Milovana.com

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 27202.html

Trying to censor the Internet itself is an absurdity, but to redirect several hundreds of mails which are against this into the Spam folder is pathetic.

Stupid shit is stupid.

Okay, I'm against any kind of online censorship in general. However, I can at least understand the idea of hiding internet censorship behind anti-pedophile lawsuits (like ACTA). But this? This is just plain stupid, even from a pro-censorship point of view. Taking away porn is the fastest way to piss off the entire internet. And how would they even to that? What would count as porn? Anything that has a sex-scene in it? Half of the Hollywood movies would be banned or cut then. Not to mention the profit the porn-industry makes and the taxes coming from that. Someone actually thought that killing an entire industry with one ban would be a great idea when we haven't even started to come out from the latest recession? Wov. Just wov. This is pretty much the dumbest thing I've seen in a long while. And I'm a regular on cracked, and an avid fan of Nash's WTFIWWY show. So yeah, I do seen a lot of stupid shit...

opps outlawed!!



illegal
are they going to close all art galaries?
the greek masters as well??

in case you have NO idea why I am posting this
you might want to refresh your memory
with Larry Flint vs the United states
and why the US has porn.
the actual court case (very boring reading!!! Warning!!)
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... stler.html

the movie

Yea, heard about it. That's what happens when polititians want to make themselves renown, and show that they are working hard, but when it's too troublesome to work on something important like economy or social stability.
Then they try to fid a scrapegoat and ban it!

Funny thing is that ban will
1) be unlikely to happen
2) Will call a hudge public uproar
3) Will only shorten the ammount of money paid as taxes, while porn will live. There's no way such thing as porn will disappear.

I wonder why politicians get paid so much, because they sure aren't doing anything productive.

Where does this leave breastfeeding or changing a kid's nappy? Guess what? Both of those are technically paedophilia nowdays. Even maternity is legally illegal now, trying to dump a newborn little baby child out your vagina is some kind of sexual deviance of the most hideous kind, and according to the authorities, that needs to be banned too, for the good of the poor little kiddies, who don't want to be born to paedophile mothers without their consent.

Sort that one out, authorities

Nezhul wrote: Funny thing is that ban will
1) be unlikely to happen
2) Will call a hudge public uproar
3) Will only shorten the ammount of money paid as taxes, while porn will live. There's no way such thing as porn will disappear.

Exactly this, it's just a case of a Journalist in the UK stirring up a story about the EU at a time when the right leaning parties over here are starting to clutch at their old straws of Immigration and EU scepticism due to the fact their economic policies have failed. Bound to get lots of internet traffic going through their site though and lots of lovely lovely ad revenue for the Paper.

For starters the bill being talked about isn't even law, and isn't being discussed as being brought into law.

As someone very correctly pointed out in a debate on this topic elsewhere:

"Before children become sexually interested themselves, they tend to find porn of no interest, meaningless and most importantly not disturbing or damaging in any way. After they become sexually aware and interested they understand and take an interest in porn - what they don't do is take any harm from it."


For my own part, the single important point when it comes to kids and porn is for parents to stop squirming and actually do their job. In this case, teach their children about what porn is and what porn isn't before they get to an age where they, lacking prior guidance, can take the wrong wisdom from it.


As for this ban not happening, I wouldn't be so sure about that. This is a fairly hidden, VERY small part of a large proposition which has a massive vote superiority at the moment. To what extent such a resolution will be adapted into national laws is quite a different matter though - and far less likely.

I very much doubt this will make any difference. Ironically, quite a few forms of porn, including much of what we have here on this site, is strictly speaking banned in my own country already - not that it ever have or ever will matter.

Banquo wrote:For starters the bill being talked about isn't even law, and isn't being discussed as being brought into law.

The latter isn't quite correct. In fact is is incorrect

Although this may not be technically a legal proposition in its own right, all EU directives are generally required to be brought into national law for the member countries. There are a few veto possibilities as well as special adaptions for certain countries (such as snuff still being legal in Sweden), but in general, the countries are required to adopt directives into national law.

janmb wrote:

Banquo wrote:For starters the bill being talked about isn't even law, and isn't being discussed as being brought into law.

The latter isn't quite correct. In fact is is incorrect

The Article in Question wrote: On Tuesday, members of the European Parliament will vote on the worthy yet mundane-sounding Report on Eliminating Gender Stereotypes in the EU
.......While Tuesday’s vote in Strasbourg is merely an expression of support and would not be legally binding

I think that pretty much explains what I'm saying, the report being discussed in the article, is not a law, it's just the EU voting to "support" a report on gender equality. In much the same way a parish council might vote to agree that Mr Jenkins report on the state of graffiti in the local area is a "right on" thing.

The part about porn may be slightly controversial and more than a little draconian. But it would not be law.

The Article in question goes on to say wrote:The report makes no distinction between different forms of “pornography in the media”, nor does it specify what media it is referring to. It is believed that at the vote on Tuesday MEPs are likely to amend the text to clarify that it is aimed at the use of pornography in advertising.

I haven't actually read the report, but it's likely some long winded worthy sounding text, designed simply with promoting equality in mind. The EU is well known for having endless discussions about this kind of thing with little other aim than nodding in agreement and moving onto the next meaningless waste of taxpayers money.

A great - I thought they were actually voting up an actual resolution... which would indeed be binding.

Even though that doesn't seem to be the case, it is still very much a matter of just not quite yet.

In any case this is obviously merely a curiosity and more interesting on a principal level than anything else - it will obviously have no real effect on Internet porn even if it were to be enacted into law at some point.

Thanks to the Swedish Pirate Party for stopping this nonsense