Is censorship moral?

[Loren Pechtel]

You miss my point--I'm calling it witch-hunting because they're going after stuff that isn't pornography.

I see. You are being critical of the efforts against child porn. I'm glad I'm not the only one to see how dumb those laws are.

By the way, I do not look at child pornography. My decision not to do so is based on aesthetics. Child pornography is ugly to me.

Finally, I see my latest threads are going well. My decision not to engage the troublemakers has apparently made that difference. It's an effective alternative to censoring them which apparently wasn't going to happen no matter how much they attacked me.

I'm saying they are using too broad a brush in trying to sweep up child pornography. To me, pornography must involve sexual behavior--and I do not consider simple nudity to be sexual behavior. Are you engaging in sexual behavior when you skinny dip?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That said, people are psychopaths over non-pornographic images of children. I think some people would as soon ban 100% of all images of anything appearing childlike from the entirety of society.

Agreed. The pedos will use the most sexualized material they can find--but trying to remove it is like the computer that supposedly made the suggestion of removing the top and bottom step to improve safety. You can change how explicit the material they have access to is, you can't change the basic issue without removing children from society entirely. And I would much prefer they jack off to images than involve actual kids.

I am myself no stranger to the phenomena of such witch hunting though. I'm a friggin' ABDL for fuck sakes: there's not a month that goes by without some new drama over how Twitter teens are mobbing someone I know for commissioning a piece of *hand drawn art* depicting *themselves* in a sexual situation as a child, and someone losing their whole public identity to teenage Purity Paladins over it.

They'll hammer the highest nail--but that just means there's another nail that's now the highest.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

You miss my point--I'm calling it witch-hunting because they're going after stuff that isn't pornography.

I see. You are being critical of the efforts against child porn. I'm glad I'm not the only one to see how dumb those laws are.

I'm saying they are using too broad a brush in trying to sweep up child pornography.

The problem with the whole idea of pornography is that people cannot define it well. That's why you say that I see pornography too broadly, and I might say you see it too narrowly. If we want to censor porn, then we need to choose somebody's definition of porn and disregard other definitions. And like all censorship, the view held by the most powerful party which is not necessarily the most moral party, will prevail.

To me, pornography must involve sexual behavior--and I do not consider simple nudity to be sexual behavior.

I must question if images of "simple nudity" are not images of sexual behavior. Much of what you see in Playboy is just that; simple nudity. So under your definition of pornography, Playboy Magazine is not pornography.

Are you engaging in sexual behavior when you skinny dip?

No. I'm drowning.

 

[Jarhyn]

You miss my point--I'm calling it witch-hunting because they're going after stuff that isn't pornography.

I see. You are being critical of the efforts against child porn. I'm glad I'm not the only one to see how dumb those laws are.

I'm saying they are using too broad a brush in trying to sweep up child pornography.

The problem with the whole idea of pornography is that people cannot define it well. That's why you say that I see pornography too broadly, and I might say you see it too narrowly. If we want to censor porn, then we need to choose somebody's definition of porn and disregard other definitions. And like all censorship, the view held by the most powerful party which is not necessarily the most moral party, will prevail.

To me, pornography must involve sexual behavior--and I do not consider simple nudity to be sexual behavior.

I must question if images of "simple nudity" are not images of sexual behavior. Much of what you see in Playboy is just that; simple nudity. So under your definition of pornography, Playboy Magazine is not pornography.

Are you engaging in sexual behavior when you skinny dip?

No. I'm drowning.

I have created pornography that involves someone entirely clothed in a nonsexual seeming situation, but is, entirely, pornography.

I maintain that I will not post that here because it's not appropriate to the site nor should it be considered such!

I also create art that is clearly sexual in nature, with born genitals in a lounge setting, but *not in any way actually pornographic*. I am sure it would classify as "obscene" for some people and some may even find it arousing, but it is not pornography because that is clearly not the intent of the piece. Heck it's going to take me another month or two to finish that one even with AI helping.

Playboy magazine is pornography, but I don't have any problem with pornography, and pornography is often art.

Unless you would be OK with me sharing pictures of you being raped by a literal pig with your coworkers, though, hell unless your coworkers are OK with me sharing those images of you with them, I donlt think it would be right to do so (they don't exist, won't, and this is not an intent to say I will but rather an intent to help you see the ethical purpose behind certain censorship).

Similarly, of images existed of me being raped by some disgusting adult pig human, I would not be fine with those being shared around.

All child porn images involving real live children involve that, images of someone being violated by some pig human.

Trade and exchange in them drives the creation of more.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Similarly, of images existed of me being raped by some disgusting adult pig human, I would not be fine with those being shared around.

You could sensor those images but only if you had the power to do so. Censorship is the tool of the powerful and not necessarily the tool of the moral.

Trade and exchange in them drives the creation of more.

That might be true, but why not chop the tree down at its roots rather than trim is twigs? I say prosecute those who sexually assault people and leave voyeurs alone.

 

[Jarhyn]

Similarly, of images existed of me being raped by some disgusting adult pig human, I would not be fine with those being shared around.

You could sensor those images but only if you had the power to do so. Censorship is the tool of the powerful and not necessarily the tool of the moral.

Trade and exchange in them drives the creation of more.

That might be true, but why not chop the tree down at its roots rather than trim is twigs? I say prosecute those who sexually assault people and leave voyeurs alone.

Vouyers inevitably pay assaulters to assault by buying the pictures produced in the assault from assaulters... Often with pictures of their own children following an assault.

The only way to effectively end that is provision of a victimless alternative (AI images from a model not trained on CSAM, created by something not trained in any way on problem solving or agency) and making that alternative free and freely available while simultaneously coming down hard on real chomos and the people who pay them to molest children.

 

[steve_bank]

I remember the 70s when Gov Rockefeller in New York enacted harsh penalties for pot. It worked in the supplies dropped. Pot became hard to get. Even in Ct where I lived. I had a friend who was a student in NYC.

Rockefeller Drug Laws - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Under the Rockefeller drug laws, the penalty for selling two ounces (57 g) or more of heroin, morphine, "raw or prepared opium", cocaine, or cannabis or possessing four ounces (113 g) or more of the same substances, was a minimum of 15 years to life in prison, and a maximum of 25 years to life in prison.

Porn is out of box and out of the closet and can not be put back in.There were several porn movies that made to main stream theaters,

Sex World - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Flesh Gordon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Flesh Gordon is a 1974 American sex comedy feature film serving as a spoof of Universal Pictures's first (of three) Flash Gordon serial films from the 1930s. The film was produced by Walter R. Cichy, Bill Osco, and Howard Ziehm. It was co-directed by Ziehm and Michael Benveniste, who also wrote the screenplay. The cast includes Jason Williams, Suzanne Fields, John Hoyt and William Dennis Hunt. It was distributed by Mammoth Films.

The storyline is reminiscent of the first Universal Pictures Flash Gordon serial Flash Gordon (1936), but written and directed with a purposely campy adult flavor. The planet Porno (in the serial: Mongo) and major characters are suggestive innuendos: the hero Flesh Gordon (Flash Gordon); his love interest Dale Ardor (Dale Arden); the evil Emperor Wang the Perverted (Ming the Merciless); scientist Dr. Flexi Jerkoff (Dr. Alexi Zarkov); seductive Amora, queen of Magic (Ming's daughter Aura); and effeminate Prince Precious (Prince Barin). The film features production values comparable to the original serial, but with stop-motion animation of creatures, frequent use of gratuitous nudity, and brief sex scenes.

The issues is what in porn should be censored, like child buse. You cab find live sex online and extreme video. Abysmal degradation.

There is no general censorship of porn, it is available to any who want it. It may be moderated on social platforms.

Same with speech. There is no general suppression, especially by govt. If you have something to say somewhere you can say it online.

Suppression is about risk reward for the consumer. Loss of licnse, high insurance, and criminal penalties is a deterrent to DUI for many, but not all.

If the penalty for DUI was execution there wuld still be those who rrskit.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Similarly, of images existed of me being raped by some disgusting adult pig human, I would not be fine with those being shared around.

You could sensor those images but only if you had the power to do so. Censorship is the tool of the powerful and not necessarily the tool of the moral.

Trade and exchange in them drives the creation of more.

That might be true, but why not chop the tree down at its roots rather than trim is twigs? I say prosecute those who sexually assault people and leave voyeurs alone.

Vouyers inevitably pay assaulters to assault by buying the pictures produced in the assault from assaulters...

By "voyeur" I mean a person who simply looks at something or an image of something to satisfy a desire to look, the desire most often being of a sexual nature. So a voyeur so defined doesn't necessarily pay to look or provide anything else to anybody who makes the look possible. Also, those who make the images don't necessarily assault anybody.

Lewis Carroll, for example, the famous and ingenious author of Alice in Wonderland, has been rumored to be a pedophile because he created paintings of naked children. He never assaulted anybody as far as I know, and there's no evidence that any harm has resulted from his work. Nevertheless, his work is definitely erotic and something a pedophile might appreciate. Should anybody looking at Carroll's work be prosecuted for contributing to the sexual abuse of children? Should Carroll's art be censored?

The only way to effectively end that is provision of a victimless alternative (AI images from a model not trained on CSAM, created by something not trained in any way on problem solving or agency) and making that alternative free and freely available while simultaneously coming down hard on real chomos and the people who pay them to molest children.

Hmmm. I never thought of that! But what if such images are alleged to contribute to sexual assault? Should those images be censored?

 

[TomC]

There is no general censorship of porn, it is available to any who want it. It may be moderated on social platforms.

Same with speech. There is no general suppression, especially by govt. If you have something to say somewhere you can say it online.

This is rather why I find porn such a poor choice of subject when discussing censorship.

The reasons and methods for suppressing abusive sex are extremely different from the reasons for suppressing political or social or religious views.

The Founding Fathers, authors of the 1st Amendment, couldn't even imagine a world with internet access to kiddie porn. They did better understand the reasons for a government to suppress opinions that challenged their own power. They did their primitive best to protect society from that.

Here in modern USA, censorship is utterly different. With internet access, the government can't really censor much of anything. People censor themselves.

In the machine gun barrage of media, people can't take in everything. Not even a large fraction of all the information available. So they choose sources that match their preferred world view, and avoid everything else. The result of that self-censorship is an increasingly polarized society, easily taken advantage of by people with their own agendas. People with media savvy can get away with almost anything in this environment.

To me, the modern censorship issue isn't about porn, ugly as that can get. It's people's self-censorship and remaining inside ideological bubbles of media and information.
Tom

 

[bilby]

Hmmm. I never thought of that!

You should say that a LOT more often.

 

[Jarhyn]

The only way to effectively end that is provision of a victimless alternative (AI images from a model not trained on CSAM, created by something not trained in any way on problem solving or agency) and making that alternative free and freely available while simultaneously coming down hard on real chomos and the people who pay them to molest children.

Hmmm. I never thought of that! But what if such images are alleged to contribute to sexual assault? Should those images be censored?

Such images do not contribute to sexual assault MORE than actual images whose production directly involves assault. I would argue that unlike actual CSAM images, artifacts and evidence of crimes better suited to existence in an evidence locker, and while we should consider distributing them complicity in that crime.

Images that could lead people to feeling ways they don't want to ought be tagged and filterable, but that's not censorship if I can access the images without being outed by others for having done so. Put the Bible "in that section" but if someone wants to check out bibles from the library or buy one, that's their right. Maybe it comes in a package that says "danger, religious dogma contained within that does not conform to reality", but cigarettes aren't "banned" or "censored" by such warnings.

Really, it comes down to giving people the ability to feel ways they want, to avoid in reasonable ways them having to feel ways they don't want, and to do so without making any involved party feel bad or violated in its creation. To that end, AI art allows an "out" for everyone, so long as it's put, much like I would see done for the bible, behind a curtain that one must discretely and privately step behind to view, after having shown that they are actually an adult beyond the age of majority.

There's something to be said about the collective failure of a society where such a high percentage of a species wants to do something bad to other individuals of the species, and has no alternative that is not bad, and so we just set up a trap for anyone too weak to step across the boundary rather than finding something not-bad to divert it with.

Censorship is "one route to the place some wish to go, it travels straight through evil-land, and whenever someone walks it we ambush them and beat the shit out of them... If we catch them."

of course we don't monitor that path super-well because it's unfortunately common for some latent desire to be in the destination even if walking the path is repugnant... As such we tend to have more pity for those that do than we ought!

AI and other forms of art have enabled us to build a different road to that destination, one that does not cut through evil-land. This enables is to simultaneously reach the destination and to shed all vestiges of pity for those who walk that other road through the land of evil.

It simultaneously makes a good option, and makes the bad option completely unacceptable.

Censorship of the victimless option is itself unconscionable, while failure to censor the path of obligate victimization is also unconscionable.

 

[steve_bank]

Warning, full frontal female nudity may be offensive to some.

The beautiful women thread [NSFW]

Kate Upton

iidb.org

There was guy years back who was posting of his erect penis and boasting. He and his wife were banned, but bot for the pictures, for text thy posted which violated TOU. The thread may be there.

Is that censorship?

In the context of the 1st Amendment free speech clause.

Should a Christian website have to post atheist content?
Should a gay website have to post homophobc content?
Should a black website have to post whte supremecist content?

The answer is no. Constitutionally homophobes, atheists, and white surencists can and do set up their own sites.

 

[TomC]

There was guy years back who was posting of his erect penis and boasting. He and his wife were banned, but bot for the pictures, for text thy posted which violated TOU. The thread may be there.

Is that censorship?

Yes it was censorship. I didn't have the slightest problem with it.

I'm assuming you're talking about "FunCouple". I wasn't even a member here at the time. But I was a member of a few other similar forums that banned their skanky asses for the same thing.

More than one forum. They always had the same avatar pic. I didn't want to hear about their exploits, and neither did anyone else on forums I belonged to.

Yep, that was censorship and yep I was totally good with it.
Tom

 

[steve_bank]

That was them, I forgot the name.

Ok, it was censorship. But was it a violation of 1st Amendment rights?

 

[TomC]

Ok, it was censorship. But was it a violation of 1st Amendment rights?

No, not even close.
The government wasn't involved. And it was free to post it's sexually explicit crap lots of places on the internet, just not those privately owned and operated forums.

I use the pronoun "it" because I quickly developed the opinion that it wasn't a couple. It was some sort of fishing scam, probably hookers looking for marks. Who knows?
Tom

 

[steve_bank]

The world turns regardless, an important perspective.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Similarly, of images existed of me being raped by some disgusting adult pig human, I would not be fine with those being shared around.

You could sensor those images but only if you had the power to do so. Censorship is the tool of the powerful and not necessarily the tool of the moral.

Trade and exchange in them drives the creation of more.

That might be true, but why not chop the tree down at its roots rather than trim is twigs? I say prosecute those who sexually assault people and leave voyeurs alone.

Vouyers inevitably pay assaulters to assault by buying the pictures produced in the assault from assaulters...

By "voyeur" I mean a person who simply looks at something or an image of something to satisfy a desire to look, the desire most often being of a sexual nature. So a voyeur so defined doesn't necessarily pay to look or provide anything else to anybody who makes the look possible. Also, those who make the images don't necessarily assault anybody.

Lewis Carroll, for example, the famous and ingenious author of Alice in Wonderland, has been rumored to be a pedophile because he created paintings of naked children. He never assaulted anybody as far as I know, and there's no evidence that any harm has resulted from his work. Nevertheless, his work is definitely erotic and something a pedophile might appreciate. Should anybody looking at Carroll's work be prosecuted for contributing to the sexual abuse of children? Should Carroll's art be censored?

Similar idea here--you mentioned that some people take naked pictures of children and post them on the Internet and in some of those instances there was no abuse. Suppose, after all that, each month, NAMBLA scours the Internet looking for those images and makes a monthly pamphlet called "Sexiest Child in the World" with the 10 best innocently taken photos they find and they declare a winner with a centerfold blown up image that a person can put on their wall as a poster. According to the definitions you mentioned in the op, not only can child porn and revenge porn be distributed because going against them is censorship, but also NAMBLA would be able to legally create child porn as an amalgam of innocently taken pictures of real human children that they deliberately sexualize through messaging, intent, and utilization. It sounds like you should update your definition of censorship, update your definition of child porn, OR update your stance on what ought to be allowed/disallowed.

*btw, a discussion of the rightness or wrongness of an individual is ethics, but a discussion of the rightness or wrongness (public policy) of the government is politics.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Similar idea here--you mentioned that some people take naked pictures of children and post them on the Internet and in some of those instances there was no abuse. Suppose, after all that, each month, NAMBLA scours the Internet looking for those images and makes a monthly pamphlet called "Sexiest Child in the World" with the 10 best innocently taken photos they find and they declare a winner with a centerfold blown up image that a person can put on their wall as a poster. According to the definitions you mentioned in the op, not only can child porn and revenge porn be distributed because going against them is censorship, but also NAMBLA would be able to legally create child porn as an amalgam of innocently taken pictures of real human children that they deliberately sexualize through messaging, intent, and utilization. It sounds like you should update your definition of censorship, update your definition of child porn, OR update your stance on what ought to be allowed/disallowed.

*btw, a discussion of the rightness or wrongness of an individual is ethics, but a discussion of the rightness or wrongness (public policy) of the government is politics.

I see a different issue here--you can't use someone's likeness for commercial purposes without permission. I also see something of a defamation component.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

By "voyeur" I mean a person who simply looks at something or an image of something to satisfy a desire to look, the desire most often being of a sexual nature. So a voyeur so defined doesn't necessarily pay to look or provide anything else to anybody who makes the look possible. Also, those who make the images don't necessarily assault anybody.

Lewis Carroll, for example, the famous and ingenious author of Alice in Wonderland, has been rumored to be a pedophile because he created paintings of naked children. He never assaulted anybody as far as I know, and there's no evidence that any harm has resulted from his work. Nevertheless, his work is definitely erotic and something a pedophile might appreciate. Should anybody looking at Carroll's work be prosecuted for contributing to the sexual abuse of children? Should Carroll's art be censored?

Similar idea here--you mentioned that some people take naked pictures of children and post them on the Internet and in some of those instances there was no abuse.

You might have me confused with somebody else because I never posted anything about people posting pictures of their naked children on the internet. It's best to post direct quotations.

Suppose, after all that, each month, NAMBLA scours the Internet...

I needed to look up "NAMBLA" to see what it is. You apparently know more about the subject of kiddie porn and child sexual abuse than I do.

...looking for those images and makes a monthly pamphlet called "Sexiest Child in the World" with the 10 best innocently taken photos they find and they declare a winner with a centerfold blown up image that a person can put on their wall as a poster.

That's an amazing concept. Is it your idea or has it actually been done?

According to the definitions you mentioned in the op, not only can child porn and revenge porn be distributed because going against them is censorship, but also NAMBLA would be able to legally create child porn as an amalgam of innocently taken pictures of real human children that they deliberately sexualize through messaging, intent, and utilization.

I remember people using mail order catalogs for pornography. Those catalogs had pictures of women in bras and panties and bikinis and also featured young girls in their underwear. So images intended for other purposes can be "deliberately sexualized" by anybody. Porn, it appears, is in the mind of the beholder.

It sounds like you should update your definition of censorship, update your definition of child porn, OR update your stance on what ought to be allowed/disallowed.

I still feel that our time is better spent going after those who actually sexually abuse people. Outlawing images of nude people is not likely to solve that problem. Laws against child pornography are based more on politics and public sentiment than evidence that they actually protect kids from sexual assault.

*btw, a discussion of the rightness or wrongness of an individual is ethics, but a discussion of the rightness or wrongness (public policy) of the government is politics.

As strange as it might sound, the government's job is to define and enforce morality.

Anyway, if you wish to make your case for censoring porn, then please post evidence that censoring porn actually does any good. As you do so, think about the effect that such censorship can have on artists, photographers, movie producers, and scientists who can make use of such images.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I see a different issue here--you can't use someone's likeness for commercial purposes without permission. I also see something of a defamation component.

I've often wondered if those who passed such laws had a vested interest in making sure there are no images depicting what they do. Censorship can come to the rescue of wrongdoers.