nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Internet Porn and Minors!

Why is the Taoiseach waiting to see how the UK's age verification check 'fairs' out before introducing such laws here!? It seems like a no brainer to me and if anything a great start.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/apr/17/online-pornography-age-checks-to-be-mandatory-in-uk-from-15-july

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

El_Bee wrote: »

As I've already said, it's very easy to look up gardai checkpoints and use that to drive around with no tax & insurance, so should we all cancel our policies? and just because their system doesn't work, why would we copy something from a country that though Brexit was a good idea anway? Are we that Dependent on the UK to show us how to wipe our arses?

That's a completely different situation. And potential checks at the website level is like putting up an ankle high fence to keep people out. There are other potential solutions, most involve education and parents getting involved. But this proposal isn't a solution at all.

Kingp35 wrote: »

You have absolutely no credibility at this stage. The below is from the very first link through your highlighted link.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6088458/

I've highlighted the most important bit in bold for you.

You're arguing IN FAVOUR adolescents to be allowed view hardcore pornography, and I have no credibility?
Here:
https://aifs.gov.au/publications/effects-pornography-children-and-young-people-snapshot

we can throw links at each other all day, at the end of the day our moral cowardice got a young girl killed, but sure what's to be done, nothing it seems.

El_Bee wrote: »

You're arguing IN FAVOUR adolescents to be allowed view hardcore pornography, and I have no credibility?
Here:
https://aifs.gov.au/publications/effects-pornography-children-and-young-people-snapshot

we can throw links at each other all day, at the end of the day our moral cowardice got a young girl killed, but sure what's to be done, nothing it seems.

Don't be facetious, you know that's not what I'm saying.

What I am saying is that in order to ban something (or introduce measures to restrict something) you need credible justification for doing so. Hyperbole like "our moral cowardice got a young girl killed" is completely irrelevant, especially when there is literally no proof that this is true.

It's a complete knee jerk reaction and won't solve anything.

El_Bee wrote: »

at the end of the day our moral cowardice got a young girl killed, but sure what's to be done, nothing it seems.

Oh FFS. The level of truly simple, I hesitate to call it "thinking" when a tragedy occurs never ceases to surprise me. It seems to get worse if anything. In another thread on the matter it was suggested we need more of all things feminism because yeah that would have stopped this happening. Are people who appear to be generally bright enough actually this thick when hard sums come into it? Jesus.

In 1973 a seven year old boy was murdered in an attic in Palmerstown Dublin by a 16 year old, in what looked to be a satanistic type rite. Pre internet. No doubt in good oul Catholic Ireland(where the case was kept out of the news) it was blamed on satanic forces or evil fillums or books.

El_Bee wrote: »

at the end of the day our moral cowardice got a young girl killed.

:eek: is such blatant trolling allowed thee days?

cgcsb wrote: »

:eek: is such blatant trolling allowed thee days?

I seriously doubt that's what it is CG. In general people don't tend to self examine or examine long and deeply held ideas and when terrible tragedies happen they really don't. Or rather the long held certainties shake at such tragedies and they look around for equally simplistic answers because they're comforting. Reality rarely is.

Wibbs wrote: »

I seriously doubt that's what it is CG. In general people don't tend to self examine or examine long and deeply held ideas and when terrible tragedies happen they really don't. Or rather the long held certainties shake at such tragedies and they look around for equally simplistic answers because they're comforting. Reality rarely is.

Possibly, I just think it's bizzar when people jump to such extreme conclusions with no rational basis whatsoever.

Wasnt the Jamie Bulger case blamed on horror films or that Film 'Childs Play'. Banning horror films wouldnt stop child murder.

It would be impossible to block internet porn. Anyone with half a brain could bypass any filter. Education is key. Sure they still have massive and almost impossible job of removing illegal porn, and/ or drug, weapons, medicines from the web

porn made these boys commit this murder to the same extent that playing Doom made the boys who carried out the Columbine school massacre do what they did

suicide_circus wrote: »

porn made these boys commit this murder to the same extent that playing Doom made the boys who carried out the Columbine school massacre do what they did

Or bowling.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

cgcsb wrote: »

Possibly, I just think it's bizzar when people jump to such extreme conclusions with no rational basis whatsoever.

It’s hardly irrational to think that extreme porn affects the minds of pre pubescent or early pubescent children. It has to.

It might be that most children are not affected but some might be.

suicide_circus wrote: »

porn made these boys commit this murder to the same extent that playing Doom made the boys who carried out the Columbine school massacre do what they did

Of course, pron did not make them commit murder and no rational person thinks that however, it did contribute to their opinion of her as an object to be used obviously thier is something seriously wrong and disturbed with a 14-year-old who rapes and murderer a girl its not jus about pron.

The thing is we have no way of distinguishing between those for whom pron is harmless or those for which it is harmful.

When children were beaten in school: my husband says it did him no lasting harm but it was wrong and it probably did no lasting harm to 90% but it did serious life long damage to 10%.

There is no clear way of tellng who will be harmed by what.

Sonics2k wrote: »

Explain your logic there?

The case was an absolutely tragedy, but literally thousands of kids in Ireland have smart phones and would never commit such a crime.

There is huge issue with online bullying and this is a factor in this case.
The girl was bullied relentlessly both in real world and online.

And before anyone jumps in with the refrain that the bullying didn't kill her, it did no doubt copperfasten the mindset in the killers that Ana was worthless and who cared about her.

The online bullying is definitely something that has to be tackled.
And I believe part of that is censorship.
For too long authorities have pussyfooted around social media sites, especially the ones they could actually sanction, about cleaning up their act.
And yes I know the internet is borderless, but the thing is big business aren't.

FFS the biggest one is so badly managed that they live streamed a massacre.

They have the money and resources to get their act together so do it fooking now.

The other worrying thing is that kids are now being desensitised to violence and probably certain sexual practices from a much earlier age.

That is definitely not something to be so nonchalant about.

jmayo wrote: »

FFS the biggest one is so badly managed that they live streamed a massacre.

What do you think the solution to that is? Have 10,000 staff checking every video as it happens? And 10,000 probably isn't enough for that. Or just ban live video altogether? Only allow live videos by companies and celebrities that Facebook deems worthy?

mariaalice wrote: »

Of course, pron did not make them commit murder and no rational person thinks that however, it did contribute to their opinion of her as an object to be used obviously thier is something seriously wrong and disturbed with a 14-year-old who rapes and murderer a girl its not jus about pron.

The thing is we have no way of distinguishing between those for whom pron is harmless or those for which it is harmful.

When children were beaten in school: my husband says it did him no lasting harm but it was wrong and it probably did no lasting harm to 90% but it did serious life long damage to 10%.

There is no clear way of tellng who will be harmed by what.

while agreeing that this might be a half-reasonable position to take on any one thing, what I'd think is that you very quickly find that it becomes an excuse to ban anything the person calling for the banning didnt like in the first place

where does it stop. where does it start.

franz peppercorn above says extreme porn affects prepubescent minds. it has to.

i mean, look i probably agree in my gut, but that's not a case. that's not an argument.

if (to pick a figure) 99.5% of a population dont become killers after an activity, then the activity isnt the problem.

to say it is is just simple evasion of the facts.

if we could easily identify the .05% then they are what needs to be dealt with. find the factors, the vectors, the treatment, the remedy and apply it in a logical and targeted fashion.

thats hard to do. people will say inclusion, individual rights, whatever.

fine, for whatever reason it cant be done or is too difficult a choice to make.

but it is not about anything or anyone other than the .05% and its nothing to do with society (every society we have ever had has had murder and cruelty)

I use THREE, and they've already got an OPT-IN for adult content.

BeerWolf wrote: »

I use THREE, and they've already got an OPT-IN for adult content.

Three is so useless that you'd wait so long for the porn to load you'd lose interest.

mariaalice wrote: »

Its very nuanced, for example, 30 or 40 years ago it was common to see parents smoking around children or to see children being given a slap in public and no one thought anything of it. Any parent who smoked arond children or who slaps them in public today would be shamed or judged and this is enough of a deterrent so that for some parents smoking around children or slaping them in public is rare, of course, there are parents who do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.

It would be nice to think that people do the right thing for the right reason but sometimes they do the right thing because they are nudged into it or becaue they will be judged for it.

Banning smartphone for children will not work but a little bit judging of parents could change the culture so that eventually it would be rare for parents to give children unmonitored access to smartphones.

Why won’t banning smart phones for children work? For example children as young as seven or eight are getting smart phones that’s far too young , plus kids that age are going on social media. Parents probably give in ( some at least because digital culture is very much part of the Irish landscape now and they succumb to the prevailing culture and that’s understandable) when at that age children should be playing, drawing, doing sport etc not stuck to a screen. It’s so messed up imo and maybe we won’t really see the effects for years to come.I’ll be considered old fashioned no doubt but we need to let children be children and protect them from material/ events etc. that they cannot put into context or process at their age. If there was a will to changes things something could surely be done.

BeerWolf wrote: »

I use THREE, and they've already got an OPT-IN for adult content.

Easily bypassible but better than an age check implemented by the websites themselves. It should be a mandatory option on every internet package.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

[Deleted User] wrote: »

while agreeing that this might be a half-reasonable position to take on any one thing, what I'd think is that you very quickly find that it becomes an excuse to ban anything the person calling for the banning didnt like in the first place

where does it stop. where does it start.

Slippery slope argument.

peppercorn above says extreme porn affects prepubescent minds. it has to.

i mean, look i probably agree in my gut, but that's not a case. that's not an argument.

You’re agreeing with a non argument?

if (to pick a figure) 99.5% of a population dont become killers after an activity, then the activity isnt the problem.

to say it is is just simple evasion of the facts.

I mean it clearly is the problem for 0.5% of the population. You just said that. If a new drug or drink caused 0.5% of adults to become homicidally violent it would be banned.

if we could easily identify the .05% 0.5% then they are what needs to be dealt with. find the factors, the vectors, the treatment, the remedy and apply it in a logical and targeted fashion.

thats hard to do. people will say inclusion, individual rights, whatever.

fine, for whatever reason it cant be done or is too difficult a choice to make.

but it is not about anything or anyone other than the .05% and its nothing to do with society (every society we have ever had has had murder and cruelty)

Remember we are talking about children and hard core porn here. Thus this is where the tortured logic gets us. Allow this activity if it only affects 99.5% of the child population? But what if it’s 10%, or 30%. Why do you get to decide the percentage.

Whenever an activity has a large effect on even a small minority of adults and that also effects the rest of society by the actions of that minority then its worth contemplating restrictions. However if it’s too difficult, if there are benefits to the rest of society from the existence of this activity (ie good driving vs bad driving) then those restrictions wouldn’t be universally applied.

Here we are talking about porn. It’s hard to see any benefit for the percentage of children who don’t become homicidal by watching it. It probably effects 100% of children in some way. Not least attitudes to sex in general.

Incidentally we stop children from doing lots of activities that are otherwise benign for adults, it’s hardly that radical a proposition that hardcore porn be curtailed.

GarIT wrote: »

What do you think the solution to that is? Have 10,000 staff checking every video as it happens? And 10,000 probably isn't enough for that. Or just ban live video altogether? Only allow live videos by companies and celebrities that Facebook deems worthy?

I don't know, but I presume they have had to put in place something after Christchurch.

What always got my goat was youtube and how they left up cr** like ISIS hacking the head of some poor guy.

These companies couldn't give a shyte, all that gets them is when revenue is hit.
The likes of introduction of GDPR has done something to focus the mind of some entities, because companies are worried that they could be in court every other day and could be hit for millions.

The big social media companies are American and immediately rant on about Freedom of speech and the likes of Facefook has gotten away with some awful shyte because they deem themselves not to be a publisher, but a conduit, neutral platform some such shyte.

Yet they in 2018 claimed in court they were a publisher when it suited their case.
They claimed they were a publisher, and a company that makes editorial decisions, which are protected by the first amendment.
Yet in congress they immediately spout that platforms cannot be liable for content users post on their sites.

And yes I know there is lot of worse stuff out there being run from servers god knows where but really if there was a will then there is a god damn way.

But fecks sake we should lock down the companies that are operating openly making billions yet flouting basic standards.

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh FFS. The level of truly simple, I hesitate to call it "thinking" when a tragedy occurs never ceases to surprise me. It seems to get worse if anything. In another thread on the matter it was suggested we need more of all things feminism because yeah that would have stopped this happening. Are people who appear to be generally bright enough actually this thick when hard sums come into it? Jesus.

In 1973 a seven year old boy was murdered in an attic in Palmerstown Dublin by a 16 year old, in what looked to be a satanistic type rite. Pre internet. No doubt in good oul Catholic Ireland(where the case was kept out of the news) it was blamed on satanic forces or evil fillums or books.

the country was riddled with rape at a time when even the mildest of sexual content was forbidden in cinema or literature.

TheValeyard wrote: »

Wasnt the Jamie Bulger case blamed on horror films or that Film 'Childs Play'. Banning horror films wouldnt stop child murder.

It would be impossible to block internet porn. Anyone with half a brain could bypass any filter. Education is key. Sure they still have massive and almost impossible job of removing illegal porn, and/ or drug, weapons, medicines from the web

"video nasties" were just the tabloid tale of the time. Another period they'd blame it on the radio or the printing press or polyphonic chant.

Is there peer reviewed papers showing causal links between porn and violent crime?

What do children need smartphones for?

Exactly.

A "dumb" phone is plenty good. Problem solved.

God forbid parents in Ireland actually take some parental responsibility. Easier to blame it on other things so we might make a bit of money off it down the line when we sue.

Porn is far to accessible for kids, they can literally access any type of porn they like in a couple of seconds, any time of the day or night , most boys are learning about sex from hard core porn videos, porn is very addictive for some people, I hate to think what it's doing to kids and how it will effect their future intimate relationships, you can say it doesn't effect them all you like but the fact is it does.
What also worries me is how some schools are making it compulsory for kids to have ipads and tablets making it very hard for parents to limit their childs internet and technology usage as from first thing in the morning their eyes are glued to a computer screen.
There is such a thing as internet addiction and porn addiction and although its not the cause of rapes and murders, in the wrong hands, its certainly an instigator and apart of the problem.

Force Carrier wrote: »

Is there peer reviewed papers showing causal links between porn and violent crime?

i would wonder about this also. i think it's easy to point at something like porn and say this must have been it, this is the problem to solve. i can only imagine there was more going on and it was all more nuanced. but i don't really know... hence why i wonder this as well

it's hard to know what to do about children and mobiles. say no altogether? educate them? both?

Sam Quentin wrote: »

Why is the Taoiseach waiting to see how the UK's age verification check 'fairs' out before introducing such laws here!? It seems like a no brainer to me and if anything a great start.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/apr/17/online-pornography-age-checks-to-be-mandatory-in-uk-from-15-july

IMO free porn should be on the internet. You should have to pay by credit card.

It's like having porn on the telly at three in the afternoon.

Just get rid of free porn. Problem solved.

NIMAN wrote: »

The trial that concluded the other day is more than enough evidence we need to ban minors from smart phones until they are at least 16.

Every school should ban the use of smart mobile phones. End of.

Haven't most schools already banned phones?
We went from basic phones to camera phones to smart phones whilst I was at school and they were banned!

If I ever have kids I'll try to keep the smart phone away for as long as possible.

You can't learn social skills from social media.