Stoic/dp/01953...
[+] [-] lovek323|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mkhalil|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pessimizer|13 years ago|reply
Romantic comedies make us 'unrealistic about relationships', claim scientists
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/3776923/Romantic-com...
Next ban?
[+] [-] icebraining|13 years ago|reply
"Sorry darling, you can't do that, but it's for your own good!"
What we need isn't paternalistic censorship. If mainstream porn is bad - and I certainly agree it is - we need better porn, and more openness discussing it.
[1]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/mar/22/porn-wome...
http://www.goodforher.com/feminist_porn_awards
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_pornography
[+] [-] iopq|13 years ago|reply
This man obviously underestimates Internet porn.
[+] [-] seivan|13 years ago|reply
Not sure if there is a correlation....
[+] [-] uvdiv|13 years ago|reply
http://www.heuni.fi/Satellite?blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobc...
(page 38)
[+] [-] ayding|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drucken|13 years ago|reply
I should point out that the Daily Mail has had an anti-porn campaign called "Block Online Porn" since at least April 2012.
The Daily Mail's primary audience is lower middle class, conservative, middle-aged women.
It is not considered an objective, or even credible news source, even within the UK.
[+] [-] rdl|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jack-r-abbit|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stcredzero|13 years ago|reply
Does porn really always make you happy?
[+] [-] meaty|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lovek323|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] papsosouid|13 years ago|reply
Does he actually argue that, or does he just claim that? Wouldn't an argument come with some sort of evidence?
[+] [-] jlgreco|13 years ago|reply
Not that this really matters. Evidence or "GTFO". Even then though that doesn't mean it is a valid plan. I could have all the evidence in the world that sending all men and women to separate prison camps would reduce domestic abuse, but that does not mean such a proposal, correct as it may be, is acceptable. I get that Iceland is their own country with their own laws and standards, but to my American sensibilities this seems to be clearly crossing the line.
In other words, you can form a real argument with undisputed facts, but even that is not sufficient.
[+] [-] coldtea|13 years ago|reply
A society's standards, including moral standards, are not something that has to pass "evidence".
I find it silly that we ask to justify any and all decisions and laws a society takes with some deterministic, scientific evidence.
Do the "right to freedom" needs any evidence? In fact, there's no evidence at all for that, it's just a moral guideline. Scientifically, we could do the exact opposite.
Do we need "evidence" that black people are the same as white?
Or, (in a case where evidence tells us people are not as capable as us), do we need "evidence" to not treat the physically/mentally ill as inferior?
Do we need evidence that rape is traumatic? And what kind of evidence should that be? Maybe we should not believe it until we actually see changes in a brain scan in post-rape victims (then again, why assume those changes should be for the worst?). Surely trusting what they tell us is not enough -- personal feelings is no evidence.
Now, the case for "increased frequency of sexual violence" against women might, or might not, be quantified.
But the case for "longterm damage for children who view it at an early age" doesn't need to. Living as a society doesn't mean adhering as a robot to scientific notions and discoveries. It involves preferences, choices, and even risk. A society might prefer even a negative outcome, over what is considered healthier and better "scientifically" (E.g they might keep their customs re food , despite evidence that said food can be harmful or some other cusine is more nutricional. Or they might prefer to fight and die instead of collaborating with an invading army (which gives you the scientific benefit of being alive)).