Require ISPs to Make Porn an Opt-In Feature
Not only is this petition pointless (other than perhaps being able to give yourself a high-five for having high morals), this is disturbing to me because it highlights a fundamental lack of understanding--not only about the function of government--but about freedom and morality. And that is why, as much as it pains me to say, I opt for porn. Before you get your indignant little typing fingers ready, finish reading this post.
First, I cannot fathom why so many people trust the Government to get involved with legislating the internet in any way, shape, or form. Think about it. This is the U.S. Government we are talking about. The same Government that robs you on a daily basis, kills innocent people abroad, violates rights held sacrosanct by the very documents that led to its inception, and can't even design an effective website to facilitate a much-lauded transition into socialized healthcare. And your plan is to allow this Government to start regulating what you can and cannot see on the internet?
Never mind that such a petition might well allow the government to start invading the last bastion of free speech, we all know from experience that if the Government actually got a hold of the aforementioned power, it would surely end in a debacle. The US Government is unfortunately the reverse King Midas of doing anything beneficial. But, you say, "Porn is wrong! Why should I be subjected to possibly seeing it? We legislate other things that are morally wrong, why not this?"
This leads to my second point, morality is something that should be taught in the home, not enforced by the Government (taught by force). Meaning, if you think pornography to be reprehensible, teach your children and others about its follies. Educate yourself, be proactive, donate your money to awareness campaigns. You have the right to do so. You are free to do so. But unfortunately the same freedom that allows you to stay away from pornography, also allows other, equally free citizens to voluntarily produce and view pornography. That is true freedom. Anything else is veiled oppression. This might be inconvenient to those with strong senses of what is right and wrong, but freedom is, and always has been, a two-way street.
So it is with free speech. Which is exactly what protects pornography. The first amendment wasn't created to protect slogans on the side of cereal boxes. It was created to protect that which is unpopular, as well as everything else. By protecting everything, no one is oppressed, and we are allowed to choose what we want to look at and read and listen to, even if it is unpopular, especially if its unpopular. And thank God for this, because it is this same reasoning that allows me to practice my religion according to the dictates of my own conscience, and for everyone else to do the same.
Consider the implications of the government trying to legislate according to moral beliefs. Since no two people have the exact same moral sense, who then should the government listen to? And how does one prove that a certain way of thinking is superior to another? But as I think about it, this is not a hypothetical, many of the most heated debates in Washington are about moral issues that should not even be discussed, but at some point in the past the Government over-stepped its bounds and we are now dealing with the fallout. But I digress.
Finally, some may have bristled when I called the petition pointless. But it remains true. This petition is pointless because porn is already "opt-in." Very rarely do I accidentally see pornography on the internet. If something suggestive appears that you didn't click on, close it. My petition (as well as yours) should happen with your index finger clicking that little 'x' in the corner. And it is not as if every webpage you navigate to has half the screen taken by naked women, if this were the case I might see the point in such a petition. And if there are naked people on your screen, you are visiting pornographic websites. In case you didn't know. I also have the AdBlock add-on for Google Chrome and I have installed K9 Internet Filtering. It is a free program that filters your internet locally; there is absolutely no need for the Government to get involved.
Saying that you need the government to babysit you and your children is exactly the kind of attitude that has gotten us to this point. Take the initiative. You are not a victim, and government is not the solution.
 |
| If three wise monkeys can do it, so can you. |
Exellent post DJ....wish more people understood this!
ReplyDeleteYeah I have dozens of friends posting about this on facebook, and while I agree with them that pornography is bad, I have the same views as this post--I don't want to give the government power over my internet usage or anything. Pornography is only the start, but what's to say they won't continue with other things? I use k9 too and it's great. I have never had porn pop up on my screen and see no good reasons for the government to control this. Great post, thanks.
ReplyDeleteLove Ya Deej! SO GREAT.
ReplyDeleteNailed it
ReplyDeleteFor me, this is an interesting paradox, because conservatives, who are generally anti-federal government (VERY basically, I know it is more complex than this) are, from your perspective, pushing for more government intervention (in between cursing Obama and his healthcare reform).
ReplyDeleteI didn't sign the petition, but I've seen it on Graydon's feed a lot, too, and I honestly hadn't formed a concrete opinion about it. I don't really see it as government control, though. The way I interpreted the petition, it seemed like they were asking for legislation to be passed that would require internet providers to be more responsible/honest in how they provided the internet. Requiring the internet providers to offer an opt-in feature is different than giving the government the power to deny pornography to all its users. Plus, isn't there already government-sanctioned internet monitoring going on?
One of my really good friends happened on pornography when he was seven years old. Now, I agree- teach your kids how to react to it, install internet controls individually, be a responsible parent in general. But your perspective neglects the children who don't have parents who are there, who don't have parents to give guidance and teach them. Are we not our brothers' keepers? Should we not extend protection to as many children -- even some under the age of accountability -- as we can? My friend couldn't even be baptized yet, and that habit, started so early, has been a plague to him throughout his life. Of course I support the idea to 'just close out' the browser, and I've had to a couple times in my life. But the part of our brains that dictates reason doesn't even develop completely until we're about twenty-five, so how can we expect every young person to react with the same reason, devoid of the natural impulses that are well developed, neurologically, at a much younger age?
To be continued… :)
From my perspective, this is less about taking away the rights of adults, and more about protecting the rights and innocence of our children. I agree that freedom of speech is an essential right granted by our constitution, but I don't view that as the issue in this case. I think, in the case of pornography, the rights of the constitution can be denied once they infringe on the rights and safety of others. People who solicit this material aren't law-abiding, honest men. They aren't just advertising it where it's obvious what it is. One of their aims is to catch people unawares; they don't care the age of the person they ensnare.
ReplyDeleteI wish I could find the article (perhaps you can), but I remember reading, a while ago, an article written by a man who had been in the pornography industry, and now goes around the UK interviewing young kids and teaching them about the dangers of pornography. Believe it or not, there are already restrictions in the US that prevent pornography from showing up in advertisements on Facebook -- a lot of the kids in Britain are first subjected to it there, or when their friends post videos. Should we also remove those restrictions because they give the government too much power over our freedoms?
I'm sure you remember that I am a little more liberal than… anyone in Utah (at least it seems like it). :) I want to emphasize that I really support personal responsibility of parents for their children. We have to teach them young, about the difference between pornography and the beautiful and sacred nature of intimacy. We have to do everything in our power to protect them in our homes(and I love that K9 also can be installed on tablets/smart phones). But I don't see the danger in having sanctions that protect my children's friends(or any other child), who perhaps have an overworked, exhausted single mom who can't be there to watch over them when they get home, and may not have considered the dangers of the computer in their home.
I understand what you're trying to say, and I think much of it is valid. I just wanted to throw in some differing perspectives. :) Thanks, DJ.
This is awesome. I agree with the general populace of commenters on this, as well as the many who have posted the "Opt-In" petition, that porn is damning. However, I'm very much on your side that the petition is a silly option. I don't even have filters on my computer, and in the 4 years I have owned it, I can't even recall a time that a pornographic page popped up. I don't want government telling me what I can or can't look at on the internet, just as much as I don't want them telling me what kind of movies or tv shows to watch. If people really want to take a stand against porn, which I applaud those who do, stop watching movies that have sex scenes. I wish I could recall which apostle challenged us to "turn off those damning soap operas." People buy video games where the characters have sex. It sells. That's why it's all over. So in my opinion, if you want to take a stand, stop buying into it. (Note: I am not accusing anyone of watching porn, just a societal observation)
ReplyDelete