Debate surrounds the topic of whether pornography on the internet should be regulated by law. There are many ethical reasons and especially the assumed right of choice as to why pornography is an important reflection of the right of free speech in society. On the other hand there are many adverse consequences that can result from Internet Service Providers allowing pornography to be accessible through the internet. Pornography is an industry that caters to basic human instincts and generates much revenue.
Pornography can be seen as weakening the emotional relationships in society by diminishing the ties of affection, love and sex. This can be viewed as altering the relationship between men and women thus having effects on the family structure. In games such as Second Life avatars are engaging in sexual encounters and ‘apparently’ this is a large part of the game which does in fact appeal to many people who take part. How ‘real’ can this simulated sex be though?? If a person is married in the ‘real world’ and their avatar has sexual relations with another avatar is this considered cheating?
I know if I found my partner on Second Life having sexual encounters with another avatar I would feel disheartened I mean as there is a person on the other end of the engaging avatar there must be some sort of human gratification (??) involved.
Much mainstream pornography through its gendered discourse has elements of objectification, submission and violence However, there are problems associated with proven causation between the consumption of pornography and subsequent behaviours and attitudes.
For those suggesting censorship or mass content filtering there must be justification and some compelling evidence of a correlation between pornography (or cybersex) and harmful attitudes/ behaviour. It is not just a case of moral preference in choosing to consume (or not to consume) such media but in fact due to social implications.
The Rudd Government has proposed compulsory internet censorship based on filtering out materials deemed inappropriate at Internet Service Provider level. Those opposing the Government’s attempts to impose a nationwide filter say that it will not help to stop illegal behaviour such as child abuse but will have implications such as filtering out important materials and slow down the internet and make it more costly. They say that society has a right to free speech and that censorship in a liberal democratic society is unethical and dangerous. In their view, there is doubt whether such proposals would achieve the intended goals because much illegal material is actually traded on the black market through the internet.
The debate over filtering is inadequate. The evidence for significant and extended adverse consequences is poor. However, there may be compelling reasons for social control once we understand the causal relationships involved. The debate seems not to have encouraged further research to provide any relevant evidence. The filtering technologies are poor and if applied, with handicap all internet uses, irrespective of the material they are trying to access and view.
For the time being filtering software at user level and personal responsibility may be the answer because such a response is a private and individual approach that has no further social constraining impact and presumably maximises the outcomes preferred by the individual for their own benefit.
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/08/10/adult6_wideweb__470x381,0.jpg
http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs30/f/2008/103/0/f/McGeek___Cybersex__by_Rimfrost.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment