Merged Does 'rape culture' accurately describe (many) societies?

[theprestige]

Right - you noticed my focus, for the moment, is on our legal obligations under UNCRC.

To be clear, "we" have no legal obligations under the UNCRC. The UNCRC itself imposes no such obligations. People under UKian jurisidiction have whatever legal obligations UKian UNCRC law imposes in that jurisdiction. And it's the same in each jurisdiction where the authority has ratified the UNCRC.

Also, you still haven't explained who, exactly has these obligations under the UNCRC. Is the UKian Parliament legally obligated to establish regulations that fulfill the mandate of the UNCRC? Who decides what that mandate is? Who decides whether Parliament's regulations are fulfilling it? Who punishes MPs if they don't comply?

And of course you still haven't told us what the UNCRC mandate actually is. You want to ban porn entirely. Do you think that's what the UNCRC mandates? A blanket ban on porn?

I'm not clear that is so at all. If we are just talking on this thread, then Art just wants 'education' - that won't stop a child seeing this stuff.

Neither will a blanket ban. You've said so yourself. Arth just happens to think that education is a more sensible approach than blanket bans. You'd rather complain about his solution than argue for your own. When will you start arguing for your own solution?

Right.

Agreed: Not even the signatories of the UNCRC take it seriously, in your opinion. This is what I mean by your UNCRC argument being a dead end. Saying there's a legal obligation on paper means nothing, if the signatories ignore it in practice.

I just don't see any protection for children without a ban...a friends phone, sneakernet...

Finally we're getting somewhere. Keep going.

Nevertheless, we are obligated by law to effect safeguards.

Again, who's "we"? The UK is, broadly speaking, a democracy. Does that mean that you bear some legal liability, for not electing an MP that successfully advocates for better safeguards under the UKian implementation of the UNCRC? Who will come and arrest you for not doing your part to fulfill your legal obligations?

And if it's not you who's to be arrested, for failing to fulfill their legal obligations, then who is it? The Prime Minister? The King?

Or should you be seeking to arrest Rocco Meliambro, head of Ethical Capital Partners, the private equity firm that owns PornHub? Should the UK issue an Interpol Red Notice, for the arrest and extradition of this Canadian citizen? Under what law? By whose authority?

Or does the UK need to impose sanctions on Canadia, for allowing the owners of a major porn uploading and hosting service to base themselves there, and profit from what according to you must be flagrant violations of the UNCRC? If the UK doesn't impose sanctions, is the UK also now complicit? In what jurisdiction?

I have posted previously on the negative effects on society. You have used the word pernicious - perhaps you could elaborate? You have also said that porn is unnecessary.

That's it? That's your entire argument? Porn has negative effects on society, therefore it should be banned across the board?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

It's Poem that wants to scrub the internet and the entire world of porn. I'm all for adults having access to porn.

I would need to refer to her arguments in other threads which is usually frowned upon in these parts, but Emily's Cat has a history of also wanting to scrub the entire world of porn.

 

[Poem]

Google is your friend...

No, you made the assertion. Now back it up. If I am wrong, then fine.

How are you legally bound to something that is unenforceable?

You mean like slavery....apparently there are, as we speak, some 50 million of them.

Nothing is unenforceable if there is willingness within the culture to do the right thing....like looking out for children.

 

[Poem]

I would need to refer to her arguments in other threads which is usually frowned upon in these parts, but Emily's Cat has a history of also wanting to scrub the entire world of porn.

He.

 

[theprestige]

Truth bomb:

Access to porn remains more important than ensuring children are kept safe on the internet.

Zeno's Argument. Instead of actually advancing your cause, you keep reverting to stuff you've said already.

 

[Ziggurat]

Evidence.

Evidence of what?

Yes, children can access porn on the internet. How do you want to stop that?

The UK is trying their online safety act, but as we are seeing play out in real time, a law that is nominally intended to protect children from accessing porn is in fact stifling the free speech rights of adults even about non-pornographic topics. So opposition to things like the online safety act don't need to be motivated solely by a desire to access porn. You have not shown that the desire to access porn is actually what outweighs keeping kids safe.

Hell, you haven't even established that things like the online safety act even keep kids safe.

 

[Lithrael]

Straight up the most explicit stuff I EVER see without being where I'd expect it, is whenever I have direct messaging open (ie people not on my friends list are allowed to contact me). So step one, lowest hanging fruit, figure out how to blanket disallow minors from getting messages from strangers (bots, ads, etc.) and next step up, encourage parents to have to be involved in whitelisting people on their kids' friendslists.

 

[Poem]

Evidence of what?

Yes, children can access porn on the internet. How do you want to stop that?

The UK is trying their online safety act, but as we are seeing play out in real time, a law that is nominally intended to protect children from accessing porn is in fact stifling the free speech rights of adults even about non-pornographic topics. So opposition to things like the online safety act don't need to be motivated solely by a desire to access porn.

Fulfilling our legal obligations to the UNCRC would be a start.

Since the OSA isn't limited to only protect children from porn then that isn't surprising. In the same way that the MSA (2015) will sometimes deem someone either a human trafficker or the victim of such (depending on one's interpretation of the law) - laws regulating porn will almost certainly criminalise innocent people.

You have not shown that the desire to access porn is actually what outweighs keeping kids safe.

Children are being kept safe from porn right now? Do you have any evidence that it's, say, below 0.01%?

Hell, you haven't even established that things like the online safety act even keep kids safe.

I have said in a number of posts that I don't think the OSA will be anywhere near efficacious.

 

[Ziggurat]

Since the OSA isn't limited to only protect children from porn then that isn't surprising.

First off, you screwed up the attribution of the quotes. That was me, not theprestige. I suspect you had multiple quotes open, and tried to delete theprestige's but ended up shifting attribution. I've done it before by accident, and I presume you did it by accident as well. Now on to the substance. Now fixed.

You will never, ever get a law which only protects children from porn and nothing else. Even if the people writing the law want it.

In the same way that the MSA (2015) will sometimes deem someone either a human trafficker or the victim of such (depending on one's interpretation of the law) - laws regulating porn will almost certainly criminalise innocent people in a similar way.

And can you understand why someone might object to that on grounds other than wanting access to porn?

Children are being kept safe from porn right now? Do you have any evidence that it's, say, below 0.01%?

I have no idea what prompted you to ask this, since it has nothing to do with what I'm arguing.

I have said in a number of posts that I don't think the OSA will be anywhere near efficacious.

That's kinda the point. Most government-centered efforts to keep kids safe from porn will fail, but have nasty side effects.

 

[Poem]

First off, you screwed up the attribution of the quotes. That was me, not theprestige. I suspect you had multiple quotes open, and tried to delete theprestige's but ended up shifting attribution. I've done it before by accident, and I presume you did it by accident as well. Now on to the substance.

Ta. Fixed.

 

[Poem]

You will never, ever get a law which only protects children from porn and nothing else. Even if the people writing the law want it.

The OSA is supposed to protect children from all sorts of harms.

And can you understand why someone might object to that on grounds other than wanting access to porn?

Of course there will be objections. You do accept that children have rights don't you?

I have no idea what prompted you to ask this, since it has nothing to do with what I'm arguing.

Perhaps you could clarify: You have not shown that the desire to access porn is actually what outweighs keeping kids safe.

That's kinda the point. Most government-centered efforts to keep kids safe from porn will fail, but have nasty side effects.

As I said, the MSA isn't satisfying all keen observes. Interpretation will always be an issue. The UK still passed the act.

 

[Ziggurat]

The OSA is supposed to protect children from all sorts of harms.

And does it?

Of course there will be objections.

But you have ignored those objections in your quest to assign a single motive to opposition.

You do accept that children have rights don't you?

When did you stop beating your wife?

That's the sort of question this is. It's fundamentally dishonest. Nobody here has ever claimed that children don't have rights. Nobody here has ever disputed that children shouldn't be exposed to pornography. That has never, ever been the dispute.

Perhaps you could clarify: You have not shown that the desire to access porn is actually what outweighs keeping kids safe.

You have assigned a single motive to opposition to the OSA and similar: adults who don't want their own porn access restricted.

This may motivate some people, but it is hardly the only motive to oppose OSA and similar. And you are ignoring these other motives.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You mean like slavery....apparently there are, as we speak, some 50 million of them.

No, not like slavery. Laws against slavery are enforced at great length. As with any law, sometimes the bad guys get away.

Nothing is unenforceable if there is willingness within the culture to do the right thing....

"Right " according to who?

 

[Poem]

And does it?

I guess it is too soon to tell. As I said, I think it will fail.

But you have ignored those objections in your quest to assign a single motive to opposition.

There is a parallel here with ignoring the harms porn is causing - especially those whom we are legally bound to protect.

Without specifics it is hard to comment.

When did you stop beating your wife?

That's the sort of question this is. It's fundamentally dishonest. Nobody here has ever claimed that children don't have rights. Nobody here has ever disputed that children shouldn't be exposed to pornography. That has never, ever been the dispute.

My point: the rights of porn consumers to whatever they want appears to be well oiled; children's right to safe internet access no so much.

You have assigned a single motive to opposition to the OSA and similar: adults who don't want their own porn access restricted.

This may motivate some people, but it is hardly the only motive to oppose OSA and similar. And you are ignoring these other motives.

I accept that (that for some, opposition to the OSA isn't about porn) - but again, you will agree that something needs to be done about children's access. Yes, as already accepted, there will be some free speech casualties.

 

[Poem]

No, not like slavery. Laws against slavery are enforced at great length. As with any law, sometimes the bad guys get away.


"Right " according to who?

Can you deal with #2,737 please?

 

[theprestige]

Citation?

I have quoted from the UNCRC - that countries that have ratified (every country but one) are legally bound.

Legally bound to whom?

Who is the enforcement entity?

Who is legally liable for failing to implement the mandate of the UNCRC?

Who gets in trouble if a government ratifies the UNCRC, but then does nothing about it? The voters? The lawmakers? The chief executive? The head of state?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Can you deal with #2,737 please?

Why don't you deal with it?

The UNCRC has no enforcement authority. No one is legally bound to follow it. There are no penalties for not following it.

 

[Ziggurat]

My point: the rights of porn consumers to whatever they want appears to be well oiled; children's right to safe internet access no so much.

You are operating under a misconception. Children have the right to safety. They do NOT, in fact, have any right to internet access, safe or otherwise. Parents are free to deny their children internet access. If your primary concern is really to keep a child safe from harm on the internet, then simply keep them off the internet.

The primary party responsible for keeping children safe is their parents, not the state.

 

[Poem]

You are operating under a misconception. Children have the right to safety. They do NOT, in fact, have any right to internet access, safe or otherwise.

You say they don't have rights?

UNCRC, Article 17:
States Parties recognize the important function performed by the mass media and shall ensure that the child has access to information and material from a diversity of national and international sources, especially those aimed at the promotion of his or her social, spiritual and moral well-being and physical and mental health.

The Children and Young People's Commissioner (Scotland) states with regard to that article:
Children should be able to access information they can understand on TV, radio, in books and newspapers and on the internet. Governments should make sure children are protected from things that could harm them.
Children and young people should be protected from media that would be harmful to them. This includes:
- pornography

Article 13:
1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child’s choice.

Article 28:
(d) Make educational and vocational information and guidance available and accessible to all children;

Parents are free to deny their children internet access. If your primary concern is really to keep a child safe from harm on the internet, then simply keep them off the internet.

Essentially, you are submitting to the notion that the internet is the right and preserve of adults and thus denying children access to all that is beneficial for them. The internet is mass media and children have a right to access it.

The primary party responsible for keeping children safe is their parents, not the state.

According to the UNCEF:
Ratification or accession signifies an agreement to be legally bound by the terms of the Convention.

Also:
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is an important, legally binding agreement signed by 196 countries (as of 12 July 2022) which outlines the fundamental rights of every child, regardless of their race, religion or abilities.

 

[Poem]

Why don't you deal with it?

The UNCRC has no enforcement authority. No one is legally bound to follow it. There are no penalties for not following it.

#2,759