Houllie - What's important about the measures I suggest, or more to the point, the fact that I'm suggesting them, is that they do challenge those who will censor everything if they get a chance, by offering to meet them half way. These people have already got rid of music videos, advertisements etc just by lobbying and threatening the companies responsible for them via petitions.

I'm trying to make a space for the debate that isn't at either extreme, because I think the (almost) middle ground approach defuses the influence of the panicked extremists who call for banning and censorship of whatever it is they dislike.

I'm opposed to the filter proposition, but I fear it may become a reality if nobody reasonably challenges the forces that are driving it. There's no point in just telling them they're wowsers or idiots, that won't defuse their arguments. Only reason can do that, with reasonable alternatives to the extremist censorship they demand.

On my blog there's a commenter (Matthew) who has some interesting and reassuring things to say about accessing internet porn and I wish I'd known them before I wrote the article because I would have included his information. http://www.noplaceforsheep.com

Haha Jen I suppose you're just a more generous person than my good self...

'by offering to meet them half way'

I think doing so gives them oxygen. Give them an inch and they take a mile. I honestly don't think you would at all sway them to meet you at all.

But that's just me.

'Only reason can do that, with reasonable alternatives to the extremist censorship they demand.'

I read that Michael's post and I agree with him. It's not actually such a great fear about censorship that's the issue, it's in the ideological grounds it's existence validates.

You have to keep the expectation in society that parents be responsible for their children. If you tell them all is safe, no need to take an interest in what the kiddies are up to, the government will save our kiddies then I think that's silly. I see the parent as the arbiter of what values they want for their kids, and at what age they are exposed to what.

Porn censorship is a green light to the idea of governmnet deciding values, and also a tick to the attitudes of MTR that sex is bad, unless at night in the missionary position, with your husband and only for conception.

Governments are normally behind the people when it comes to technology.

Remember this.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/teen-cracks-au84-million-porn-filter-in-30-minutes-339281500.htm

Driving stuff underground, whether it be drugs, porn, vampire play, is to me a very naive way of doing things.

In all this I wonder, why the medium is so important. Why aren't fictional stories to be treated in the same way? You don't see certain books at borders not sold to minors. If they did, then it would encourage reading.

You're infinitely more qualified to comment on the effects of porn and violence and violent porn and video games, but I see it as all pretty harmless. Most people over 12 can seperate fantasy from reality I reckon.

Dark humour and ironically extreme violence is the teens answer to wowsers to a larg degree.

Unfortunately I have to agree with the comments about the internet being out of control. I have long thought that the relevant internet protocols should be modified to allow the tracing of illegal and anti-social activities.
Most users of porn are male, and it's usually accompanied by masturbation. If a porn user has a partner, they would tend to view the use of porn as akin to infidelity. That's a legitimate viewpoint, but there is a significant difference. If a male were to have an affair, the new partner would expect a degree of intimacy from him, whereas the computer screen requires nothing from him. So it teaches him to get his jollies without giving anything, which then distorts his relationship with his partner. That's what's wrong with porn.

Ah John,

'So it teaches him to get his jollies without giving anything, which then distorts his relationship with his partner.'

So how does this differ from masturbation without the aid of porn?

'If a porn user has a partner, they would tend to view the use of porn as akin to infidelity.'

For devout Christians perhaps, but I don't think in general society. Do you feel the same about vibrators? About romance novels and movies, is that cheating?

Cheating involves a deception, what if there is no deception?

And what rights do couples really have to control over their partner's private self pleasure? Is all masturbation cheating in a monogamous relationship?

'I have long thought that the relevant internet protocols should be modified to allow the tracing of illegal and anti-social activities.'

Anti-social? As defined by who? Do you believe in ASBOs? The criminalising of otherwise legal behaviour aimed at the mentally ill, drug dependent and underpriveledged.

'So it teaches him to get his jollies without giving anything'

You seem to think that there should be some price on orgasms.

Has it ever occurred to you that porn is consumed by women too?

briar rose
Houllebecq is right.

People can "protect" themselves by not seeking it out, simple as that. Problem solved. Your argument is rubbish, and so is John's. It's just the usual dreary old attack of the wowser know-it-alls, motivated by moral horror, and trying to dictate the terms of everyone else's sexuality. Violence is already illegal, and that's the top and bottom of the whole issue.

In a former age you would have favoured banning masturbation as an "abuse", or banning adultery, or banning fornication. You're just not happy unless you're banning something are you? The "half way" argument is rubbish. If there's no justification for banning something in the first place, then half banning it is no advance, is it

Peter, I don't think you read the article I wrote or the comments I made.

I suggested content warnings and restricted access to violent porn as a way of addressing the concerns of people whose only solution is to ban as much as they can. These people are not going to go away, and they've successfully managed to really and truly ban, not restrict, but BAN, quite a bit of popular culture in the last 12 months. Not even violent porn,but popular culture. So it seems to me a matter of common sense that instead of allowing them complete control, we try for some negotiation with them.

I stated that there is no way anyone is going to stop porn being produced and viewed, that is, "banned."

Nowhere do I suggest "banning" anything. Perhaps you don't know the difference between restricted access and banning. Try looking at a dictionary because it's a rather important distinction.

What an extraordinary and aggressive outburst. But it does prove my point about extremists. Neither extreme of the debate can tolerate the slightest suggestion of a reasonable middle ground such as leaving the violent porn for those who want to watch it, while offering some protections for those who don't, and children. What is your problem with that? How does that stop you or anybody watching whatever they like?

I don't know why you would object to a rating on internet porn and content warnings, just as we have on movies, television, dvd's etc. That's a rating. Not a ban. Have a look at "rating" while you're in the dictionary looking at "restricted," they're in the same section, starts with 'r," and "w" for "warning" comes a bit later on.

Then maybe you could read the article and comments again with your newly acquired understanding of the English language.
Jennifer.