Internet Censorship

[GothicGothicness]

I don't think anyone is suggesting banning porn done by professional actors Tragos.

 

[Tragos]

I don't think anyone is suggesting banning porn done by professional actors Tragos.

Yet Max Hardcore is in jail , maybe a sign for things to come ?

 

[JemyM]

Why?

None of the primary moral systems have valid arguments against the practice. The only valid one is that the animal might get hurt, which is difficult to prove.

In general, sexual acts are amoral in moral philosophy.

 

[JemyM]

Yes, if it is the best and easiest way to make their trading harder. You might not be able to get to the people behind it all, but by shutting down their websites and limiting their customer base you are already hurting them financially!

So hurting a pedophile financially is preferable to jail?

 

[Ubereil]

None of the primary moral systems have valid arguments against the practice. The only valid one is that the animal might get hurt, which is difficult to prove.

And that's not an issue?

In general, sexual acts are amoral in moral philosophy.

You mean moral, I assume?

Übereil

 

[JemyM]

So I should disprove your assertion?
In the sake of honesty I did google it and read the first ten hits, big surprise, not one of them supported your assertion. Do you have any evidence that there was some cost/benefit analysis when they removed the law against beastiality in 1944? If so please present it or just concede that you were presenting your personal interpretation as fact.

I should have guessed that searching in english is pointless since you will just get a non-Swedish debate by people so concerned about a 70 year old legislation regarding sex in a foreign country that they had to write about it.

I have read up on it now. Beastiality and Homosexuality were the same law 1944. When Homosexuality was legalized, so was beastiality. So there really were no debate on it's removal (that debate was about homosexuality), instead the debate since then have been if a new one is necessary. Since then there have been attempts to create a new law that all got shot down.

The last vote on it turned out 6 votes for a legislation. I can't find how many were present but we have about 350 people in the parliament so the votes against a legislation was seriously overwhelming.

The first argument for a law is the harm principle.
This argument fail because beastiality that harms an animal already fall under cruelty to animals and people have been punished for this exact reason under this law.

Another argument might be that fighting visible harm might not be enough, and that psychological harm might be there but difficult to see, but criminalizing something that might be, without any proof that it might be harmful isn't really convincing.

Another argument might be that many find it disgusting.
But merely the thought of someone else doing something you find disgusting isn't a valid argument, especially if others find it pleasurable.

Another argument is that it's immoral by tradition, habit or religion.
But Sweden is a highly secular nation where saying something is "wrong" or "immoral" aren't valid arguments.

Some uttered arguments in the recent vote include:
It's simply difficult to prove that the act even happened. Sometimes merely soothing an animal is mistaken for beastiality.

It's difficult to think that one who want to have sex with an animal is also willing to harm it.

It's a law against a sexual preference and criminalizing certain sexualities isn't the kind of legislation wanted in Sweden.

It's a slippery slope legislation, prohibit this today, what's to prohibit tomorrow?

The call for a law is an exaggerated belief that laws solve anything. Sweden have often being very conservative about not making new laws unless absolute necessary.


I do not necessary support these arguments, but as you can see we are extremely far from a new law, and the belief that it's natural to prohibit the act fails in a similar way that legislating against other things that some find good and others bad despite the act leading to no harm.

 

[JemyM]

And that's not an issue?

It falls under cruelty to animals, an act already punishable by law. This law have already been used to punish acts of beastiality after it was possible to prove that the animal was harmed.

You mean moral, I assume?

Amoral means that an act in itself is neither moral or immoral, that it's a non-moral act, an act that one cannot, need not or have no reason to judged as right or wrong. This include closing a door, starting a car, putting on a jacket, buying a mug etc. Sex itself have since the sexual revolution been seen as amoral in Sweden. Rape, prostitution and sex with children aren't prohibited thanks to the sex, but because it's an exploitation of another individual.

 

[txa1265]

It falls under cruelty to animals, an act already punishable by law. This law have already been used to punish acts of beastiality after it was possible to prove that the animal was harmed.

That I definitely agree with ...

However ...

Most laws regarding 'sexual abuse' (child sex abuse, rape, etc) stand on 'mutual consent', and since an animal cannot be proven to give consent, it stands that human-animal sexual relations are therefore forced by the human, and therefore non-consensual and rape.

I mean, if a child of, say, 1 year old is not physically harmed by an adult having sex, does that make it OK?

 

[Tragos]

Male animals can be proven to consent having sex with women because of ...you know it is technically impossible to rape a penix , i guess passing laws to ban some people's habits is as wrong as sexism in the legislation.
I love the "cruelty is not to kill and eat but get behind them" thing.

 

[dteowner]

So hurting a pedophile financially is preferable to jail?

Given the "enlightened" Euro views about incarceration, I'd actually have to agree with GG. What's the point in sending a pedophile to Club Med for 2 weeks and declaring him rehabilitated?

 

[JemyM]

That I definitely agree with …
However …
Most laws regarding 'sexual abuse' (child sex abuse, rape, etc) stand on 'mutual consent', and since an animal cannot be proven to give consent, it stands that human-animal sexual relations are therefore forced by the human, and therefore non-consensual and rape.
I mean, if a child of, say, 1 year old is not physically harmed by an adult having sex, does that make it OK?

It is a valid argument I think, and it's what many animal rights activists fight for now. It does fall into the "might" category though. With no way to ask the animal it's difficult to guess if they are unwilling.

 

[txa1265]

Given the "enlightened" Euro views about incarceration, I'd actually have to agree with GG. What's the point in sending a pedophile to Club Med for 2 weeks and declaring him rehabilitated?

Especially since the body of knowledge shows that pedos cannot be rehab'ed

 

[GothicGothicness]

So hurting a pedophile financially is preferable to jail?

I never said that, however as you might know, just because there is an internet site with someone profiting on it, it doesn't mean you can know who the person behind the website is or even which country he belongs to. What you can do is try to investigate this find him and put him to jail and that of course should be done.

However until you find him and even if you manage to find him "wherever" he is, if you don't shutdown the website one way or another he and others would keep profiting from it while they sit in jail. The money they earn will be invested in recruiting more people and hurting more children. I think it is quite simple to understand this?

Given the "enlightened" Euro views about incarceration, I'd actually have to agree with GG. What's the point in sending a pedophile to Club Med for 2 weeks and declaring him rehabilitated?
Especially since the body of knowledge shows that pedos cannot be rehab'ed

Cutting of their penis would be my punishment of choice for the guys…. for the women pedos…. well I don't know.

However you would very seldom get 2 weeks of rehab, what you ussually get is prison up to 10 years.

 

[JemyM]

What's the point in sending a pedophile to Club Med for 2 weeks and declaring him rehabilitated?

We do not know exactly how sexuality is formed, but just like fantasizing about rape, the sexuality in itself isn't a crime, just acting upon it.

The sexuality in itself isn't necessary wanted by who ever end up as one, it's therefore worth the research and attempt to rehabilitate as long as it might lead to progress in helping those ending up as one. "If you fail, cease to try" isn't a valid conclusion in science. Unlike homosexuality which used to be the studygroup for "changing sexuality", pedophiles (and wannabe rapists) run the risk of having sex without consent and thus there's a greater problem.

Jailtime for simply fantasize about sex without consent have no purpose. Only totalitarian states punish people for thoughtcrimes.

But producing, publishing and even selling child pornography is a crime with a far more serious sentence than 2 weeks rehabilitation. That act go far beyond simply being a pedophile and will certainly not lead to 2 weeks of rehab.

 

[txa1265]

Male animals can be proven to consent having sex with women because of …you know it is technically impossible to rape a penix , i guess passing laws to ban some people's habits is as wrong as sexism in the legislation.
I love the "cruelty is not to kill and eat but get behind them" thing.

Therefore there is no possibility of any woman to rape any male? Even a child? Sorry ... but rape is about power as much (or more) as sex ... and when a female has 'power' over a male it is *very* possible to rape.

 

[JemyM]

I never said that, however as you might know, just because there is an internet site with someone profiting on it, it doesn't mean you can know who the person behind the website is or even which country he belongs to. What you can do is try to investigate this find him and put him to jail and that of course should be done.

However until you find him and even if you manage to find him "wherever" he is, if you don't shutdown the website one way or another he and others would keep profiting from it while they sit in jail. The money they earn will be invested in recruiting more people and hurting more children. I think it is quite simple to understand this?

Usually you are dealing with organized groups. Stopping someones business is a different agenda than censorship and is done in case-by-case basis. The overall goal is to get to the group, crippling their tools might be a strategy but doesn't solve anything in it's own. The overall goal is lost if you instead make it into a focus to censor the net because doing so takes up a tremendous amount of resources and almost without exception such attempts have failed.

I might be wrong in all of this since I am not working on the police. I took a few classes in law and a few classes in moral philosophy, and that put me in a very different perspective when it comes to the purpose and the effectiveness of the legal system. I came to the conclusion that there are many who have a large trust in legislation but they do not see the difference between printing a law on paper and upholding the law, and they normally skew the relationship between their law and their goal. They do not see that some people with their own fallible effectiveness, needs to put down time and resources to make sure that the law is fulfilled.

Pedophilia one beast I see no simple solutions for, rather I see it as a field that need research which might lead to more effective tools. But I also see censorship as the most countereffective, resourcewasting and innocent-punishing practice imaginable.

 

[JemyM]

Therefore there is no possibility of any woman to rape any male? Even a child? Sorry … but rape is about power as much (or more) as sex … and when a female has 'power' over a male it is *very* possible to rape.

Compare with being sexually attracted to shoes, shall we say it's more about the shoe than the sex?

You can be sexually attracted to power. In that perspective rape is still a sexual act.

 

[Tragos]

Therefore there is no possibility of any woman to rape any male? Even a child? Sorry … but rape is about power as much (or more) as sex … and when a female has 'power' over a male it is *very* possible to rape.

It can be about anything you want but you can not force an erection , yes i do have read about some cases where women forced men by using viagra but still if you don' t want one you will not have one and we both know it. A woman can not rape a man because male's default state is not suitable for sex.
On (male) kids this is not called rape but seduction , specially when it comes to 14 year old boys .

 

[GothicGothicness]

There are many who have a large trust in legislation but they do not see the difference between printing a law on paper and upholding the law, and they normally skew the relationship between their law and their goal.

I might be wrong in all of this since I am not working on the police. I took a few classes in law and a few classes in moral philosophy, and that put me in a very different perspective when it comes to the purpose and the effectiveness of the legal system. This is one beast I see no simple solutions for, rather I see it as a field that need research which might lead to more effective tools. But I also see censorship as the most countereffective, resourcewasting and innocent-punishing practice imaginable.

Censorship is extremly effective ( I am not saying it is good though )…. chinese gouverment has proven that.

But either way, what I am suggesting ( to shut down, maybe by means of using DNS servers/blocking or such if you cannot get to the phyiscal machine ) the operation of illegal websites ( which by the way almost every country of the world is already doing ) is not exactly censorship according to my understanding of the word.

As for doing it in practice it is quite easy, you have a group of people who work on this globally ( this is how it works now by the way ) they get reports, the website with the most reports get priority to be first on their queue they confirm the illegal content, and have an automated shutdown process in place done by a machine. ( If they manage to get a hold of money earned by the illegal website it should go to this group and be used to keep fighting IMHO but that is another discussion )

What makes it complicated is when the owners behind the website has resources knowledge and money ( like TPB ) they can make it availaible again within 24 hours. Still if you keep shutting them, you are hurting them financially and making them work really hard just to stay alive. Besides if this law is global they cannot use loop holes such as hosting in a country where the laws are less strict.

 

[Rithrandil]

It can be about anything you want but you can not force an erection , yes i do have read about some cases where women forced men by using viagra but still if you don' t want one you will not have one and we both know it. A woman can not rape a man because male's default state is not suitable for sex.
On (male) kids this is not called rape but seduction , specially when it comes to 14 year old boys .

Women can rape men, dude.