Iceland Wants To Ban Internet Porn

"If we can send a man to the moon, we must be able to tackle porn on the internet." Those are the now immortal words of Halla Gunnarsdóttir, the political advisor to Iceland's Interior Minister Ögmundur Jónasson. Iceland wants to block all internet porn.

The Icelandic government believes that, since porn can damage children through computers, game consoles and smartphones, they should just ban it completely from the country's internet tubes. Apparently, making parents responsible for their children education and the materials they are exposed to is not an option and, instead, they want to prohibit every Icelandic citizen to access porn.

Some of their ideas so far:

- block porn IP addresses and - making it illegal to use Icelandic credit cards to access X-rated sites.

It appears that children in Iceland have credit cards, which may explain their recent economical system collapse.

The move follows a ban on strip clubs, claiming that these violated women rights and were "harmful to society". They claim that both strip clubs and pornography are clearly linked to violent sexual crimes in their country. Halla argues that this move is "not anti-sex", however:

It is anti-violence because young children are seeing porn and acting it out. That is where we draw the line. This material is blurring the boundaries for young people about what is right and wrong.

She believes that parents cannot be held responsible for protecting "our young people. They cannot be with their children all the time and the porn industry actively tries to seek children out." In other words, there's a global porn conspiracy to corrupt children worldwide.

It's ironic that the porn industry started in Scandinavian countries during their sexual revolution in the '60s. While the rest of the world would be in shock at the sight of a nipple, Swedish and Danish porn companies were producing films and magazines, which were viewed by young adults and adults in their home countries and other countries in Europe.

Now, by banning access to internet porn, Iceland will join countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and other temples of democracy widely known to protect women and children rights. [Daily Mail via Telegraph]


Comments

    Iceland didn't send anyone to the moon, therefore they're screwed (so to speak).

    "Some of their ideas so far:
    - block porn IP addresses and
    - making it illegal to use Icelandic credit cards to access X-rated sites."

    what's this? an early April fools joke?

    Sounds like a fantastic idea to me. No doubt they've seen the horrific effects of an over-sensualized, over-sexualized behavior and are now waking up to the damage it has been and is causing to families, marriages, children, mental health, in addictions, and the dehumanizing of both women and men.

    The reason we get so aghast over the notion is we don't like the thought of being considered being a pervert. If it's legal, it's those fuddy-duddy conservatives that have the issue. They're the 'abnormal' ones. But if it's illegal, our perversion gets called out for what it is... and we don't like that. We'd rather be allowed to get our jollies off without the societal stigma biting at our ankles.

    If you think think this about an issue of 'freedom' - you've never really though much in to the issue of what freedom really means. True freedom is not about being able to whatever you want without the potential of feeling guilty for licentious behavior. It's about being given the capacity to be able to act within a code of conduct. These 'codes of conduct' by definition contain boundaries by which right conduct and wrong conduct are given form.

    The issue is not democratic freedoms - but the foundation by which those democratic freedoms have come about. Trying to compare Iceland to Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, etc. places much too much trust on a governmental institution. Democracy only works when the people themselves have a standard code of conduct by which the democratic system can work within. But if the people are corrupt, well, democracy isn't really going to be a shining beacon of hope or freedom for the people acting within the system.

    It appears as if Iceland is waking up to this fact. It's not that they're seeking to do away with democracy, but that they're realizing that in order for it to work effectively - and for the good of the people, it must wake up to the reality that people are inherently self-gratifying certain standards of conduct must be established.

    Of course, the big hoop-lah will be that the government has no right to go about 'enforcing' a standard of morality that I don't agree with. To that I say again, 1) freedom is not freedom to do whatever you want and 2) Government does nothing BUT enforce morality. Any and every law has a moral component by which we're all subject to. If perverts (of which I have also been) want to argue for their higher morality of being able to get their sexual jollies and participating in licentious behavior - then go ahead. But don't go about thinking it's about some democratic right to freedom.

      hahahaha go away, i hate people like you that are on the moral police force... I watch porn daily and i am not a strange person, you have no idea what you are talking about. look at japan and most of europe, sex is nothing and they dont have rapists/murderers/pedophiles just running around everywhere, your argument makes no sense at all.

      Is this... Are you for real? No, freedom might not be the ability to do 'whatever you want', but the moment the government starts telling people what they're allowed to think, feel, and fantasize about in their own damn time, that's absolutely an impingement on freedom, and well and truly outside of the jurisdiction of the government.

      This has got do be the absolute stupidest thing I have literally ever heard.
      This is not an argument about freedom. This is about validity.
      Their primary contention is that "pornography [is] clearly linked to violent sexual crimes";
      Which might be a valid point, if no violent sexual crimes had ever occurred before the creation of pronography, or if the rate of violent sexual crime was much, much lower in places without widespread access to the Internet/computers etc.
      We can very easily see that is not the case.

        You mustn't get out much then, because there's plenty of stupid things around. Particularly the idea that pornography should be legal. I think my comment bristles you because it's hitting the mark.

        Your use of the term 'validity' hardly changes the point of fact. In fact, in the very example of pornography, your attempt to sidestep the issue completely falls apart. Case in point: specifically child pornography. Using your own reasoning, since the sexual abuse of children occurred before the proliferation of internet child porn, and it was just as high as an occurrence, then child pornography is just as 'valid' as an other form of licentious activity.

        The issue you (hopefully) have with the idea of freely available child pornography has nothing to do with the correlative effects of available child porn and child abuse. It is that this particular evil is just that: it is morally repugnant. And no matter what form it takes, whether filmed or photographed, or practised behind closed doors, it is an abhorrent practise that causes great psychological, emotional and physical harm to those involved.

        Quite frankly, the only reason we normalise 'adult' porn, is because we see the abuses and harms that come with the disfigured perceptions we have of sex as 'acceptable' in light of perceived (albeit temporary) benefits and in line with overly tired post-modern celebratory mantra of individual choice. Given the damaged reasoning we have when it comes to adult sexual abuses - imagine the moral abuse and decay when we start to see surveys and studies stating, 'Well, actually children are completely capable of making weighted decisions about the sexuality from a very early age'... Oh wait, it's already happening.

        It isn't called a 'slippery slope' for no reason. Pornography is not an issue of freedoms or validity. It is an issue of code of conduct, or precisely, morals.

          Jimmybadsol's reasoning does not imply that "child pornography is just as 'valid' as an other form of licentious activity". To adapt his rationale to your example correctly would be to say that even if child pornography (which is already illegal on the internet, so it's somewhat moot) were eradicated from the internet, there will indeed still be people who peddle child pornography using means other than the internet, as indeed, was the case before the internet. So...not case in point.

      Government does not enforce morality. You're getting morals (with a religious slant) confused with ethics and social practicalities. There is nothing moral about driving on the left hand side of the road - it simply makes life easier for everyone.

      Morals (vis a vis religion) mixed with Goverment tends dangerously towards a theocracy, to which some of the countries you have mentioned entertain to an effect on human rights much greater than getting one's rocks off in the privacy of their own home.

      @Jimmybadsol is also correct in stating violent sexual crime existed before pornography. To suggest otherwise ignores unfortunate human behaviour.

      Regardless, this article isn't necessarily interesting on the matter of sexual ethics - more the ignorance of a politician who thinks it's possible to just 'turn off the tap'.

        I get what you're saying, but I don't think you're quite hitting the mark. Your example:

        "There is nothing moral about driving on the left hand side of the road - it simply makes life easier for everyone."

        But even this is inherently moral reasoning. Why should make life easier for everyone? Is it wrong to not do so? Why everyone? Why shouldn't it be made easier for some who fit certain categories and not others? Now you could push back the reasoning to say, 'It's better for the economy', etc, but the question will always be 'why this law over another?'

        And it's much more than just simple practicalities- because even then we would have to ask, why be practical? Why not some other philosophical motivation? It's simply not enough to say 'it benefits people the most'. Why should people benefit any, if at all?

        The problem is not 'religion' or even a theocracy, but a corrupt system morals that come out of a belief system - any belief system. It could be humanist system, Marxism, a Republic, a democracy, a religion, whatever. These are not some kind of abstract band-aid for the sake of making things better - but an outworking of moral and ethical presuppositions.

        Now, I know it's not a popular thing to say these days (you know, calling a spade a spade), but the moral system (or hey, let's just say it - the religion) by which these other countries run by is put simply, corrupt. And ours, if not already, is on its way. They're just corrupt in different areas. And so, they systems by which they run are shown to be detrimental to the society. The middle east likes to kill and enslave people to a system, while the west just happens to be a society of perverts who are destroying themselves from the inside out. Honestly, we can't connect the dots in walking up to a woman on the beach and just staring at her as being creepy to having a massive billboard and finding it perfectly acceptable to do the exact same thing.

        Whether or not the 'tap' can be turned off, in part, is irrelevant. If everyone broke the law by speeding, we wouldn't say, 'Ok, let's just remove the law'. No, you'd seek to look at better ways of implementing the law and making it effective.

          Wow.

          I mean, wow. Where to even start with your diatribe?

          Okay, let's skip the first six paragraphs of indulgent preaching and cut to the crux of the article.

          The idea of 'banning Internet porn' is an unworkable proposition in the era of P2P and, with much more questionable behaviour, the 'dark' Internet - let alone by definition: A penis? An erection? Penetration? Too much ankle? Where in the sand does your line lie?

          Besides, prohibition of any behaviour has proved impractical over history. It is so much better to shine a light.

          Fucking feels good. Watching consenting adults fuck, equally so. Better to use the misdirected time and energy of Ms Gunnarsdóttir for more practical outcomes.

    it's been about 40 since anyone was on the moon and it would take at least 5 years to get anyone back there.

    Can we please stop using the "we can put a man on the moon but we can't" thing because we can't put a man on the moon and have not been abe to for 40 years.

      We can put a man on the moon but we can't stop reminding people that we can put a man on the moon. Sorry.

    So I guess a whole bunch of people in Iceland are gonna be downloading as much porn as possible right now just in case this actually happens :P

    WTF kind of porn has gone mainstream up there?

      Im guessing in a place where its that cold, pictures of anybody without 5 layers of clothes on would get your pulse going :P

    I remember reading an article from a famous feminist saying that 'until women are no longer seen as objects, there will never be equality.'
    It will be interesting to see if Iceland is actually successful in banning pornography.

    its strange, normally europe is quite sensible when it comes to sex, i thought it was more the english speaking western countries that had irrational fear of sex

    Oh, come on, what else is there to do in a god forsaken place like Iceland in the middle of a dark Arctic winters day but drink ridiculously expensive strong spirits and masturbate to internet porn? Sydney will be full of emigrating Icelanders in no time if they bring this in.

    The idea of this ban is stupid on three main points First it assumes all porn is violent which is not the case. Sex is part of growing up people have a right do do it and film it and show it if they want to those whom are of the right age. Second negative stuff happened to me when I was little and what was negative was violent movies causing aggression among the older ones that did what they did. Making them cruel. Second the idea that porn is bad from a civil rights point of view and is harmful to women is a joke. Civil rights are the right to free speech and fee expression such as having sex in a way that one enjoys if that is by making a movie that decent people won't show to kids then that is fine by me. Women in this industry should be given a choice and if the sex is not violent then what harm is done just like when people have a one night stand except you have more money at the end of it do people ban paintings of nude adults from the renaissance, not really because that would be denying what is natural to the human experience, the body. Thirdly a Montreal study in 2010 found that when the Czech Republic lifted its ban sexual violence did not increase it decreased. Some of the arguments here go on an emotionally disliking tangent instead of being logical about the situation.
    Thanks

    One more thing I think the real problems in the West aren't porn and its from that decaying morals but greediness and over aggressive competitiveness. These 2 main points are If I may cite a few examples that are real issues helped cause the recent economic crisis or GFC (making money through selling of Pretty much falsified shares that looked like they were a great investment but were debts - look up CDO's). Also the war in Iraq for oil (there were no nuclear weapons of mass destruction that Cheney mentioned to the U.N. Lastly across the board I see inequality with aggressive and competitive individuals routinely being descriminative or uncaring towards those that have less skills, less coordination, lower income, poorer memory or lower IQ. quite bullying behaviour that can lead victims to suicide depression or a violent response when they bottle up violent physical or violent emotional treatment. Also previously I said negative stuff happened to me it was also sexual, so I understand what I am talking about.

    Porn on the internet is actually a thing now?Is this new?Why did it take so long?

    If you were a parent, would you leave X-Rated porno magazines laying all over your house for your 7 year old to find ?.....no, you wouldn't. Then why do you do the same thing with a single computer ?

    This isn't the internet's fault, it's the parents fault.

    Last edited 16/02/13 12:13 am

    Porn is bad mkay,

    Can anyone give one wholesome practical reason to have porn! I cant believe people are justifying the existence of porn.
    Getting off is not a practical reason.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now