The Church of England is threatening to use its financial power to stem the tide of internet pornography.
It is considering withdrawing the millions it has invested in Internet Service Providers (ISPs) unless they take action.
Concern over the easy availability of vile images which demean women and corrupt the young has intensified following the disclosure that Jo Yeates’s killer Vincent Tabak was obsessed with websites showing sexual violence, bondage and strangulation.
The Daily Mail article is quite long, yet there's plenty to be going on with in the above few paragraphs.
Emotive language such as "vile images which demean women and corrupt the young" only serve to distort the truth.
Images showing violence, bondage and strangulation are only 'vile' to certain people. Some folk have a fetish for bondage sex, and as long as it's consentual, fair enough. Most people would not consider them to be vile, even though they wouldn't look at them or practice bondage themselves. People are free to engage in whatever sexual weirdness they want.
These images certainly don't 'demean' women, this is just another righteous term used by those who would try to vilify people involved in consensual sexual activity that they don't approve of. Bondage is a two way thing, and I'm sure Miss Whiplash would not consider herself to be demeaned as she gives forty lashes to the guy in the gimp mask.
As for corrupting the young, children should not be on the internet searching for this stuff (Yes, searching. It doesn't just randomly pop up) and if they are then that is a failing on the part of their parents.
Whatever sexual fetishes Vincent Tabac was viewing on the internet is totally irrelevant. Many killers have used kitchen knives to murder their victims. We don't ban those. There will always be weirdos and crazies who commit acts that normal people wouldn't dream of. It's only when they use things that the government and the righteous don't approve of that we hear talk of bans and regulations. Guns and internet porn must go because if it saves just one life... Kitchen knives, cars and pillows can stay because we like those.
Regulating what consenting adults can view on the internet is no business of the church. You could argue that they have the right to invest their money in any business they choose, but they don't need to be in the Daily Mail calling for regulation and police involvement in order to move funds from one share option to another.
What they are trying to do is use their money and influence to control something which they disapprove of. The ISP's provide an internet connection service, they do not provide the websites that people look at. By heaping pressure on the ISP's, the church is asking for one business to censor another under threat.
Police are under pressure to treat the worst pornography in the same way as child abuse images which are investigated by dedicated teams with substantial resources.
Bondage and fetish porn are in no way the same as child abuse. If adults want to make and watch that kind of stuff then it is up to them
And ISPs such as Virgin Media, BT Broadband, AOL and Sky are under fire for failing to protect vulnerable children from being confronted by shocking images available at the click of a mouse.
It is not the responsibility of the ISP's to protect children, that is the job of the children's parents. Software restricting internet access is widely available for free and it's easy to use. If a parent cannot keep an eye on their children when they are surfing the web then they need to install a program to do it for them. ISP's even provide these programs for free as part of the package. This is further than they are obliged to go and it is more than enough to expect of them.
A Church spokesman said members of its ethical investment advisory group are considering new guidelines on pornography which take into account how easy it is to access with modern media.
It can be very easy to access modern media but that's the key. You have to access it. The church has no business regulating what adults choose to access.
Campaigners claim the seemingly unstoppable flood of hard-core and violent pornography is corroding the very fabric of society.This 'unstoppable flood' has been around since the dawn of the interweb and I have seen no evidence that is is corroding anything. If the fabric of society does collapse it's more likely to be the result of a financial meltdown of western economies, not a bit of S and M.
The Church of England, which wields significant financial clout on the markets, is reviewing investments worth tens of millions.
It refuses to invest in firms which fuel the very problems Christians are trying to tackle and has already leaned heavily on supermarkets to be more responsible in the way they sell alcohol.
There are getting right on the righteous bandwagon here. The Church isn't a fake charity is it? How supermarkets sell alcohol is no more the responsibility of the church than porn on the web is. Christmas isn't far off and the Supermarkets are already beginning their booze offers. Myself and people like me will take advantage of these offers and stock up for Christmas; others, a small minority will abuse booze in the way they have always done.
The righteous would have the booze offers banned, which would not stop the bad element but would heavily penalise people like me who are trying to keep our Christmas bills as low as possible.
Champagne has been slashed to half price as supermarket giants get into the Christmas spirit almost two months early.
Many other drinks have also been reduced as the stores compete for market share in the economic downturn.
Off Licence News reported that Tesco and Sainsbury’s cut 25 per cent off all their wines as well as running a number of half-price deals on champagne.
Good times!
Alcohol is causing irrepairable damage to people and costing the N.H.S.millions but Supermarkets are allowed to reduce prices . No ban on advertising as there is on tobacco products, why can,t Supermarkets reduce these products in price I am sure people won,t start smoking again if they do. Both are bad for the health and the N.H.S.looks like double starndards to me . i AM A TEETOTAL NON SMOKER
- hawkeye, worksop england, 31/10/2011 7:28
More cheap booze. Are food retailers going to pay extra taxes to fund A and E Hospital Wards? Or are the "Lords and Ladies" brewers too far up the Government's rear end in Party donations for this to happen?
- Tony, Wilmslow, 31/10/2011 7:15
The 'cost to the NHS' myth is strong in these ones. Useful idiots!
2 Comments:
Post a Comment