Iceland Considers Porn Ban

[uglypitbull]

first they kick out the bankers, now this??? What's in THEIR water?

The government is considering introducing internet filters, such as those used to block China off form the worldwide web, in order to stop Icelanders downloading or viewing pornography on the internet.

The unprecedented censorship is justified by fears about damaging effects of the internet on children and women.

full story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... y-ban.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Melissa]

I agree with this. I wish the USA would do it too! That industry should be more regulated. I wish it would go back to this...if you want that stuff you should be able to get it but you have to go to a store that sells it. I wish we could get rid of it so we don't have to be exposed to it virtually everywhere we go these days. If someone wants to see porn they should have to go buy it or check it out at a porn shop not just sit at their computer whenever wherever with no shame while the innocent ones have to be exposed by it popping up when we are searching on the Internet. It truly is a plague that is sweeping the world and entering virtually every household. I hate the stuff. I have a son and I wish he didn't have to grow up exposed so much. It really does make life more difficult for us modest women in the world when we are struggling to keep some sense of value as a woman when this world has cheapened us so much and is causing women to become mere objects and treated very poorly.

[ajax]

I agree with this. I wish the USA would do it too! That industry should be more regulated. I wish it would go back to this...if you want that stuff you should be able to get it but you have to go to a store that sells it. I wish we could get rid of it so we don't have to be exposed to it virtually everywhere we go these days. If someone wants to see porn they should have to go buy it or check it out at a porn shop not just sit at their computer whenever wherever with no shame while the innocent ones have to be exposed by it popping up when we are searching on the Internet. It truly is a plague that is sweeping the world and entering virtually every household. I hate the stuff. I have a son and I wish he didn't have to grow up exposed so much. It really does make life more difficult for us modest women in the world when we are struggling to keep some sense of value as a woman when this world has cheapened us so much and is causing women to become mere objects and treated very poorly.

As one who is skeptical of most regulation, this I can almost agree with. The only problem is once the gov't's foot is in the door to regulate one industry on the internet, the rest they want to regulate will fall like dominoes.

The best regulation of all is a virtuous people, but we are well beyond that, except individually in our own homes.

[uglypitbull]

If someone wants to see porn they should have to go buy it or check it out at a porn shop not just sit at their computer whenever wherever with no shame while the innocent ones have to be exposed by it popping up when we are searching on the Internet.

You hit the nail on the head :ymapplause: our founding fathers would be proud.

[skmo]

I would be fine with regulation that SEVERELY punishes those who would make a pop-up of something offensive. You made porn pop up on my screen when I have never searched for it or anything even slightly inappropriate because you're blanket marketing people? For every instance it happens you pay a fine of $10,000. If the aggrieved party wants compensation, part of the fine goes to them.

Regulating what can be accessed by free individuals is wrong.

[MsEva]

:ymapplause: :ymapplause: :ymapplause: :ymapplause: I think that is awesome! I realize regulation can go overboard but in cases like this I support it %100000! I agree with Melissa that if people want to see that type of crap to go to a shop. I have signed numerous petitions to remove child porn from the internet and control/remove adult porn from the internet and if there was more that I could do to get it off the internet I would!

[HeirofNumenor]

UGH! I tried to copy and paste this link onto my FaceBook wall - and FB sends a message: "This message could not be posted to this wall."

What is up with THAT?

[HeirofNumenor]

Okay - I got the link posted now....

[skmo]

I have to ask this - To those of you saying this would be great, let me ask you: Are you saying that in a utopia/zion society it would be great if you could prevent porn from entering your home via web lines, or are you saying you'd actually support the government deciding that it has the right ot decide what to be your censor? If it's the former, I can agree with the goal, though not its execution. I'd also agree that it'd be wonderful if I could get bacon to enter my home and leave a lot of its calories outside.

However, if you're saying you believe the government should be able to regulate what we bring into our home, I think blood is going to start pouring out of my ears. This goes very much agains the Joseph Smith idea of teaching correct principles and governing ourselves. Parents may be beset with all manner of temptations for their young, but to desire to have the government be asurrogate nanny is not only doomed to failure, it's going to be like setting off an immorality nuke right in our own living rooms. There are already a myriad ways for parents to not only monitor but limit the content of internet material available.

Having the government decide what's okay for us to allow the internet to show would be the equivalent of sending your daughter to the Bill Clinton school of proper intern behavior.

[gkearney]

It all sounds good until the government decides to go after something you like such as political speech or religious speech. As Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) so well said:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they ... s_versions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dlbww]

.

[eric]

That will require a new government agency to decide what is and isn't pornographic.

And a new black market industry would arise.

Perhaps instead the government could just legislate individual goodness.

Or maybe the people of Iceland could be taught correct principles and govern themselves.

dlbww - I know the spirit of what you are saying (agency in all things), but until the mind is fully developed (around the age of 23 for females; around 25 for males), one cannot make fully-rational decisions and self-govern. This is why the devil seeks to snare many while in their youth - before they are self-governing - and why this must be stamped out from the face of the earth. Next to child abuse, this is the biggest plague of our generation.

[uglypitbull]

I think some folks here might be missing the point.....they are banning porn from the Internet, not outright.

It is too easy for children to access this on the Internet, there are few, if any, controls. I have a friend who works for an IT company that hosts these sites and he says the porn companies make it easy to gain access "on purpose". Its like a drug dealer handing out the first free sample of drugs. They set up these 'trial' accounts that anyone can participate in (by asking if you are 18 or older...real secure) and boom....you are in. Then the person wants more.....and the downward spiral begins.
Prior to the Internet you had to go into an adult shop to get it.....nobody is saying to ban those. Nobody is saying to shut the porn industry down....just to get rid of it from the Internet so its not an easy thing for kids to access, at least locking down access to it and not having popups or paying spam companies to send it to any random email accounts.

Our founders and those who influenced them spoke of 'natural law'.....which sounds applicable here.

The law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for man's actions must....be conformable to the law of Nature-i.e., to the will of God.

Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his creator.....this will of his maker is called the Law of Nature....This law of nature being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God, Himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other.It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this.

[dlbww]

.

[Benjamin_LK]

I agree with this. I wish the USA would do it too! That industry should be more regulated. I wish it would go back to this...if you want that stuff you should be able to get it but you have to go to a store that sells it. I wish we could get rid of it so we don't have to be exposed to it virtually everywhere we go these days. If someone wants to see porn they should have to go buy it or check it out at a porn shop not just sit at their computer whenever wherever with no shame while the innocent ones have to be exposed by it popping up when we are searching on the Internet. It truly is a plague that is sweeping the world and entering virtually every household. I hate the stuff. I have a son and I wish he didn't have to grow up exposed so much. It really does make life more difficult for us modest women in the world when we are struggling to keep some sense of value as a woman when this world has cheapened us so much and is causing women to become mere objects and treated very poorly.

In theory, this sounds great, in reality, when you consider whom you would be asking to regulate a porn ban on the internet, such an attempt would miserably fail considering all the corruption that exists among the politicians. Giving the government such absolute power over the internet is just dangerous because a government that we entrust with the amazing power to control the internet, has just as much authority to force immorality and pro-government propaganda at us 24/7, I am a fan of striving to keep society a society of laws and order, but I wouldn't want to be bombarded with e-mails pop-ups and more that pretty much ram down everyone's throat, from a police state, anything from what we would consider "porn" believe me that they would justify the ban out of existence with exceptions, to rampant anti-religion propaganda, and so on, it's just dangerous ground. If some sane person realized how the German media made Hitler pretty much Godlike in their portrayal, or how Stalin was pretty much deified in Soviet news and film, seriously, a government you give absolute power over the internet to can easily do the same. It's not that I am disappointed given the real dilemna of the filth and disinformation that goes around online today, it's detestable. However, an empowered government could force filth all over us many times over. Now I'm sure that no unhallowed hand stopping the Church's progress includes government propaganda, but seriously, I would rather have the government try to come force it on me, and possibly face imprisonment and tyranny, than knowingly empower an entity that I already know isn't on my or even the Lord's side go do it.

[Benjamin_LK]

That will require a new government agency to decide what is and isn't pornographic.

And a new black market industry would arise.

Perhaps instead the government could just legislate individual goodness.

Or maybe the people of Iceland could be taught correct principles and govern themselves.

dlbww - I know the spirit of what you are saying (agency in all things), but until the mind is fully developed (around the age of 23 for females; around 25 for males), one cannot make fully-rational decisions and self-govern. This is why the devil seeks to snare many while in their youth - before they are self-governing - and why this must be stamped out from the face of the earth. Next to child abuse, this is the biggest plague of our generation.

Yes I agree, this is a great plague which has deep ramifications. And it's ubiquitous; it's on the big screen, on TV, in our magazines, the Internet of course, it's openly flaunted as the new dress code - modesty is almost dead. Try to have a day go by when you are not offended.

I just don't trust governments to look after us. They don't know when to quit and they never get it right; for the most part they are unfamiliar with God's laws or simply wish to ignore them. Perhaps this is just another sign of a society ripening in iniquity and banning pornography on the Internet will have little effect - like pushing on a string.

The Book of Mormon solution of course is to preach the gospel to the offenders and convert them to God's ways.

Governments right now seem pretty content to uphold plenty of things, from unchastity, to dishonesty, to unsustainable debt, to passing unrighteous judgement on people, all of which are unwholesome things to do in the Lord's eyes. Frankly, an entity which lacks such morality, I simply wouldn't trust. For all we know they could be drooling to shove even worse filth down our throats, in a manner of speaking.

[HeirofNumenor]

And yet Iceland already has an official ban on printed porn....they are now wanting to extend that to electronic transmission (far more powerful addiction).

Moral or not (Iceland now has an openly gay Prime Minister), they found the moral strength to run out/prosecute the bankers, AND ban porn...

I submit that the fundamental difference is NOT our constitutional freedoms, but rather that we as a nation have fallen so far from our previously righteous and favored position, so that true reform in the USA is IMPOSSIBLE without a severe cleansing...

[Benjamin_LK]

And yet Iceland already has an official ban on printed porn....they are now wanting to extend that to electronic transmission (far more powerful addiction).

Moral or not (Iceland now has an openly gay Prime Minister), they found the moral strength to run out/prosecute the bankers, AND ban porn...

I submit that the fundamental difference is NOT our constitutional freedoms, but rather that we as a nation have fallen so far from our previously righteous and favored position, so that true reform in the USA is IMPOSSIBLE without a severe cleansing...

If you mean moral, that's pretty complicated, as history is replete with plenty of individuals that were questionably moral, or possibly seriously flawed, yet still were willing to support a righteous cause, or at least push hard for tolerance of righteousness, even if it didn't agree with their ways or thinking. Corianton comes as a scriptural example. He was a Jaredite King who had serious issues of chastity, yet he was strongly in favor of allowing the gospel to be preached and practiced, and condemned people who killed the prophets. It's true that the gospel didn't speak favorably about him or what he personally did, but he defended the right nonetheless for it to be practiced, and for the right of the people to agree or disagree with how he lived his life. I think the case of Iceland also brings this point to the front. Regardless of some personal moral issues or disagreements that the current Prime Minister may have, it's possible that even he cares about the overall freedom and well-being of the people of Iceland, and the problems that they have, that at least he figures that it would be a good idea to go with their requests. I don't find it impossible that someone with a lifestyle ranging from booze to unchastity to simply being part of another political affiliation could be nonetheless tolerant and a decent proponent of what could happen on a National level, or what's better for the people as a whole, in fact, it has precedent, but I think it's more a matter of the fact that people have a hard time trusting power to others when it's uncertain as to how virtuous the people in charge could be, or uncertain as to whether or not one could use it to bad effect against personal freedom.

[eric]

And yet Iceland already has an official ban on printed porn....they are now wanting to extend that to electronic transmission (far more powerful addiction).

Moral or not (Iceland now has an openly gay Prime Minister), they found the moral strength to run out/prosecute the bankers, AND ban porn...

I submit that the fundamental difference is NOT our constitutional freedoms, but rather that we as a nation have fallen so far from our previously righteous and favored position, so that true reform in the USA is IMPOSSIBLE without a severe cleansing...

If you mean moral, that's pretty complicated, as history is replete with plenty of individuals that were questionably moral, or possibly seriously flawed, yet still were willing to support a righteous cause, or at least push hard for tolerance of righteousness, even if it didn't agree with their ways or thinking. Corianton comes as a scriptural example. He was a Jaredite King who had serious issues of chastity, yet he was strongly in favor of allowing the gospel to be preached and practiced, and condemned people who killed the prophets. It's true that the gospel didn't speak favorably about him or what he personally did, but he defended the right nonetheless for it to be practiced, and for the right of the people to agree or disagree with how he lived his life. I think the case of Iceland also brings this point to the front. Regardless of some personal moral issues or disagreements that the current Prime Minister may have, it's possible that even he cares about the overall freedom and well-being of the people of Iceland, and the problems that they have, that at least he figures that it would be a good idea to go with their requests. I don't find it impossible that someone with a lifestyle ranging from booze to unchastity to simply being part of another political affiliation could be nonetheless tolerant and a decent proponent of what could happen on a National level, or what's better for the people as a whole, in fact, it has precedent, but I think it's more a matter of the fact that people have a hard time trusting power to others when it's uncertain as to how virtuous the people in charge could be, or uncertain as to whether or not one could use it to bad effect against personal freedom.

True, Benjamin. True..... We have to consider Romney in our own country.... former Guv of Mass..... ) =))

[Benjamin_LK]

And yet Iceland already has an official ban on printed porn....they are now wanting to extend that to electronic transmission (far more powerful addiction).

Moral or not (Iceland now has an openly gay Prime Minister), they found the moral strength to run out/prosecute the bankers, AND ban porn...

I submit that the fundamental difference is NOT our constitutional freedoms, but rather that we as a nation have fallen so far from our previously righteous and favored position, so that true reform in the USA is IMPOSSIBLE without a severe cleansing...

If you mean moral, that's pretty complicated, as history is replete with plenty of individuals that were questionably moral, or possibly seriously flawed, yet still were willing to support a righteous cause, or at least push hard for tolerance of righteousness, even if it didn't agree with their ways or thinking. Corianton comes as a scriptural example. He was a Jaredite King who had serious issues of chastity, yet he was strongly in favor of allowing the gospel to be preached and practiced, and condemned people who killed the prophets. It's true that the gospel didn't speak favorably about him or what he personally did, but he defended the right nonetheless for it to be practiced, and for the right of the people to agree or disagree with how he lived his life. I think the case of Iceland also brings this point to the front. Regardless of some personal moral issues or disagreements that the current Prime Minister may have, it's possible that even he cares about the overall freedom and well-being of the people of Iceland, and the problems that they have, that at least he figures that it would be a good idea to go with their requests. I don't find it impossible that someone with a lifestyle ranging from booze to unchastity to simply being part of another political affiliation could be nonetheless tolerant and a decent proponent of what could happen on a National level, or what's better for the people as a whole, in fact, it has precedent, but I think it's more a matter of the fact that people have a hard time trusting power to others when it's uncertain as to how virtuous the people in charge could be, or uncertain as to whether or not one could use it to bad effect against personal freedom.

True, Benjamin. True..... We have to consider Romney in our own country.... former Guv of Mass..... ) =))

Correction, the Prime Minister of Iceland is a "she" not a "he".

[skmo]

If you mean moral, that's pretty complicated, as history is replete with plenty of individuals that were questionably moral, or possibly seriously flawed, yet still were willing to support a righteous cause, or at least push hard for tolerance of righteousness, even if it didn't agree with their ways or thinking...

How about a different Benjamin? Mr. Franklin is one of the only Founding Fathers to have been made a High Priest, yet he loved ladies almost as much as I did. He was a great mover of many things necessary to our founding as a nation.

[Fiannan]

If you mean moral, that's pretty complicated, as history is replete with plenty of individuals that were questionably moral, or possibly seriously flawed, yet still were willing to support a righteous cause, or at least push hard for tolerance of righteousness, even if it didn't agree with their ways or thinking...

How about a different Benjamin? Mr. Franklin is one of the only Founding Fathers to have been made a High Priest, yet he loved ladies almost as much as I did. He was a great mover of many things necessary to our founding as a nation.

One must note that while Franklin was involved in the occult (occult actually means seeking secret knowledge) and was involved in the Hellfire Club (orgies, mocking religion, eugenic experiments to mate intelligent, successful men with volunteer women wishing to produce superior babies) it might only prove that he was a higher spirit seeking truth. It might be most people are here merely to get a body and get what might be considered lower-level management positions in the next life. Others are blessed with intelligence and understanding but their quest to grow can be twisted and they can fall under power of darker forces. If that is the case then many of the world elite bloodlines, if there is something to that, are probably people who are from higher positions in the spirit world. I have read that all our Church presidents are related to the same family tree that has produced all the US presidents except Van Buren, and when I joined the Church I was told several times that the people who are most receptive to the Gospel are of the elect -- specific bloodlines. I will note that if you are literally of Ephriam then would that not also mean you are a descendant of the high priest of Egypt, the Egyptian bloodlines dedicated to esoteric knowledge, since Joseph married the daughter of Egypt's high priest?

[HeirofNumenor]

How about a different Benjamin? Mr. Franklin is one of the only Founding Fathers to have been made a High Priest, yet he loved ladies almost as much as I did. He was a great mover of many things necessary to our founding as a nation.



One must note that while Franklin was involved in the occult (occult actually means seeking secret knowledge) and was involved in the Hellfire Club (orgies, mocking religion, eugenic experiments to mate intelligent, successful men with volunteer women wishing to produce superior babies) it might only prove that he was a higher spirit seeking truth.

Revisionist history.....

[uglypitbull]

Revisionist history.....

Agreed, I liken it to the story about Thomas Jefferson bedding one of his slaves....when it was well known his BROTHER was a philanderer. Same bloodline....but the brother story would not suit the purpose of the revisionists.

[HeirofNumenor]

Revisionist history.....

Agreed, I liken it to the story about Thomas Jefferson bedding one of his slaves....when it was well known his BROTHER was a philanderer. Same bloodline....but the brother story would not suit the purpose of the revisionists.

well, NEPHEW - but correct on all counts: tear down the Founding Fathers and emphasize, or rather actually CREATE flaws to make them "seem more human", but in reality to destroy any reason to look up to them as very worthy role models....then they get replaced by sports stars and entertainers as American Idols, with all their immaturity, selfishness, and lasciviousness...