New porn restrcitions in the UK

I'm actually from Russia, but we have a lot of experience of blocking internet here. Well, our government has, our citizens know how to avoid it. And you can do so just in two clicks simply enabling some sort of VPN browser extension. In fact, currently I'm using one to convince uktvplay I am from UK and to watch one of your fabulous pieces of comedy.

But lets suppose the majority of kids are stupid enough not to be able to install VPN on their laptops (they are not, but some of them are, and I think that this is what your government is thinking: as long as porn block catches some people it's a good idea to introduce it). When I was a teenager hitting puberty, I felt horny constantly. Those kids would feel horny as well. And they would know that such thing as porn exists or they would easily find it out the same way we all did, because this block doesn't actually prevent them from searching it, it just doesn't allow to enter the website. What would a child do? Well, who knows, but I'm sure that they won't stop at the first obstacle. And internet is a pretty grim place that can lure children to all sorts of bad places. I mean, Facebook will still be available, won't it? You could still find porn there. Or trade it for something else - who knows what?

And lets think what will happen to adults. As far as I know, they will be forced to leave they personal details on websites. But what will happen if this website was hacked? This can happen, right? What will all these people feel? Yes, the risk may be small, but the consequences are enormous!

Blocking won't help you much. They used to ban alcohol (they did it in America, they did it in Russia), people still found a way to smuggle it or produce by themselves. But when the health risks were brought up, when people found out how bad it is for your health, they started to abstain from it and it was their choice. The same is true for tobacco, junk food, sugar and, nowadays, porn. I think we need to raise an awareness of all the harm porn can cause, to educate kids about sex, about all sorts of sexual orientation there are, about STDs and how to avoid them, about responsibilities you face (if, for example, your partner gets pregnant) and abortion, since I've brought it up. We really need to break the social taboo people have about sex.

It's strange, but porn is the only source of sexual education that is now available for kids. It doesn't tell them the complete truth, but if not for a porn, I wouldn't know how male genitalia differs from female.

Also, is it morally right to tell people what they can do and what they can't? I know lots of people who watch porn and they don't feel like they are lacking something. It just happened to us: we had some problems in our lives that brought us to porn. I personally don't believe that porn itself cause any harm --- but this is not the topic of this conversation. But the question still exists: do we have the right of blocking porn?

I don't want by any means to criticise your government, only you have the right to do it. But here in Russia we know how far it can go and I don't want the same thing to happen with you.

 

Ah yes, the "freedom" and "prohibition" arguments. I understand. Nowadays, these are the go-to for those who wish to curtail the regulation of drugs. It is far too fashionable nowadays to use the word "freedom" to diminish the necessity of order, also a necessary component of society. But listen, the reality is that pornography, like any other drug, should be regulated, even if it is not wise to completely prohibit it. Also, to compare pornography to alcohol prohibition is rather ridiculous. If people want to get off, they can just masturbate to imagination or softcore stuff that is hardly pornography. There will be no gangs/violence for the sake of porn. And no, obviously simply educating people about harmful effects (which will be far less effective for something like pornography, which nowadays is fashionably labelled as something benign, liberal, and even beneficial under the veil of freedom of expression) will not do anything, as evidenced by the cancer rates among smokers.

A child may well be able to add a VPN and certainly, that will pose problems, but the existence of loopholes does not diminish the reasoning behind the placement of regulations. It is an obstacle, not a reason to not have regulations. These kids will also be required to get a hold of their parents' IDs/credit cards in order to access the material, presumably leading parents to find out about it eventually (as they should). The fact that the adults will themselves be deterred from watching porn due to the necessity of disclosing identity seems like a plus to me. If they are so interested, they must take the risk and know that their true selves may be discovered, even if it is unlikely.

The current laws will not make it illegal for people to consume porn. So there is no freedom aspect being infringed upon. It is disingenuous to frame it in the form of "telling people what to do." This is about drug regulation. Those who produce and distribute (not consume) should be subjected to regulation by the state and held accountable under law in the event of violations. They are the ones potentially causing harm to society; the consumers are the victims. This is the principle of decriminalization.

 

I knew I would notice nothing else but the problem of freedom. And I'm happy you did it, because it means you didn't actually experienced any real prohibitions. I would like to comment something you wrote. I'll think it will make my point of view more clear.

First of all, it seems to me that you think I want to curtail the regulation of drugs. I didn't write it in my post and I'm sorry if it looks like I do. But your suggestion that I do has nothing to do with the topic and can lead a conversation to the wrong way, so lets from the start don't take this route.

Your next sentence implies that the concepts of freedom and order can not coexist in a society (I'm sorry if you didn't meant it, but it looks like you did). It's not true. I never implied that my understanding of freedom goes as far an cancellation of all existing rules and turning the country to anarchy. I hope you will agree that every citizen want to live in a country where he won't be captured in the middle of the street for no reason. It's an obvious example of a freedom - being free to move. The obvious example of an order is not being allowed to kill people on the street. As you can see, these examples actually complement each other: if you are free to do something, you are can't do the opposite thing. My question is where to cross the line, what things can be allowed and what can not? It's a tricky question, because history knows hundreds of examples when public opinion was wrong on this matter: slavery, votes for women, gay marriages.

In your third sentence you imply that pornography is equal to drugs. Well, I know that we come to the dangerous grounds here. I know that the majority of NoFap users believe it is true. I don't want to argue about this here. It just seems to me that the only reason of the scientists who support this idea is that the brain reaction of people watching porn is the same as of the people who take drugs. But it is also the same as the reaction of people who do anything they enjoy whether it is reading, watching movie or having a conversation with a friend. I want to point it out just because many people don't notice it and I hope you will do the further research. But hey, if you believe porn is similar to drugs, you may be right. That's not the point of this conversation. Lets assume it is. Then it should be regulated. And the topic of this discussion is how to regulate it? Lets try to find out whether putting the block on is a good idea.

You say that comparing pornography and alcohol prohibition is a ridiculous idea. But you just did it comparing porn and drugs... It looks like you contradict yourself and I would like to know what you actually mean.

I also didn't imply that there will be any sort of violence for the sake of porn. Well, I can see where you got the idea and I'm sorry I didn't write it well. What I meant is that Facebook and other social nets will still work as they used to. Therefore anyone with the access to porn will be able to sell it digitally to kids. Of course, it's yet another obstacle for kids to get porn, but it's also another possibility for them to be scummed. Yes, the probability of this is low, but the consequences are enormous. But generally I agree with you: the crime rates of this kind will be very low.

You also say that sex education wont help with porn addiction, but you don't really give any facts. You say about some sort of cancer rates amongst smokers (again, if porn is the drug why I can not compare the porn prohibition with the alcohol prohibition), but according to the
SEER Cancer Statistics Review the cancer rates in USA decreased by average of 1.8% from 2006 to 2015 (I can't leave an URL, but you can search for SEER Cancer Statistics Review (CSR) 1975-2015).

But the main point of my previous message is this: the porn block can be easily avoided by any VPN software. But the government will obviously spend some money to establish block that does nothing. These money could have gone to schools, for example, to teach children the harmful effects porn can cause. Yes, the intentions are good, but it doesn't mean you should support the horrific execution. It wan't work and this is the main problem with this law.