Friday, March 12, 2010

The nitty-gritties of titties on the web


Whatever your views on pornography may be, allowing the government to censor porn on the Internet would have catastrophic results for our right to freedom of expression. LegalBrief ran an article this morning after the FPI's (The Family Policy Institute) request to government to have additional restrictions placed on pornography, with the ultimate intention of introducing an absolute ban on pornography in public media, cellphones and the Internet. This comes in response to Multichoice's consideration of a 24-hour pornography channel, which has received mixed responses. Department spokesperson Bayanda Mzoneli is quoted as saying that 'pornography is addictive and breeds many ills in society including breaking families, abuse of women and affects the addicts psychologically'.

I do not purport to be an expert in the field of the psychological effects of pornography and I could well be wrong. However, the fact that there is a correlation between pornography and sexual abuse does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that pornography is in fact the cause of the abuse. Furthermore, there seems to be as of yet an inconclusive (and here) result as to whether there is a correlation. I also think that the break-up of families, sexual abuse and the poor treatment of women and children indicates a far deeper issue in society and social cohesion, and it is a cop-out to blame it on pornography. It allows for the parties perpetrating these crimes, or not taking their familial responsibilities seriously, to abdicate their own blame and responsibility in that situation.

However, the legal issue is of more concern to me here. How far are we willing to allow censorship to go? As far as the Chinese government, where there are approximately 30 000 Internet police? Where blogs, chat rooms, Internet forums are monitored and erased? Where there is reportedly the highest number of journalists and cyber-dissidents imprisoned in the world? I am wary of a paternalistic state especially in the context of freedom of expression. This right is probably one of the most important rights to grace our Constitution and is fundamental to any functioning democracy. We just need to look to the recent events where Mr Maxwele was arrested for zapping the President to see that we may be treading a fine-line in turning this right into a white elephant. I, for one, am not in favour of no longer being able to express my opinion, no matter how uninformed or counter-majoritarian it may be. I sincerely hope that the powers that be feel the same way.

*Note: in a quick search we found that our blog was as of yet insignificant and thus not censored in China. However, we'll monitor this situation once the blog is posted and let you know if we are blocked.

4 comments:

  1. Errol Naidoo, the one-man Family Policy Institute, is also an A-class bigot who responded to the Civil Union Act with a loopy, "The signing into law of the Civil Union Bill on 30 November 2006 signals the beginning of the death of democracy in South Africa."

    Find out more about this constitutional threat at http://www.familypolicyinstitute.com*

    *Warning: you may lose your lunch, or start spitting blood.

    ReplyDelete
  2. http://failblog.org/2010/03/12/headline-fail-6/

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks Sanja. This is an eye-opener. Firstly, FPI does not seem to understand democracy at all. They also fail to uphold the distinction between church and State. It is very worrying when someone who obviously has a lot of media power is able to misconstrue fundamental constitutional objectives in the name of the 'family'. They also claim to base their beliefs on the extensive research, which they do themselves. I wonder how accurate this data is or whether it has been skewed by only 'researching' or interviewing people with similar sentiments.

    ReplyDelete