Name: Theus Grey 2013-07-22 17:06
There are people in all of our lives who we do not want to perceive as sexual beings and those that we don’t wish to perceive us as sexual beings. This has led to a social taboo over many matters of human sexuality and David Cameron has recently struck out against one aspect in particular – pornography.
We don’t want our parents, children, siblings, friends, co-workers, or often even significant others to know that we watch porn and they don’t want us to know that they do the same. However, it is perfectly normal and even if we don’t want to discuss it or admit to it: we, as a nation, watch porn. David Cameron is proposing a mass censorship of pornography on the internet, a censorship which will apparently affect 95% of UK internet users. Of course, we are given the choice to opt out of this if we are the internet account holder within a particular household but given the taboo nature of pornography, what brave account holder over a shared network is willing to essentially proclaim “I have chosen to watch porn”? This policy will violate our sexual privacy and open our sexual natures to harsh criticism from prudish hypocrites, like Cameron, who are afraid of their own sexuality.
The internet is a vast amalgamation of all the things that people all over the world have chosen to share with each other. It connects us all and allows us to find information and entertainment - to access what we might otherwise have difficulty accessing; the internet is beautiful. To censor the internet is to censor essential parts of the human condition. If we allow Mr. Cameron to suffocate our sexuality with such censorship, how long will it be before we are deprived of information that we “ought not to know” or entertainment that is deemed “unsuitable”? How long before censorship is non-optional? This law will set a precedent by which our government will gain an unthinkable degree of control over the information that we, in the UK, are able to access. Are we to follow in the footsteps of North Korea?
David Cameron also seeks to outlaw “extreme pornography”, such as that which depicts rape, entirely. His reasoning being that “extreme pornography” “normalises sexual violence against women”. By extension, I put it to you that our nation should not be allowed to access any media that involves violence, unlawful activity, or sexuality. Say goodbye to rap music, Die Hard, and Sex and the City. Say goodbye to Cosmo, Call of Duty, and Fifty Shades of Grey. These, too, “normalise” undesirable societal behaviours such as violence, sex and general unlawful activity. We can even go so far as to censor the newspapers; their reports of horrific happenings all over the world “normalise” these events. It is normal for human beings to derive entertainment from simulations of such things, even if they’re not acts we would perform ourselves. Millions of people have seen the Die Hard series and lived ordinary, murder-free, lives.
All that being said, Cameron has hypocritically declined to censor page 3 of The Sun newspaper because "In the end, it's an issue of personal choice whether people buy a newspaper or don't buy a newspaper." This argument obviously does not extend to the internet, where the simple act of visiting Google will cause you to be bombarded with rape imagery and a plethora of sexually deviant images. No. It’s an issue of personal choice whether people search for pornography or don’t search for pornography. I suspect the real reason Cameron refuses to censor The Sun is a financial one.
Why is the government wasting time on pornography laws when most of us can agree that there are far more important issues they should be tackling? Politicians have been paid and will be paid for implementing a frankly useless law. Even ignoring my argument thus far, the younger generations, whom Cameron claims to be protecting, are likely tech savvy enough to use a simple proxy server to circumvent any restrictions placed on their web browsing. These are generations raised by technology.
Cameron has made his move and now we must let him know we will not tolerate sexual oppression. We must not allow this law to be passed.
We don’t want our parents, children, siblings, friends, co-workers, or often even significant others to know that we watch porn and they don’t want us to know that they do the same. However, it is perfectly normal and even if we don’t want to discuss it or admit to it: we, as a nation, watch porn. David Cameron is proposing a mass censorship of pornography on the internet, a censorship which will apparently affect 95% of UK internet users. Of course, we are given the choice to opt out of this if we are the internet account holder within a particular household but given the taboo nature of pornography, what brave account holder over a shared network is willing to essentially proclaim “I have chosen to watch porn”? This policy will violate our sexual privacy and open our sexual natures to harsh criticism from prudish hypocrites, like Cameron, who are afraid of their own sexuality.
The internet is a vast amalgamation of all the things that people all over the world have chosen to share with each other. It connects us all and allows us to find information and entertainment - to access what we might otherwise have difficulty accessing; the internet is beautiful. To censor the internet is to censor essential parts of the human condition. If we allow Mr. Cameron to suffocate our sexuality with such censorship, how long will it be before we are deprived of information that we “ought not to know” or entertainment that is deemed “unsuitable”? How long before censorship is non-optional? This law will set a precedent by which our government will gain an unthinkable degree of control over the information that we, in the UK, are able to access. Are we to follow in the footsteps of North Korea?
David Cameron also seeks to outlaw “extreme pornography”, such as that which depicts rape, entirely. His reasoning being that “extreme pornography” “normalises sexual violence against women”. By extension, I put it to you that our nation should not be allowed to access any media that involves violence, unlawful activity, or sexuality. Say goodbye to rap music, Die Hard, and Sex and the City. Say goodbye to Cosmo, Call of Duty, and Fifty Shades of Grey. These, too, “normalise” undesirable societal behaviours such as violence, sex and general unlawful activity. We can even go so far as to censor the newspapers; their reports of horrific happenings all over the world “normalise” these events. It is normal for human beings to derive entertainment from simulations of such things, even if they’re not acts we would perform ourselves. Millions of people have seen the Die Hard series and lived ordinary, murder-free, lives.
All that being said, Cameron has hypocritically declined to censor page 3 of The Sun newspaper because "In the end, it's an issue of personal choice whether people buy a newspaper or don't buy a newspaper." This argument obviously does not extend to the internet, where the simple act of visiting Google will cause you to be bombarded with rape imagery and a plethora of sexually deviant images. No. It’s an issue of personal choice whether people search for pornography or don’t search for pornography. I suspect the real reason Cameron refuses to censor The Sun is a financial one.
Why is the government wasting time on pornography laws when most of us can agree that there are far more important issues they should be tackling? Politicians have been paid and will be paid for implementing a frankly useless law. Even ignoring my argument thus far, the younger generations, whom Cameron claims to be protecting, are likely tech savvy enough to use a simple proxy server to circumvent any restrictions placed on their web browsing. These are generations raised by technology.
Cameron has made his move and now we must let him know we will not tolerate sexual oppression. We must not allow this law to be passed.