www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall UK to block online porn

Stuart, I would agree with you provided all the laws and regulations imposed since 1970 by the Federal Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches were rolled back.

My 1970 date is arbitrary.

I do not disagree with the honorable Deacon. It would be prudent, however, to stop feeding the beast (by granting it more power) as a prelude for such a rollback of usurped authority.

You do know that for 900 years, the Church took absolutely no notice of the civil institution of marriage? That it concerned itself only with the sacramental aspects of matrimony? Perhaps we should return to that model as appropriate for a post-Constantinian world.

I've written as much, as have other people, like the Armenian Christian Vigen Guroian and the Roman Catholic George Weigel (though I said it first). Get the Church out of the business of executing marriage licenses for the state, and let the state do what it wants.

I don't remember any of the Gospel stories in which Christ was lobbying the Roman senate to change the laws of the land. He was too busy changing people's lives.

The culture will change if the people change, and nobody ever changed their mind because of a law.

Not to mention that, as Stuart noted, once you give the State the legal authority to "protect" it is the first step to being oppressed. And if that isn't blindingly obvious to anyone who reads the news lately, nothing I can say will convince you anyways.

Or to put it another way - in Alice's country the government is granted the power to block parts of the Internet that are deemed offensive. Porn sites mostly vanish. Alice's Law is a great success.

A decade later, a staunch secular humanist government is elected. Forums like this one are increasingly criticized for "spreading hate" and intolerance, especially to young impressionable children. They are deemed offensive.

The ByzCath forum is blocked under Alice's Law. And we have to meet secretly in homes now. Or in catacombs, etc.

There are probably already laws that allow for this in most countries, especially if you are Muslim.

It amazes me that the 'slippery slope' argument and other arguments against a law which will *filter* vice are more passionate here than they are for the law which actually sanctions vice and calls it 'marriage'.

Hmmm....

I was listening to a radio show about this topic yesterday and I think you and some others here are misunderstanding what the new law will do. The porn will still be available for people who really want access to it, but will prevent it from being the internet "staple" it is now. It will just be more like the old days where if someone wanted it, they had to ask the clerk with embarrassment for the magazine behind the counter. You won't be able to get it at the library or at the coffee shop, etc. People don't have a "right" to unlimited free porn anywhere, anytime they want. All it's going to do is put porn back in the shady corner where it belongs, but won't take it away from those who really have to have it.

^ edit: who really *think* they have to have it.

Thank you desertman, for an excellent post reiterating the facts and my sentiments.

I wonder if anyone actually read the article?!? Knee jerk reactions without reading the facts are frightening.

I wonder if any one read the word 'filter', which I clarified and mentioned many times.

I wonder if any one actually read my posts on this thread.

I wonder if any one cares, or they just care about arguing with, what they consider, a 'stupid' woman named Alice!

Lord have mercy!

I remind those that like to champion 'rights' of porn viewers and free speech, that women also have rights these days, and that women also have brains.

Women also have an Emotional Quota (EQ) which often far surpasses the greatest of Intellectual Quotas (IQ) of men, thus women can analyze situations from many differing view points.

Regards,
In Christ-Alice

Sounds completely reasonable to me. With this law, those who want it still have the freedom to access it - no one is taking that away. I really don't understand the objections expressed on this thread. I follow the argument, but don't find it applicable to this law. It's not forbidding the making of pornography, nor the watching of it, nor it being available online. It's simply giving people a choice, so that those who find it offensive (to put it mildly) are not unwillingly exposed to it, and so that children are protected from it. What is unreasonable about that? Seems to me it's not all that different than rating certain films "X" (or even "R") and restricting access to them.

Not to take away from Jaya's erudite post above, but just to clarify something to jjp:


I am sorry that you missed the title of this thread before jumping in...the title is "UK to block online porn", not "Alice to block online porn"..

The law is that of PM David Cameron, not mine and the country is the UK, not mine.

Alice, Moderator

Well, don't feel bad. Give it ten years and see where you're at then.

"What, a bit of broken glass, Bernie? For this I should pick up and move to America? Please.".

It seems to me that if you subscribe to the line of thinking set forth by those who oppose the proposed UK law, you would also be against any laws that limit access to alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, "adult" films, and even abortion. In all these cases, the government is making decisions for us about what's harmful, and restricting access to certain things, specifically with the intent of protecting children.

What about the fact that libraries "filter" what they put on their shelves, and do not include pornographic materials? Is that a dangerous form of censorship?

A civilized society sets limits on what it considers harmful or criminal behavior. The potential for abuse of power is always present, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't set reasonable limits, as with some of the laws I've cited above that we already have, and that I'm guessing many of you don't object to.

Again, I understand your argument, but don't find it applicable to this particular situation, especially when we're talking about optional filters, not prohibition.

My above post somehow came up with "Re: Alice" but it's (obviously) not a response to Alice's post, but to those who oppose the proposed law. Don't know how I did that

Do you people understand that today in the UK, having nothing to do with this new law, public displays of Catholicism are more likely to be punished than public displays of pornographic material?

Do you realize that people have been arrested, jailed, fired, and harassed by the law for things as simple as wearing a crucifix to work or mentioning their faith in Christ in public?

So, sure, go ahead, in a society where Catholicism is more likely to meet with public censure than is sexually explicit material, hand the government the tools and the precedent to censor harmful material from the internet. Super thinking.

Innocent as doves. Sly as sitting ducks.