Porn platforms argue they are not Canadian content and should not be regulated
Pornography platforms are not happy to be included in the scope of the Online Streaming Act, also known as Bill C-11, and are arguing that the federal government should exempt them from being considered Canadian content.
I mean...they do have a point.
Why should they be treated like videogames? Are they not video content?
''Akshually, our product involves manipulating a joy-stick.''
Figuratively correct.
"Ok, Schlomo. But no."
Porn - Canada's cultural endeavor.
I'm forced to defend their ability to communicate with minors because I want complete liberty in the exchange of information.
To fight against govt censorship I must support the purveyance of the obscene to the innocent??
Fuck. Everything.
Why must stopping "the purveyance of the obscene to the innocent" be considered censorship?
Another pitfall of freespeech absolutism.
Now, if you want to fight this through an argument based around a State's power that'd probably be easier. The lists and things required to prohibit users from accessing xxx material as the UK was talking about, for a basic example off the top of my head.
A fascist state could simply define the industry and shackle it directly without trying to turn citizen rights into one-size-fits-all legislation for corporations and narratively duck-taping that to the concept of individual rights
The biggest pitfall of free speech absolutism is how completely retarded it is.
It's not, kids accessing porn is infamous for being unavoidable and the only thing we can do is ban kids from using porn accounts and participating in fetish communities.
Anything else such as advanced age verification is a massive security/privacy risk that cannot be tolerated.
On the most basic level yeah it's "censorship" but free speech absolutism is retarded and no sane person believes in it.
If the gov was bringing in regulations to require age verification for porn sites I'd support it, just like I support banning alcohol ads to children. If porn or liquor ads were banned for adults I'd oppose it, like I oppose the banning of cigarette ads- if they're so terrible why are they legal and you're collecting massive taxes on them?
I mean, there are these things called "parents"
The idea of giving parents a harder time protecting their children is a politically easy solution, but it’s not conducive to a good, successful society.
The idea of turning the state into a nanny yadda yadda
The laws of the state should reflect the morals of the society. The power of the people collectivized in the state is often more efficient at achieving widespread results than individual effort. Propagators of obscene material in public are offenders who can easily do harm to large numbers of people but cannot be easily stopped without state authority.
Have you learned nothing? People can be easily manipulated if you frame everything as a moral issue. Muh troons, muh abortion, muh truckers are evil, etc.
This is Castro Jr's powergrab
Nice one, Anita
The fact that people can be manipulated isn’t so much a problem of framing issues as moral issues but rather of people’s lack of a moral center, which arguably could be a result of loss of religion. Morality serves to facilitate a successful society. If laws aren’t based on morality, then what are they based on?
You should elaborate on how these statements are wrong.
People don't lack a moral center, there's some sort of power vacuum, which is different. Said power vacuum is being taken advantage of by leftists.
No, Anita Sarkeesian is wrong
Yes, that is literally how every fight against government censorship starts. They take the targets you feel gross being with because it sets precedent and foundation, and then they use that foot in the door to kick it open.
Nothing about the concept of free speech implies that you have to let perverts show hardcore porn to children. It's a 105-115 IQ libertarian take, much like the idea that it would somehow be bad to arrest and silence every communist in the US or that urban black people should have the same access to guns that non-black people do. No principle worth following obligates you to let yourself be destroyed to follow it.
Only if you've bought into the insane and wrong idea that porn is speech.
Speech conveys information. Porn does not. Speech is constructive to a healthy society. Porn is wholly destructive upon society, at every magnitude of scale.
The people who pushed the erroneous idea that porn is speech, are the same people pushing porn and other Weimar degeneracy. You've fallen victim to their false choice trap, through rebranding/redefining of words, to mean what they never meant, to obfuscate topics and confuse people.
It's perfectly justifiable and logical to allow free speech, but to ban porn.
I made a lengthy comment about this a while ago that I can dig up if you like. It goes into more detail about why porn isn't speech.
Now let's define porn and obscenity
Porn: people having sex acts and/or nude degeneracy on camera for the purpose of masturbation/arousal of the viewer. It's also a form of control (ponder why Israel pushes free porn through TV airwaves in Palestine).
Obscenity (in this context): Degeneracy being pushed on the people for the sole purpose of corrupting them.
Porn, degeneracy, and "obscenity" in your reply are identical in their purpose, to weaken, corrupt, and control the populace, so the people in power can attain more power over the people and implement their plans.
There's art that depicts nudity that wouldn't be banned under free speech laws, because the purpose is clearly different from porn. One is creative and adds beauty. The other is destructive. Most rational people can discern the difference, even if not told, that there's a distinct difference just in the content and purpose. As example, look at the ancient Greek and Roman statues.
To be fair to the point that I'm assuming you're trying to make, there are obviously variations in views about where the line is between porn and speech, but that doesn't negate that there's a distinction and that the line exists, that the purposes are different.
If someone is unwilling to differentiate between porn and speech under the false assumption that infringing on porn will infringe on speech, especially under the current conditions of the world, in both degeneracy and open censorship of speech already, then they're deluding themselves, to the point of idiotic self destruction, and opening up their people to be permanently controlled, idiotic mass suicide.
https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-fig-leaf-story-sin-censorship-catholic-church
The point is that the line isn't as cut and dry. There have always been media that toe the line between porn and art.
Is The Witcher porn? GoT, the old GoW, or some shit like Shimoneta, Redo of a healer, hell. Even the Skull girls panty shots can be considered too gratuitous, that's the excuse labzero used to remove them
I never said it was, only that the line exists, and is apparent to anyone willing to reasonably self reflect, especially those who defend degeneracy in media, like the examples you provided, because they "like" the show/movie/media it's in, which compels them to defend everything within it, for some reason. I don't agree with everything in every show I watch or book I read, even my favorite ones.
Is the Witcher porn? It has needless nudity and sex scenes to sell the product and push degeneracy. It's softcore porn, but it is porn. The same with Game of Thrones.
I'm not sure what other shows or media you're referring to.
In any case, this kind of "entertainment" wasn't common or needed until recently. It's a new phenomenon, pushed by the people in power to control us. Are you suggesting that we need nudity and sex in our entertainment for it to be entertaining?
I am suggesting we don't need moral bussibodies policing media.
Yeah, that's what I thought. Time is a fucking flat circle
that's why we should push for bill c-11?
People have a right to enforce their will in whatever group they're in, including on a national scale. People are also free to secede and form their own groups more to their liking. Just because people are being prevented their natural rights doesn't prove you right.
You're defending the "live and let live" libertarian mentality that's enabled the entirety of this evil to flourish, because you think us enforcing our will is being a "moral busybody", while the evil people in power are allowed to push their will on us. You hamstring your own people. You're not against the people in power who enforced their will on us, to get us to this point. You're against us enforcing our will to revert this degeneracy and evil. You're defending the status quo, which is enabling the entirety of Western civilization to accelerate toward collapse.
Why?
I haven't followed the specifics of that bill. Why is it bad? The mainstream articles only say that it promotes Canadian content in Canada, which by itself isn't bad, but mainstream articles never tell people the whole truth, or just outright lie.
Who owns PornHub? MindGeek Who owns MindGeek? Jews Where is MindGeek's head office? Montreal
Oy vey.
Porn websites have been intentionally distributing to minors for decades now. They can go fuck themselves and every single employee should be forced to register as a child sex offender.
Porn is bad for everyone, to be sure.
It is. But unfortunately every attack against it is being done by people who are more than happy to let children keep getting fucked, and are only crusading to set themselves up to control even more of your life.
Nah, Morality in Media hates troons too
Comment Reported for: Rule 12 - Falsehoods
Comment Approved: This is an opinion
If only tradcucks offered something more than "half-kill yourself for other's sake and you will get something eventually, probably"
It's better than the fruits of porn.
Porn has existed since forever...
My point, is that tradcons are innefective at influencing society at large. Sure, the system is still broken and men are still miserable but they got rid of porn, so you can't... I don't know what are they trying to achieve here, they oppose porn on principle.
Not to mention they are innefective at getting rid of porn at large, but hey, you made Pornhub change their mom tag to step-mom, so that's something. Not to mention you made it easier for corpos to scrap data
Sin has existed forever, yes.
Ah, you are one of those. Tell your big guy I'm not responsible for the acts of that Adam guy and should have been born in paradise free of sin
It's not your place to say how you should have been born.
Fuck porn hub. They nuked like 1/2 the content from the site. They have no leverage.
You may want to read this and Google whose side Morality in Media is
https://www.pornhub.com/blog/the-latest-on-our-commitment-to-trust-and-safety
Pornhub did that because they started forcing people to prove they were the source of the content.
Just cause some bitch said some dude post videos of her and allegedly was underaged. But then porn hub took down video, but the bitch was like "i wanna make sure it wont happen to others". And then mastercard got involved...
And payment processors are now the gatekeeper.
The most powerful weapon known to man will stay legal.
Fuck these cocksuckers, sex trafficking supporting pieces of shit. And the less porn Canadians have access to the better. We need less degeneracy and less men addicted to this shit.
Porn platforms shouldn't be regulated by C-11, but neither should anything else. It's a pure power grab, trying to apply laws that are only justified by the scarcity of analogue over-the-air television to a medium where you can watch any part of any video on any channel on any website at any time.
So STFU and move the company out of Canada. It's not like any of their "talent" works on site anyway.