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

[Poem]

If criminalising the making and viewing hasn't worked to stop the internet being awash with child abuse content, how is criminalising i.e banning porn going to achieve your aim of no porn?

We are back to not banning slavery?

When you allow content like barely legal (and violent and misogynistic content) with algorithms that facilitate escalation then it isn't difficult to see where all this is heading. Why are most child sexual abusers in the UK children? Why is VAWG a national emergency?

 

[Ziggurat]

Translation: The pornographers (et al) have won.

Are you under the misapprehension that pornography is the only thing on the internet that's bad for children? If so, you have not been paying attention.

 

[Ziggurat]

The internet isn't mass media?

It's only one form of mass media. Denying them internet is not synonymous with denying them any mass media.

And who the ◊◊◊◊ decided that mass media was a right for children anyways? Mass media companies? Why are you siding with them? They aren't your friends. They are the friends of the pornographers you despise so much. Making mass media a "right" isn't about benefiting children, it's about training a future customer base.

No one has total freedom.

The excuse of every tyrant.

You are denying them their rights.

Not if they aren't rights to begin with.

 

[Ziggurat]

You aren't rewriting history?
Obscene Publications Act 1857
Obscene Publications Act 1959

I don't know why you put the 1959 act in there, that's not relevant to the Victorian era. You're right about the 1857 one, but that happened during the Victorian era (1837 to 1901). So between 1837 and 1857, for a significant part of the Victorian era, there were not any legal prohibitions on pornography in London. Which means he's right, with a caveat.

 

[Ziggurat]

Mandela: There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way in which it treats it's children.

So why did you let gangs rape your children? Seems a mite bit more important to me than internet censorship.

 

[Ziggurat]

Unsubstantiated.

Wait, what? I need to substantiate that comments have no legally binding force?

Yeah, sorry, if you can't figure that one out on your own, I'm not helping you.

 

[Poem]

Are you under the misapprehension that pornography is the only thing on the internet that's bad for children? If so, you have not been paying attention.

Et al, as I stated.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

This thread should be moved to "Humor".

 

[Darat]

We are back to not banning slavery?

When you allow content like barely legal (and violent and misogynistic content) with algorithms that facilitate escalation then it isn't difficult to see where all this is heading. Why are most child sexual abusers in the UK children? Why is VAWG a national emergency?

Non sequitor.

 

[Poem]

Wait, what? I need to substantiate that comments have no legally binding force?

Yeah, sorry, if you can't figure that one out on your own, I'm not helping you.

You haven't substantiated they were mere comments and that the UNCRC is not legally binding.

Here's some details of the consultations that went into the UNCRC digital update:
This general comment draws on the Committee’s experience in reviewing States parties’ reports, its day of general discussion on digital media and children’s rights, the jurisprudence of the human rights treaty bodies, the recommendations of the Human Rights Council and the special procedures of the Council, two rounds of consultations with States, experts and other stakeholders on the concept note and advanced draft and an international consultation with 709 children living in a wide variety of circumstances in 28 countries in several regions.
In March 2019, the Committee invited all interested parties to comment on the concept note of the general comment, and received 136 submissions on the concept note. In parallel, 709 children and young people in 28 countries were consulted.
Regional organizations and United Nations agencies:
Council of Europe
European Union
Organisation of American States
UNICEF - Annex
UNICEF East Asia and the Pacific Regional Office
And the list goes on:

https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/general-comments-and-recommendations/general-comment-no-25-2021-childrens-rights-relation

 

[theprestige]

You haven't substantiated they were mere comments and that the UNCRC is not legally binding.

Nothing issued by the UN is legally binding. It is not a legally binding organization.

Specific implementations of the UNCRC by individual nations might be legally binding, but only in that specific jurisdiction.

Can you explain who is legally bound by the UK's ratification of the UNCRC? Who in the UK is legally liable if the UK fails to fulfill the mandate? If they are taken to court, what is the venue? What is the jurisdiction?

Here's some details of the consultations that went into the UNCRC digital update:
This general comment draws on the Committee’s experience in reviewing States parties’ reports, its day of general discussion on digital media and children’s rights, the jurisprudence of the human rights treaty bodies, the recommendations of the Human Rights Council and the special procedures of the Council, two rounds of consultations with States, experts and other stakeholders on the concept note and advanced draft and an international consultation with 709 children living in a wide variety of circumstances in 28 countries in several regions.
In March 2019, the Committee invited all interested parties to comment on the concept note of the general comment, and received 136 submissions on the concept note. In parallel, 709 children and young people in 28 countries were consulted.
Regional organizations and United Nations agencies:
Council of Europe
European Union
Organisation of American States
UNICEF - Annex
UNICEF East Asia and the Pacific Regional Office
And the list goes on:

https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/general-comments-and-recommendations/general-comment-no-25-2021-childrens-rights-relation

None of that says that the UNCRC as such is legally binding.

 

[Ziggurat]

You haven't substantiated they were mere comments and that the UNCRC is not legally binding.

That's what you're going with?

General commentt No. 25 (2021) on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment:
In this general comment,

I know it's a comment because they SAY it's a comment. That's their own characterization, not mine! And why the ◊◊◊◊ would a comment be legally binding? HOW would a comment be legally binding?

Here's some details of the consultations that went into the UNCRC digital update:
This general comment

Oh, look at that. It's a comment.
And so the hell what? The amount of consulting they did has nothing to do with whether it's got any legal weight to it.

UNICEF - Annex

What's the difference between Michael Jackson and UNICEF?

Michael Jackson likes children.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You haven't substantiated they were mere comments and that the UNCRC is not legally binding.

We don't have to prove a negative. You haven't substantiated that the UNCRC is legally binding. ( Clue: It is not )

You can tout it as the impetus to your obsession with phonography all you want, but your repeated claim that it is legally binding is really getting tiresome.

 

[arthwollipot]

The internet is awash with such content. We have been through this already.

It's already illegal. You can't ban what is already banned.

 

[arthwollipot]

Case in point: this scumbag was found, arrested, and charged with crimes.

Sydney childcare worker charged with creating child abuse material

Over 1 million files were found on the man's devices, with about 550,000 identified as unique images.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Darat]

That's the problem for Poem's wanting all pornography to be removed. If we can't even, to use their description keep the internet from being awash with child abuse content, which is probably considered by most to be one of the most heinous crimes possible how is criminalising all pornography going to work, how will they stop the internet being awash with pornography? This isn't an issue of the perfect being the enemy of the good, we know in the UK when we implemented very strict laws on pornography back when replicating pornographic content was difficult, expensive and resource heavy and the distribution required physical assets to be moved it was still available. Today pretty much all of us can distribute any content to anyone in the world with a few mouse clicks or touches on a screen.

To me there seems to be only one possible way to get to the world Poem wants i.e. one in which the internet is not awash with pornography which is to have devices hardwired so that all content on the device is scanned for being pornographic and blocked if it is judged to be pornographic. That is technologically possible, it would of course not be perfect but as ever perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good.

ETA: The above solution is akin to what I think we need to do to protect kids from the unfiltered internet, form the harm the likes of Meta, X and so on knowingly and by design inflict on kids to make money.

 

[Poem]

That's the problem for Poem's wanting all pornography to be removed. If we can't even, to use their description keep the internet from being awash with child abuse content, which is probably considered by most to be one of the most heinous crimes possible how is criminalising all pornography going to work, how will they stop the internet being awash with pornography? This isn't an issue of the perfect being the enemy of the good, we know in the UK when we implemented very strict laws on pornography back when replicating pornographic content was difficult, expensive and resource heavy and the distribution required physical assets to be moved it was still available. Today pretty much all of us can distribute any content to anyone in the world with a few mouse clicks or touches on a screen.

To me there seems to be only one possible way to get to the world Poem wants i.e. one in which the internet is not awash with pornography which is to have devices hardwired so that all content on the device is scanned for being pornographic and blocked if it is judged to be pornographic. That is technologically possible, it would of course not be perfect but as ever perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good.

ETA: The above solution is akin to what I think we need to do to protect kids from the unfiltered internet, form the harm the likes of Meta, X and so on knowingly and by design inflict on kids to make money.

How would this solution differentiate kids from adults? Maybe I am not following your proposal.

 

[Darat]

How would this solution differentiate kids from adults? Maybe I am not following your proposal.

I've no proposal for how to stop the internet being awash with pornography, it's not an issue I'm concerned about.

What is your proposal to stop the internet being awash with pornography? We know it can't be to simply criminalise pornography since you state that the internet is awash with content depicting child abuse and that is already criminalised.

 

[Poem]

I've no proposal for how to stop the internet being awash with pornography, it's not an issue I'm concerned about.

What is your proposal to stop the internet being awash with pornography? We know it can't be to simply criminalise pornography since you state that the internet is awash with content depicting child abuse and that is already criminalised.

Can you please explain your proposal for kids as I am not following it?

In the same way we have banned slavery, we ban porn. No, that won't be efficacious as has been proven with slavery - but that is no reason not to do so.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've no proposal

Can you please explain your proposal

Never change, Poem. Never change.