Showing posts with label Censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Censorship. Show all posts

April 15, 2016

UK Trying to Censor Anal Sex thru Porn


The UK  government has voiced concern over the amount of young people trying anal sex – as part of a push to regulate porn. The question is why a government should be involved on wether young people have anal or vaginal sex. Actually they don’t seemed concern with young people having vaginal sex and having girls getting pregnant. It’s this bias the UK has against gays and the same idea it taught to its subjects when it was an imperialist government. The same type of thinking that even in India you can’t have the government stop banning same sex marriage even though they have a super large gay population.
Officials are baffled at the increased popularity of the sex act because “research” suggests it is not pleasurable for women. I don’t know what that means! Having sex you find not pleasurable but IM reading from what they said.
According to a consultation document issued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport young people are trying anal sex as a result of having viewed porn, and this is a worry for the government as the act is “unwanted”




Concerns over Anal Sex




Porn may be the cause of young people having anal sex, officials say
 “Many people worry that young people will come to expect their 
real life sexual experiences to mirror what they or their peers see 
in pornography, this often features ambiguous depictions of consent, 
submissive female stereotypes and unrealistic scenarios. 
 There is also a question about the effect of pornography 
on “unwanted sex” – for instance more young people 
are engaging in anal intercourse than ever before 
despite research which suggests that it is often not seen 
as a pleasurable activity for young women,” the consultation reads. 

 The document suggests that restricting access to porn sites might reduce the worrying numbers of people trying anal. 
“While the increase in anal sex cannot be attributed directly to pornography consumption, it does feature in a large percentage of mainstream pornography (for example, one content analysis found it featured in 56% of sex scenes).”
The government’s negative view of anal sex recalls opposition to the practice by Margaret Thatcher, who in 1986 altered an anti-AIDS campaign so as not to acknowledge the act. 
She feared teaching children about “risky sex” would corrupt them, according to leaked secret files. 
Jerry Barnett, porn entrepreneur and founder of the Sex & Censorship campaign, told Pink News: “The consultation is basically an attempt to grant stronger censorship powers. And the suggestion that it is somehow government’s role to prevent anal sex happening is surreal in the extreme.”
“Censorship” being the key word here and as I mentioned before this is no place for the government to be involved with and is something society is being saying for the past 10 years or so this is no place for the government to be.

June 22, 2015

The World against Google on Censorship



                                                                             
                                                                            


Google, once a global bastion against censorship, is having a pretty tough time of it these days. From being forced to comply with Right To Be Forgotten legislation in the EU to pressure from numerous industries to censor results which may violate copyright, Google’s defenses against censorship are crumbling. Even Google themselves – arguably in a very positive move – is taking steps to censor their own results when it comes to “revenge porn” and hacking victims, as previously reported by the Inquisitr.
Now, according to a report from MarketingLand, French privacy regulator CNIL is trying to force Google to (somehow) identify French citizens no matter where they are in the world and implement Right To Be Forgotten for them, censoring search results that would normally only be censored on the local version of Google. Not only is this essentially a technical impossibility, CNIL gave Google two weeks to pull it off, one of which is already gone. It’s unclear what penalties Google will face if they fail to meet CNIL’s demands, but it’s very likely we will be finding out.
As Fortune notes, although censorship on Google isn’t really anything new, other courts than France are starting to force them to make it global – something that Google has to choose whether to acknowledge in every case, with consequences either way. Technically, in most cases, they can refuse, but pushing back too much will bring consequences with it – just as it did when Google refused to censor search results in China in 2010, a decision which has had repercussions for the search giant to this day.
Most recently, a Canadian court attempting to resolve a trademark dispute between two companies issued an order to Google to purge certain links in their global search results, rather than the Canadian-specific page – an order that was recently upheld by an appeals court. As Canadian law professor and blogger Michael Geist notes, this decision could have staggering implications for Google.
“The implications are enormous since if a Canadian court has the power to limit access to information for the globe, presumably other courts would as well. While the court does not grapple with this possibility, what happens if a Russian court orders Google to remove gay and lesbian sites from its database? Or if Iran orders it remove Israeli sites from the database? The possibilities are endless since local rules of freedom of expression often differ from country to country.”
Long-time Google authority Danny Sullivan, of MarketingLand, notes that the implications of this decision stretch even further – specifically, that if certain courts are able to force Google to censor their results globally, they may become “censorship tourism” destinations: courts which would uphold a censorship order that plaintiffs are unable to obtain in their home jurisdictions.
Google has made almost no comment on how they plan to handle the global censorship orders, aside to note that they are “reviewing the decision.” They have some tough choices ahead. However the largest search engine in the world chooses to react to global censorship demands may very well shape the course of history.

 http://www.inquisitr.com 

December 2, 2013

Censorship in Britain






Great Britain is the current scene of dramatic, charged and troubling debates about sexual freedoms and freedom of speech, debates centered on pornography access and the effects of pornography on children. A recent, very large review of academic articles on pornography found that less than 1% of such articles contain empirical, scientific data. But, many children have access to pornography, and "basically, porn is everywhere," argues the report. As a result of this report, and the social concerns about porn access, serious social and technological changes are on the horizon in Great Britain. One of the main changes is that Internet Service Providers will begin filtering porn from everyone's access, unless an individual specifically requests that their ISP turn filtering off. This will require of course, that these individuals identify themselves, to their ISP and those around them, as someone who wants to look at things that others feel they shouldn't. 

 
he arguments for restricting this access are largely based upon protecting children. The efforts seem intended to first, restrict access to child pornography. Starting in 2014, Google and Microsoft will begin filtering their search engines in England, to prevent access to common terms used by those searching for child pornography. However, there's question as to how effective these means will be, given that most people who use or seek out child pornography do so through file-sharing or peer-to-peer systems, and search engines are rarely used in this manner. 
When they're used to detect and prevent child pornography, these methods of restricted access seem moral and justified - who would really argue against it? But, while pedophiles and those interested in child pornography are an easy target today, what is to stop a conservativegovernment from expanding their scope? According to the authors of A Billion Wicked Thoughts, searches for "young," or "teen" pornography are one of the most popular searches, and forms of pornography, on the Internet. Are those who fantasize about sex with teens next (note, the authors of A Billion Wicked Thoughts suggest that finding teens sexually attractive may have a normative evolutionary basis)? And who is next after them? As Jesse Bering argues in his book Perv, at some point, almost all of us fall in some category of sexual deviance.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
 Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) 
Many nonscientific antiporn advocates argue that porn changes peoples' brains, and has an especially damaging impact on the brains of teens. This, combined with research showing that kids are seeing pornography when they shouldn't, supports the argument that kids should be protected from pornography, like arguments that kids should be limited from access to alcohol and tobacco. Unfortunately, these ideas are largely expressions of human fears of sexuality, and are concepts which reflect the manipulative power of pop psychology and moral panics. 
The idea that porn is an addictive, insidious force take root in fertile soil, seeded by centuries of fear and sexual suppression. The ideas thatmasturbation itself is unhealthy can be traced back centuries to European physicians, who argued that masturbation depleted men of crucial energy. We now understand that many of the problems blamed on masturbation and excessive sexuality, from mental health problems or blindness, were actually the result of untreated sexually transmitted infections such as syphilis or gonorrhea. Throughout history, societies go through periods of changing attitudes towards sex, from more liberal “free love” attitudes towards conservative times when sexual expression is restricted. Fear-based ideas such as sex addiction or nymphomania arise in times and societies that are attempting to suppress or control sexuality. Sadly, the medical field has often been an instrument of this control.
Historically, women suffered the most from these dangerous moral medical practices, where women diagnosed as nymphomaniacs were institutionalized, lobotomized, or had their clitorises removed, when doctors determined that these women liked sex too much (as much as men for instance). The diagnosis of nymphomania was finally abandoned and rejected as the medical field acknowledged that these diagnoses were based on culturally-determined gender stereotypes, not on medical or scientific data. 
But today, it’s men’s turn. Between 85-92% of most “sex addicts” are men. The idea of sex addiction came to the fore at the same time that American media and society made a shift in the way that gender was regarded. Beginning in the 1980’s, masculinity became a figure of ridicule. Men were increasingly portrayed as buffoons, subject to the whims of their penises. Penises themselves are most often portrayed as objects of humor, rather than sexual objects comparable to female genitalia. Men today are seen as less moral than women, and male sexual desires are seen as baser, deficient, and dangerous. Men use pornography far more than do women. The new laws and restrictions on sexual access in Great Britain will have a disproportionate impact on males, and particularly gay and bisexual men, who use pornography more than most.
The idea that sex and porn are addictive remains a powerful myth in modern society, because of its usefulness as a social tool. Media and moral groups use this idea to invoke fear, tapping into normal human sexual anxiety. The premise that porn is addictive and inherently damaging to children was used by religious groups to ban Playboy magazine from the shelves of convenience stores, and is used today to invoke fear thatchildhood exposure to Internet porn can create uncontrollable and damaging addictions.
Sex and porn can cause problems in people’s lives, just like any other human behavior or form of entertainment. Teens need sex education, and really shouldn't be getting it from pornography (because porn is entertainment, not education. It'd be like learning to shoot a gun from watching Hollywood action films). But, the current British dialogue invokes fears and feeds a moral panic.
Sex and Censorship is one of the few groups in Great Britain who are standing up to oppose the increasing social slide towards porn panic, a slide which seems destined to engulf free speech and sexual freedoms. With nonscientific rhetoric making up 99% of the articles published on pornography and its' impact on children, it is clear that this is a charged, emotionally-driven issue, which ignores significant empirical research on porn and its' effects.
This issue is also one that is not limited just to the UK. Take note - many of the prominent antiporn advocates being brought to the UK in support of these measures, are coming from the United States. Recent events, apparently involving the United States National Security Agency, have shown that even in the US, modern data surveillance methods can be used to defeat most measures of privacy on the Internet, and justified by pointing to the dangers of child pornography.

by David J. Ley, Ph.D.

November 10, 2012

Face Book Has Censored This Picture


Dana Bakdounes
The controversial photo: Dana Bakdounes holding a sign reading: "I am with the uprising of women in the Arab world because for 20 years I wasn’t allowed to feel the wind in my hair and on my body.” (Facebook)

The group today said Facebook has repeatedly disabled administrators' pages and threatened to annihilate their accounts for sharing Dana Bakdounes's photo, which shows her without a veil but holding a passport in which she is veiled and a sign reading: "I am with the uprising of women in the Arab world because for 20 years I wasn’t allowed to feel the wind in my hair and on my body.” 
The Uprising of Women in the Arab World, a women's rights group based in the Middle East, today accused Facebook of a systematic attack on their group after a photo posted on their page on the website reportedly drew fire. 
Egyptian group activist Sally Zohney told GlobalPost Thursday that The Uprising of Women in the Arab World Facebook page is an important meeting place for the region's women's movement, likening it to the "We are all Khaled Said” Egyptian page at the forefront of the country's recent uprising. That page "became a symbol of change," she said, describing the Arab feminist Facebook movement as "something similar."
Activists said Facebook earlier this month removed Bakdounes's picture over allegedly offensive speech made in the comments section. 
But The Daily Dot cited other reports suggesting the the image had been reported for nudity, with group member Farah Barqawi telling Germany's Detektor.fm today that the photo was pulled because it provoked “misogynists and extremists." Feminist Wire said the photo in question had been reported to Facebook for being “insulting.”
In an email statement to GlobalPost, a Facebook spokesperson said, "Facebook has responded to two reports concerning this page – both relating to posted items. In one instance a photograph was removed in error, but later reinstated. The person who posted it was informed and their temporary block lifted. In the second instance an item was removed because it was reported to us and found to have violated our community standards."
Over 61,000 people support The Uprising of Women in the Arab World's Facebook page, and the feminist collective has used the social networking site to launch a global social media project in which users upload pictures of themselves completing the sentence: "I am with the uprisings of women in the Arab world because..." 
Facebook is actively trying to suppress the sharing of this photo, activists claim, saying they received the following message from the company on Wednesday: 
“You have posted a content that violates Facebook Community Rules, the post says: Follow us on Twitter @UprisingOFWomen. Support Dana with hashtag #WindToDana.”
Activists say they were trying to garner support for Facebook's Oct. 31 re-posting of Bakdounes's photo after the original Oct. 21 post was taken down. It has apparently been removed from their site once again, prompting activists to accuse Facebook of a "direct attack," adding in a press release today: 
"It also raises serious questions about the true intentions behind FB’s policies, and whether Dana’s 'controversial' image is a mere excuse to shut down the voice of the Uprising of Women in The Arab World."
Facebook has targeted five group administrators and imposed several weeks-long blocks of their accounts, disabling their ability to post or manage the site, activists say.
Several attempts to contact Facebook over the issue were met with "no response," according to the group's press release.

globalpost.com

March 24, 2012

Face Book Censored Two Man Kissing } Shot Taken By the Famous Hidalgo

FaceBook Censura la fotografia tomada for Hidalgo

Hidalgo photograph censored by FaceBook
"The images should not refer to political, sexual or other sensitive matters" reads the Facebook Code of Ethics. The photo that announced the project laONG Visible Madrid Cultural Association, seeks gay art house did not comply with this rule. The page, which called for economic cooperation to move forward with a documentary has been removed for violating "the rules of Facebook advertising," the e-mail sent to you Pablo Peinado, creator of the NGO. "For them a kiss between two men is a sensitive issue," laments Peinado.The organizer explained that the photo was taken by the contemporary Spanish artist Juan Hidalgo, an art photographer who has many works in museums and collections around the world. This also used the picture to your wedding invitation and then donated it to the Visible project."I wanted to do a little advertising campaign documentary that took eight years preparing for and received that email. Also, I refer to a code of ethics page straight out of prehistory, "said Peinado.The documentary, shot in Madrid, brings together a thousand works of gay and lesbian donated by over four hundred artists from thirty countries. Hairstyle just wanted to give one more push to get micro-patrons, and that his film is funded through crowdfunding.Aunque part of the documentary is funded by the Spanish Agency for International Development, "this does not cover the entire budget as need at least 3,500 euros extra to pay for other items "as read on the project website."We believe it is important to shoot this documentary to present a unique art collection in the world," communicates Peinado. Through this documentary aims to build a discourse of rights and the fight against homophobia, through culture and identity of the gay community. However, the ultimate goal of this documentary is to find a place to exhibit the work that the association is subsumed under the collective name Visible and turn it into a museum of gay culture.From Facebook have said they will study the case and added that sometimes pages are removed for technical reasons and not for content.In July 2010, something similar happened. Facebook removed a photograph of Robert Mapplethorpe, one of the most celebrated artists of all time, author of the best images of Susan Sarandon, Blondie, Andy Warhol and Patti Smith, as too "explicit". It was the cover of the latest Scissor Sisters album which saw the back of a man holding it with his hands.


"Las imágenes no deben hacer referencia a temas políticos, sexuales u otras cuestiones delicadas" reza el código deontológico de Facebook. La foto que anunciaba el proyecto de laONG madrileña Asociación Cultural VisibleArte gay busca casa, no cumplía esta regla. La página, en la que se pedía colaboración económica para sacar adelante un documental, ha sido eliminada por infringir “las normas de publicidad de Facebook”, según el e-mail que le han enviado a Pablo Peinado, creador de la ONG. “Para ellos un beso entre dos hombres es una cuestión delicada”, lamenta Peinado.
El organizador explica que la foto la tomó el artista contemporáneo español Juan Hidalgo, un fotógrafo de vanguardia que tiene numerosos obras en museos y colecciones de todo el mundo. Este, además, utilizó la foto para la invitación de su boda y luego la donó al proyecto de Visible.
“Quise hacer una pequeña campaña de publicidad del documental que llevamos ocho años preparando y recibí ese correo. Además, me remite a una página de código deontológico que parece sacada de la prehistoria”, sostiene Peinado.
El documental, rodado en Madrid, reúne unas mil obras de temática gay y lésbica donadas por más de cuatrocientos artistas de treinta países. Peinado solo quería darle un empujón más para conseguir micro-mecenas, ya que su película está financiada a través del crowdfunding.Aunque parte del documental está subvencionado por la Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo, “esto no cubre todo el presupuesto ya que necesitamos, como mínimo, 3.500 euros extras para pagar otras partidas”, según se lee en la web del proyecto.
“Creemos que es importante rodar este documental para dar a conocer una colección de arte única en el mundo”, comunica Peinado. Por medio de ese documental pretenden construir un discurso de reivindicación de derechos y de lucha contra la homofobia, pasando por la cultura y las señas de identidad del colectivo homosexual. Sin embargo, el objetivo final de este documental es encontrar un lugar donde exhibir la obra que la asociación tiene englobada bajo el nombre Colectivo Visible y convertirla en un museo de la cultura gay.
Desde Facebook han asegurado que estudiarán el caso y han añadido que a veces se eliminan páginas por motivos técnicos y no por los contenidos.
En julio de 2010 sucedió algo similar. Facebook eliminó una fotografía de Robert Mappelthorpe, uno de los artistas más reconocidos de todos los tiempos, autor de las mejores imágenes de Susan Sarandon, Blondie, Andy Warhol o Patti Smith, al considerarla demasiado “explícita”. Se trataba de la portada del último disco de Scissor Sisters en la que se veía el trasero de un hombre agarrándolo con sus manos.

January 23, 2012

Unimaginable Japanese Censorship on Gay/Homosexual Comics

http://www.weirdasianews.com



Extreme Japanese Censorship: Manga Comics and Homosexuality?

  •  Japanese Manga censors have always collided with the public perception of artistic expression.
censor2 Extreme Japanese Censorship: Manga Comics and Homosexuality? picture
The issue usually concerns “Loli Manga,” the adorable childlike characters that are depicted in potentially erotic situations.
That’s one thing, perhaps, but it’s quite another to claim that sexually aggressive women turn children who read about them into homosexuals and lesbians.
Part of the problem with the censorship law that went into effect in 2010 is the fact that it is very vaguely worded. It permits censorship of any media that “promotes illegal or immoral sexual activity.”
censor1 Extreme Japanese Censorship: Manga Comics and Homosexuality? picture
Censors can interpret those parameters any way they see fit, imposing their own standards onto a medium considered by many to be art.
Of course, the definition of “art” is subject to interpretation as well, and not every Japanese parent may consider beautiful gay boys engaging in erotic situations suitable reading material for their children.
For years, Japanese censors have tolerated manga comic books and animated movies.
Japanese comics are read by adults as well as children and have seeped into pop culture. Fetishes, violent sex, incest and so-called Lolita-porn, or erotic drawings of female childlike characters are common themes, but these comics are also more sophisticated than others of their ilk.
They often explore complex subjects, including business, war and politics. A manga version of Marx’s Das Kapital recently made it into print, joining Tolstoy’s War and Peace, Hitler’s Mein Kampf and Shakespeare’s King Lear.
Manga has never been accepted by the conservative element in Japanese society as it is considered “unwholesome.” A genre called boys’ love aimed at younger women depicts idealized, homo-erotic relationships between young men.
The impact of such material on children has been a controversial sore spot for years, much like the American debate concerning violence on television and its ramifications on young minds.
Violent manga and anime have been cited in the trials of several notorious Japanese serial killers, but the truth is that sexual and violent crimes are comparatively rare in Japan.
The latest complaint about manga pushes the envelope into the realm of the weird and totally ridiculous. It concerns those manga scenes depicting women as sexual aggressors.
The logic behind this complaint defies reason as it suggests that women who take the lead in sexual matters are making children understand that this means they will develop sexually as homosexuals.
In consequence, conservative politicians may well cripple one of Japan’s few growth industries with their absurd censorship laws.
Fear of homosexuality cannot be legislated or un-legislated, for it comes from a cosmos of ignorance and prejudice from where, without an honest appraisal of one’s own fears, there can never be an escape.




Amazon SearchBox Use it for All Meerchandise

The Forest Needs help

Summer Athlete

Adamfoxie Blog Int.

Adamfoxie Blog Int.
Amazon

ONE

ONE
Relief World Hunger

Taylor Made 2016 Family Clubs

Click Here To Get Anything by Amazon- That will keep US Going

Amazon EcHo

Blog Archive/White No# Stories per Month/year

Popular Posts

Everyday at the Movies

Orangutans ARE Part of the Forest

The Gay Man in You♥ or Him