
Iceland May Ban Online Porn - esalazar
https://mashable.com/2013/02/14/iceland-ban-porn/
======
jtheory
First comment on the article:

 _Edvin Dunaway 22 minutes ago

um guys, no.. I am an Icelander, and I'll have you know this: Iceland is not
going to ban porn!

Ögmundur is just one guy, he does NOT represent Iceland in whole. he wrote a
bill that he wanted to pass up for voting, and that bill hasn't even reached
that stage yet and if it ever will, it will not pass.

also, Ögmundur is highly unpopular among Icelanders and he will not be a part
of a new government after the upcoming election in spring._

------
theorique
I'm sure this will be successful. It's very similar to how sharing of movie
and music files across the Internet is prohibited, and now no one gets movies
or music without paying for them. Same thing with the War on Drugs - it's been
so successful that no one takes any illegal drugs any more.

But seriously, has anyone in Iceland ever heard of a proxy?

------
nostromo
> He argues that easy access to online porn increases the frequency and
> severity of sexual violence against women

There's more evidence that porn reduces sex crime than increases it.
(Obviously "more evidence" doesn't mean "is true.")

Slate had a good write up:
[http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2006/1...](http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2006/10/how_the_web_prevents_rape.html)

~~~
lovek323
Seems to me that this is the whole correlation and causation thing (a
'questionable cause' logical fallacy). There are probably great benefits that
come from having access to the Internet. The question that needs to be
answered here is whether or not having access to porn is a requirement. This
has not been shown by /Slate/ in their article.

The article goes on to say that, because access to the Internet does not
reduce the prevalence of homicide but does lower the prevalence of rape,
having access to the Internet reduces rape.

Here are some other reasons rape might be down (just off the top of my head):

* As a society, we're getting better at catching rapists before they rape again (and before they rape the first time)

* Sex crimes are less acceptable than they were some years ago

* There is more help available for those who are prone to this type of crime

------
justincormack
This is an unsubstantiated story from the Daily Mail which is not a news
source.

Iceland is pretty pro free speech generally eg see
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Modern_Media_Inst...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Modern_Media_Institute)

~~~
uvdiv
Substantiation:

<http://www.dv.is/frettir/2013/1/22/vill-loka-klamid/> (Icelandic source, pre-
dates Daily Mail tabloid by weeks)

<http://ogmundur.is/annad/nr/6578/> (Interior Minister's viewpoint)

Porn is already banned in Iceland (punishable by prison!), so they're past the
free speech arguments. The current discussion is about stronger enforcement.
And if I understand correctly, extending criminal punishment to _possessing_
porn, in addition to distributing or publishing it.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_by_region#Iceland>

Iceland and its free-speech friends:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pornography_laws.svg>

------
mozboz
There's no source cited in the linked article other than The Daily Mail. For
the unfamiliar, they're a British 'news outlet' who are notorious for writing
articles that grossly misinterpret source data, to forward their own agenda.

~~~
uvdiv
How about the Interior Minister's own website?

<http://ogmundur.is/annad/nr/6578/>

(In Google translation) he says porn is already illegal in Iceland (which it
is [1], punishable by prison), and he's advocating more enforcement of this,
with police resources.

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_by_region#Iceland>

nice map: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pornography_laws.svg>

~~~
icebraining
That a minister would like it to be law doesn't mean Iceland "may soon" adopt
it, at least for any reasonable interpretation of the expression. Mr. Jonasson
isn't even part of the legislative branch, and his party is only the third in
the Parliament.

------
theevocater
Just what citizens need: a the government watching everything you do!
Regardless of how you feel about pornography or other "obscene" content, this
kind of power will be abused. Even if Iceland, arbiters of good taste, manage
to use it entirely within the given bounds, that kind of information could be
pilfered and used by more malicious people. Even big tech focused companies
are not immune to data theft, so why would Iceland do any better?

As the saying goes: let's collect data on how everyone in Iceland browses the
web; what could possible go wrong?

~~~
nixy
> Even if Iceland, arbiters of good taste, manage to use it entirely within
> the given bounds

Why would porn fall outside of the bounds for good taste, and where is the
line drawn between fine art and porn? And who draws the line?

There is no need to go any further than the proposed law itself to find that
it is wrong.

~~~
theevocater
While I happen to agree with you, I'm trying to make the point that even
people emotionally invested in their hatred of pornography should see that
this law is faulty. Even if we happened to disagree on the specifics of
obscenity, this law is wrong.

------
Fzzr
How odd. I didn't think of Iceland as the kind of country to fall for this
sort of hysteria - is this an old pattern there, or something recent?

~~~
ayding
The title is misleading. This isn't about to happen. One conservative
legislator is making a proposal. You can probably write a headline like this
for any number of crazy ideas in most countries.

~~~
Fzzr
Ah, I see. Looks like it's the personal position of one minister, there's
nothing about widespread support for it in the populace or legislature.
Nothing to see here, I guess.

------
Skoofoo
Even if Jonasson's claims are checked out by evidence, nannying a country's
population by censoring offensive material is not the right course of action.
You do not change public perception or progress society through censorship.

The internet is a new phenomena that has given individuals unprecedented power
to indulge in all forms of media. Instead of arbitrarily obstructing
information that they deem to be corrupting, the Icelandic government should
recommend their citizens to learn the psychology behind desire and addiction
[1], perhaps even Stoic philosophy [2], and how to set up a web filter for
their children. They should trust that the adults of their country are
generally smart enough to think for themselves and do the right thing;
anything less is an insult to their intelligence and is likely to foster a
mistrust of their government.

[1] <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKDFsLi2oBk>

[2] [http://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-
Stoic/dp/01953...](http://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-
Stoic/dp/0195374614)

~~~
lovek323
I really like social experimentation (to a sane degree, of course). Why
shouldn't Iceland ban pornography (if it does so through a democratic
process)? I'd quite like to see what happens.

~~~
Skoofoo
Iceland shouldn't ban pornography because that is forcing someone's personal
value upon a whole country based on questionable reasoning. "[Ogmundur
Jonasson] argues that easy access to online porn increases the frequency and
severity of sexual violence against women and causes longterm damage for
children who view it at an early age." As another commenter mentioned, there
is more evidence that porn reduces sexual violence, and it is easy and free to
set up a porn filter for children.

I am not arguing that porn is a good thing, but that it's not a government's
job to force their subjective moral values upon people by telling them what
information they are not allowed to see.

If you want to see what happens in a country when porn is banned, there are
already many examples.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pornography_laws_by_co...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pornography_laws_by_country)

~~~
lovek323
If Iceland's parliament were in fact "forcing someone's personal value upon a
whole country", then I would also consider it to be morally wrong. However,
the democratic process is there to guard against this sort of behaviour. It
doesn't always work, but you haven't shown that it is not working in this
case.

I believe you are referring to the reference (haha) to the article in /Slate/.
I read that article and didn't find it hugely compelling. Some good points
were made in the article, but they weren't even close to a complete argument.

Again, I agree that 'it's not a government's job to force their subjective
moral values upon people'. Firstly, when it comes to morality, it's pretty
much all subjective. (I actually believe that there is an objective morality;
it's just really hard to convince anyone else that my morality is it.) It is,
however, a government's job to enforce the morality of the people.

Just because bad things happen in countries where pornography is banned
doesn't mean they happen because pornography is banned.

I believe you are saying that banning pornography is an indicator of a bad
government and the other governments that have made the same decision are a
pretty bad lot. This may be true.

But my point remains: it is a government's job to enforce the values of
society. It just depends what we see as our most important values (is it free
speech or moral decency, in this case?).

------
mkhalil
If it's voted on, go for it. It is bad for women IMO. Treats them as objects
for the most part. Plum, men then get depressed because they expect life to be
like a porno.

~~~
pessimizer
>men then get depressed because they expect life to be like a porno.

Romantic comedies make us 'unrealistic about relationships', claim scientists

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/3776923/Romantic-
com...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/3776923/Romantic-comedies-
make-us-unrealistic-about-relationships-claim-scientists.html)

Next ban?

------
iopq
"But surely if we can send a man to the moon, we must be able to tackle porn
on the internet."

This man obviously underestimates Internet porn.

------
seivan
Singapore has done that, and it has very little rape cases. Which is cool for
a small island of 5m.

Not sure if there is a correlation....

~~~
uvdiv
Japan has half the reported rape incidence of Singapore, and does not attempt
to censor porn. Let's consider other factors before endorsing the methods of
repressively religious police states.

[http://www.heuni.fi/Satellite?blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobc...](http://www.heuni.fi/Satellite?blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobcol=urldata&SSURIapptype=BlobServer&SSURIcontainer=Default&SSURIsession=false&blobkey=id&blobheadervalue1=inline;%20filename=Hakapaino_final_07042010.pdf&SSURIsscontext=Satellite%20Server&blobwhere=1266335656647&blobheadername1=Content-
Disposition&ssbinary=true&blobheader=application/pdf)

(page 38)

------
drucken
The source of this article is quoted as the Daily Mail, UK tabloid newspaper.

I should point out that the Daily Mail has had an anti-porn campaign called
"Block Online Porn" since at least April 2012.

The Daily Mail's primary audience is lower middle class, conservative, middle-
aged women.

It is not considered an objective, or even credible news source, even within
the UK.

------
rdl
Kind of ironic that Iceland is on one hand being held up as the freedom/free
speech haven of the world, and on the other hand they want to ban porn. I
suspect this is just one whacko politician, not the mainstream, though -- most
of the Icelandic people I know are fairly pro porn :)

------
jack-r-abbit
Is Iceland in some contest to become the saddest place on Earth?

~~~
stcredzero
There is a reason why the population is so literate. Huge swathes of the year
have "curl up with a book" weather.

Does porn really always make you happy?

~~~
lmm
I wouldn't say it makes you happy, but it can make you less sad.

~~~
stcredzero
It can make you more sad. Sometimes, I'll see something that's just,
"Damn...wow!" and that can make me happy. I still tire of it in about a few
weeks, though. Mostly, it just helps make me not-horny for a little while.

------
meaty
Just because you make it illegal, doesn't mean it isn't going to happen.

~~~
lovek323
Of course not. That's why societies have things like police and prisons.
Making it illegal is, of course, about reducing its prevalence, but it's also
about society saying, 'these are our standards'. One will never stop all men
from beating their wives, but I would not care to live in a society where it
became legal.

------
papsosouid
>He argues that easy access to online porn increases the frequency and
severity of sexual violence against women and causes longterm damage for
children who view it at an early age.

Does he actually argue that, or does he just claim that? Wouldn't an argument
come with some sort of evidence?

~~~
coldtea
> _Does he actually argue that, or does he just claim that? Wouldn't an
> argument come with some sort of evidence?_

A society's standards, including moral standards, are not something that has
to pass "evidence".

I find it silly that we ask to justify any and all decisions and laws a
society takes with some deterministic, scientific evidence.

Do the "right to freedom" needs any evidence? In fact, there's no evidence at
all for that, it's just a moral guideline. Scientifically, we could do the
exact opposite.

Do we need "evidence" that black people are the same as white?

Or, (in a case where evidence tells us people are not as capable as us), do we
need "evidence" to not treat the physically/mentally ill as inferior?

Do we need evidence that rape is traumatic? And what kind of evidence should
that be? Maybe we should not believe it until we actually see changes in a
brain scan in post-rape victims (then again, why assume those changes should
be for the worst?). Surely trusting what they tell us is not enough --
personal feelings is no evidence.

Now, the case for "increased frequency of sexual violence" against women
might, or might not, be quantified.

But the case for "longterm damage for children who view it at an early age"
doesn't need to. Living as a society doesn't mean adhering as a robot to
scientific notions and discoveries. It involves preferences, choices, and even
risk. A society might prefer even a negative outcome, over what is considered
healthier and better "scientifically" (E.g they might keep their customs re
food , despite evidence that said food can be harmful or some other cusine is
more nutricional. Or they might prefer to fight and die instead of
collaborating with an invading army (which gives you the scientific benefit of
being alive)).

~~~
pessimizer
If "easy access to online porn increases the frequency and severity of sexual
violence against women" is a "moral standard" that doesn't require evidence
rather than a claim of fact that does, then coldtea's access to the internet
through throwaway accounts is contributing to the intellectual decline of the
Western world. Also, mice are born from a peculiar mix of sawdust and wet hay.

~~~
coldtea
> _then coldtea's access to the internet through throwaway accounts is
> contributing to the intellectual decline of the Western world._

The Western world was never that intellectual to begin with. Western
civilisation? Now, that would be a good idea, as Ghandi said.

Plus, the thinkers from the West (and the non-yet-West, Ancient Greece and
Rome) that mattered to the so-called "Westend Civilisation" once, weren't hell
bent on "evidence" at all.

Modern western civilisation is merely pop culture with some engineering thrown
in.

That said, I surely agree that my access to the internet is "contributing to
an intellectual decline", if not the internet's then surely mine.

Speaking of "intellectual decline", noticed how your example, e.g about how
"mice are born from a peculiar mix of sawdust and wet hay" is NOT an example
of a societal standard, whereas I only argued for those?

I'm sure you sidestepped it, as easily as you sidestepped the very part of my
comment where I say that "easy access to online porn increases the frequency
and severity of sexual violence against women" _could_ be objectively
quantified.

~~~
pessimizer
I apologize, I didn't make it to the end if your comment. 'Porn causes long
term damage to children' is a moral question only if "damage" means 'exposes
them to things that I morally object to but don't feel I have to justify.'

For example, I think that exposure to black people and the concept of treating
the physically/mentally ill damages children. Should I have to justify that?

~~~
coldtea
> _is a moral question only if "damage" means 'exposes them to things that I
> morally object to but don't feel I have to justify. (...) For example, I
> think that exposure to black people and the concept of treating the
> physically/mentally ill damages children. Should I have to justify that?_

No. You are entitled to believe it as a person. But you would have to convince
your society about it, if you don't want to be seen with contempt, or if you
want that to also have wider appeal.

Notice, though, how you picked a negative example. How about an example that
tries (using the same logic) to justify something you already consider bad?

E.g. The same can be said for "racist remarks" or "rape".

One could argue that there is no damage in rape, especially if the victim was
drugged and not aware of it happening. Would we be willing to accept that?

How about taking advantage of people to get ahead, including lying et al when
you can get away with it? Why would that be wrong "scientifically"? On the
contrary, in a game theoretic way it would be totally advantageous for the
individual doing it.

At final analysis, morals are things that we don't have to justify
scientifically. We might abandon them, or change them, or justify them with
regard to other morals and rhetoric, and we might even use some scientific
information in the process, but morals are not a subject for scientific
assessment.

