NationStates Jolt Archive

This propasal needs backing up, IMHO (it can be found on page 13 of the proposal list):

Internet Website Restrictions

A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency Strength: Mild Proposed by: Knoppe
Description: This is a proposal to the United Nations to ask that there be put to use strong policies enforcing the protection of our youth by creating stronger and more throrough walls between our young people and morally indecent websites. Pornographic material should demand a valid credit card number and expiration date in order to validate whether the viewer is 18 years of age and willing and intending to view said material. Other websites with content equally innappropriate for young people should have similar checks and tests.

And it should be made illegal for inappropriate material to be placed on these pages that request said information from viewer; it will not protect our children if they still see pornographic material on a popup or on a terms + conditions page, becuase they have not yet even proven they are of the necessary age to view the content.

This proposal is not shady nor is it a motherly request to "Think of the Children." THis is common sense; our children should not see such inappropriate materials until they are either of age or until their parent or guardian considers them responsible enough to view such content.

It will better the world and our image if we take these appropriate steps in securing our future and keeping the virgin minds of our young clean of corrupt and indecent behavior.

As a firm believer of freedom of speech you do not have my support.

I don't like internet porn, this is my personal taste, but other people do and I don't believe in forcing my tastes on other people.

Generally speaking porn doesn’t attack you and make you watch. Pop up windows can be closed and spam deleted.

Enforcing an age limit is not a good idea. People reach maturity at different times and different cultures make people 'adults' at different points in there lives. I don't believe that the UN should pass laws with a concrete age.

I don't feel that things should be censored just because a child might see. Should a book aimed at adults contain no sex, violence, or even swearing? If parents don't want their children to see porn then supervise them, why should they force their sensibilities on to others?

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Pornographic material should demand a valid credit card number and expiration date in order to validate whether the viewer is 18 years of age and willing and intending to view said material.

Or whether they've borrowed their parents' credit cards when they weren't looking. From a secutiry point of view it's doomed to failure anyway - effectively you are asking credit card companies to certify that their customers should be able to view pornography.

And it should be made illegal for inappropriate material to be placed on these pages that request said information from viewer;

How will you enforce this? You cannot prevent the material from being hosted - at most you can prevent your citizens from viewing it, China-style, through government-run internet filters.

it will not protect our children if they still see pornographic material on a popup

Pop-ups? Surely everyone by now is using either a browser add-on or a browser that blocks pop-ups (http://www.mozilla.org)?

It will better the world and our image

The world's image? To who - Christian aliens? :wink:

We're not a society that believes we should pretend to kids that sex doesn't exist until they reach majority. The only danger to children from pornography is that it's unrealistic.

Pornographic material should demand a valid credit card number and expiration date in order to validate whether the viewer is 18 years of age and willing and intending to view said material.
Safalra, it's not my proposal, but Knoppe's. I just support it and try to attract the attention it IMHO needs. If it were up to me, I'd ban all pornography and sexual explicit (or less explicit) material.

Pop-ups? Surely everyone by now is using either a browser add-on or a browser that blocks pop-ups?
I'm sure you're aware that a certain company holds a near monopoly on all things concerning operating systems etc. Most people use InternetExplorer, which doesn't block pop-ups, as far as I know (I can be wrong about that, of course.).


We're not a society that believes we should pretend to kids that sex doesn't exist until they reach majority.
Banning pornography for children is not pretending sex or sexuality doesn't exist, it's keeping the excesses away from them. They should be taught by their parents what sex and sexuality is all about, not by websites (or TV, for that matter).

As a firm believer of freedom of speech you do not have my support.

I don't like internet porn, this is my personal taste, but other people do and I don't believe in forcing my tastes on other people.

Generally speaking porn doesn’t attack you and make you watch. Pop up windows can be closed and spam deleted.

Enforcing an age limit is not a good idea. People reach maturity at different times and different cultures make people 'adults' at different points in there lives. I don't believe that the UN should pass laws with a concrete age.

I don't feel that things should be censored just because a child might see. Should a book aimed at adults contain no sex, violence, or even swearing? If parents don't want their children to see porn then supervise them, why should they force their sensibilities on to others?

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

The honored representative to the UN from The New Black World has the complete agreement of Nutballistan in this matter.

And, as easrlier stated, there exists free software that is designed to block popups.

Banning pornography for children is not pretending sex or sexuality doesn't exist, it's keeping the excesses away from them. They should be taught by their parents what sex and sexuality is all about, not by websites (or TV, for that matter).

That's a cultural opinion.

What if your parents believe sex should only be for procreative purposes? What if they're hopeless prudes and make some vague comment about the birds and the bees and always turning the light out first, and leave it at that?

Institute it in your own country if you must, but we'll have no part of it.

Why don't we just do this:

GET RID OF THOSE WEB SITES COMPLETELY!!!!! :x

Pop-ups? Surely everyone by now is using either a browser add-on or a browser that blocks pop-ups?
I'm sure you're aware that a certain company holds a near monopoly on all things concerning operating systems etc. Most people use InternetExplorer, which doesn't block pop-ups, as far as I know (I can be wrong about that, of course.).

There are a number of IE add-ons that block pop-ups (and some new front-ends that added tabbed browsing too). What I don't get is why the IE monopoly remains - two reasons people are afraid to switch from Windows to Linux are the difficulty of installation and not having access to all their old documents, but Mozilla (http://www.mozilla.org) (especially the browser-only version, Firefox) is easy to install (after the download it takes less than a minute), easier to use (you'll wonder how you ever did without tabbed browsing), and more W3C-standards compliant than IE - not only does it display all same pages as IE correctly, but it gets some right that IE gets wrong, like CSS Edge.

They should be taught by their parents what sex and sexuality is all about, not by websites (or TV, for that matter).

My parents never talked about sex with me, and I'm glad they didn't as they're conservatives and it could have given me some strange ideas...

Hey, I didn't say that - that was Romanum Imperium.

Hey, I didn't say that - that was Romanum Imperium.

Please accept my most humble apologies, it appears that I mucked up the quoting...

The only danger to children from pornography is that it's unrealistic.

Tell me about it. The lesbian community in Mackintosh are exceptionally pissed off by all the girl-on-girl sites on the internet. And they should know, after all.

Although I can appreciate the moral standpoint the honourable member from Romanum Imperium is trying to take, I am unable to support this proposed resolution. The Telidian government firmly believes in freedom of speech and in the civil liberties of its citizens and we feel this type of governmental control only exasperates the issue you are trying to combat. Furthermore the age of consent of varying nations differ greatly, by passing this resolution we will be forcing nations to adopt a standardised age of consent across all member states.

I feel this issue a matter for national governments alone and the UN has no privy in this area. It is not for the UN to police the individual behaviour of citizens in sovereign nations as the honourable member from Rehochipe rightly states, this is a cultural issue and therefore a matter for individual governments alone.

We completely agree that the protection of nations younger citizens is of outmost importance to any government. However, we ask the honourable member to consider, is it right for an international body to decree how parents in other nations should raise their young?

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

* In case any-body has not noticed, and as my post was lost last night, as it always is so after 10:00 PM here ...

There actually is a NATIONAL ISSUE for this.

Is so. It gives 3 options, the option of monitoring who looks at certain ... material, the next is blocking it completely from being viewed in your nation, or, lastly, proudly stating the only thing we have to fear is pop up advertising and leting people look at and or display what they want on the net. Or you could just ignore it all. As with any issue.

Now, why again is this a U.N. matter ? :roll:

Might I add, not every-body wants some ones elses MORAL opinion rammed down their throat. I'd figured maybe some more people would get that by now.

:wink:

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
File Photo
Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ...

That's a cultural opinion.

What if your parents believe sex should only be for procreative purposes? What if they're hopeless prudes and make some vague comment about the birds and the bees and always turning the light out first, and leave it at that?
Pornography being an excess of sex(uality) is not a cultural opinion. It's fact.
In most countries, children/teenagers are also educated on this subject on school. Besides, I think seeing pornographic material on websites is no better sex-education than a vague birds-and-bees story of one's parents.

What I don't get is why the IE monopoly remains
The fact is, this monopoly does exist and not many people download these add-ons, not most parents at least.

I feel this issue a matter for national governments alone and the UN has no privy in this area. It is not for the UN to police the individual behaviour of citizens in sovereign nations as the honourable member from Rehochipe rightly states, this is a cultural issue and therefore a matter for individual governments alone.
There are manny matters issued by the UN in NS which would be in RL considered to belong to the jurisdiction of the sovereign states. For example, the highly debated 40 hours working week resolution.

Now, why again is this a U.N. matter ?
Why was the 40 hour work week a U.N. matter?

I'll go over it when it's time to vote on it.

Why was the 40 hour work week a U.N. matter?

I don't know. Maybe ask the delegates who voted it onto the open floor ?

:wink:

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "

Romanum Imperium wrote:
"There are manny matters issued by the UN in NS which would be in RL considered to belong to the jurisdiction of the sovereign states. For example, the highly debated 40 hours working week resolution."

Honourable member of Romanum Imperium, I feel it is a little folly to counter my point by stating a previous resolution. It fails it to answer my question, how is this within the privy of the UN? I am finding it hard to reconcile how the UN, an international body, can possibly involve itself in telling nations what their individual moral standards of decency or behaviour should be.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

Well basically, due to the nature of The UN, whatever we choose to make our business is our business.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Honourable member of Romanum Imperium, I feel it is a little folly to counter my point by stating a previous resolution. It fails it to answer my question, how is this within the privy of the UN? I am finding it hard to reconcile how the UN, an international body, can possibly involve itself in telling nations what their individual moral standards of decency or behaviour should be.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia
Honourable UN Ambassador of HM Government of Telidia,

I pointed to a previous resolution, because the UN is considered to be a World Government and hence seems to deal with any question proposed which gets enough votes to be put up for a Resolution. In my own opinion, the resolution I pointed at was not within the privy of the UN. But as things stand, that resolution got passed and is implemented. I, therefore, see no reason why this proposal should not be put up for a vote as to be implemented. Moreso, because I agree with the content of it.

Yours,
Gaius B. Agricola,
Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Earendilyon, Caesar Elevatus et Dictator Imperatorque Romani Imperii

Honourable UN Ambassador of HM Government of Telidia,

I pointed to a previous resolution, because the UN is considered to be a World Government and hence seems to deal with any question proposed which gets enough votes to be put up for a Resolution. In my own opinion, the resolution I pointed at was not within the privy of the UN. But as things stand, that resolution got passed and is implemented. I, therefore, see no reason why this proposal should not be put up for a vote as to be implemented. Moreso, because I agree with the content of it.

Whilst I note the honourable member’s opinion on the last resolution, I don’t see how one can argue the two points in tandem. This is a completely different proposal and surely deserves to be debated on its own merits, besides your proposal and the previous resolution are on two completely different topics.

I would be grateful if the honourable member could direct himself to the question at hand and provide an answer accordingly. I would ask for him to refrain from using an opinion (which can be debated) on previous resolutions and back up his argument within the confines of this proposal itself. How does this specific proposal have any privy in the UN, when as I previously stated, it has no right to police the morality or the standards of decency in individual nations?

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

Just to hammer my point home. :D

There actually is a NATIONAL ISSUE for this.

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "

And?

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Whilst I note the honourable member’s opinion on the last resolution, I don’t see how one can argue the two points in tandem. This is a completely different proposal and surely deserves to be debated on its own merits, besides your proposal and the previous resolution are on two completely different topics.

I would be grateful if the honourable member could direct himself to the question at hand and provide an answer accordingly. I would ask for him to refrain from using an opinion (which can be debated) on previous resolutions and back up his argument within the confines of this proposal itself. How does this specific proposal have any privy in the UN, when as I previously stated, it has no right to police the morality or the standards of decency in individual nations?

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia
Honourable UN Ambassador of Telidia,
I've already pointed out the merits of the proposal itself in earlier responses. You can read them in this very discussion.
As to why I pointed to the resolution passed a few days ago, is because that resolution also affected the national policies of the UN member states. It also polices the morality of certain nations in all the UN member states, whether they agree with the resolution or not. So, as I see it, the UN concerns itself (concern themselves) with internal national matters. On that plane, the resolution pointed at and this proposal are not different; only their contents are. They both infringe upon the internal policies of UN member states.
Although I have certain negative feelings about this infringement, the situation is as it is. I therefore support this proposal, so as to further the ethical health of all UN member states, and especially that of their youth.

Yours,
Gaius B. Agricola,
Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Earendilyon, Caesar Elevatus et Dictator Imperatorque Romani Imperii

There actually is a NATIONAL ISSUE for this.
There's also a natinal issue about euthanasia, but still there was proposal for legalising euthanasia which was voted into a resolution, was passed and put into effect. What's the difference?

There's also a natinal issue about euthanasia, but still there was proposal for legalising euthanasia which was voted into a resolution, was passed and put into effect. What's the difference?

Well, to my memory, to sum it up,

" Stuff up "

It got onto the voting floor before any of us with a mind to do so actually did notice and by then it was too late for a Moderator to pull the plug on it, they can't pull them out if they hit open member voting if I remember correctly.

Also, if its already a recognised national issue, its considered a matter of precedent usually and the ability to choose over-rules the need to make a "one choice only" proposal, plus, come to think of it, I don't think Moderators can pull out issues as well, I don't think they can, any-way, I may be wrong on that one.

Hope that helps though. :wink:

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "

It got onto the voting floor before any of us with a mind to do so actually did notice and by then it was too late for a Moderator to pull the plug on it, they can't pull them out if they hit open member voting if I remember correctly.

Also, if its already a recognised national issue, its considered a matter of precedent usually and the ability to choose over-rules the need to make a "one choice only" proposal, plus, come to think of it, I don't think Moderators can pull out issues as well, I don't think they can, any-way, I may be wrong on that one.

Hope that helps though.
As you can see below my name, I'm rather new here and I didn't know the background of that euthanasia resolution, nor how all things work exactly. Also, I didn't know that a national issue takes precedence over UN proposals. If that's so, I'll withdraw my support for this proposal, as it goes against game mechanics.

I'm sure you're aware that a certain company holds a near monopoly on all things concerning operating systems etc. Most people use InternetExplorer, which doesn't block pop-ups, as far as I know (I can be wrong about that, of course.).

This is NationStates. As it states somewhere in the UN rules, things that exist in RL don't exist here necessarily. So the argument that the IE browser holds a monopoly in our nations is simply invalid.

"There are manny matters issued by the UN in NS which would be in RL considered to belong to the jurisdiction of the sovereign states. For example, the highly debated 40 hours working week resolution."

That shouldn't have been a UN matter, either, as others have said.

Pornography being an excess of sex(uality) is not a cultural opinion. It's fact.
In most countries, children/teenagers are also educated on this subject on school. Besides, I think seeing pornographic material on websites is no better sex-education than a vague birds-and-bees story of one's parents.


You say that porn as an excess of sexuality is a "fact". Then you back it up by saying something completely irrelevant (school education) that, even if it were relevant, would STILL be a fallacy because everything they teach in school may or may not be correct. And even after that: in MY school they never taught me anything about porn, anyway. Then you go on to back up your "fact" with something you yourself confess to be an opinion by saying "I think"

You say that porn as an excess of sexuality is a "fact". Then you back it up by saying something completely irrelevant (school education) that, even if it were relevant, would STILL be a fallacy because everything they teach in school may or may not be correct. And even after that: in MY school they never taught me anything about porn, anyway. Then you go on to back up your "fact" with something you yourself confess to be an opinion by saying "I think"

Theodonesia, if you read the context, it will be maybe more clear to you what I meant:

That's a cultural opinion.

What if your parents believe sex should only be for procreative purposes? What if they're hopeless prudes and make some vague comment about the birds and the bees and always turning the light out first, and leave it at that?
Pornography being an excess of sex(uality) is not a cultural opinion. It's fact.
In most countries, children/teenagers are also educated on this subject on school. Besides, I think seeing pornographic material on websites is no better sex-education than a vague birds-and-bees story of one's parents.

My statement that pornography is a factual excess was a reaction on Rehochipe's remark that it is a cultural opinion. It was an statement, the rest of my comment was not to back this statement up, but to comment on the second part of Rehochipe's post.
My comments regarding school lessons on sex(uality) (so, NOT pornography) was a reaction on Rehochipe's questions about getting no real sex education from one's parents. I stated that, next to parents giving sex education, most kids get this at school. This education at school is in my opinion (my former "I think"-statement) better than getting "sex education" through websites containing pornographic material. Once more, this was not meant to back up my statement that porn is an excess.

As you can see below my name, I'm rather new here and I didn't know the background of that euthanasia resolution, nor how all things work exactly.

Don't worry, I under-stand, and am more then glad your being so civil about it all, many more new players, when they learn things won't go their way on certain topics straight away, get a little ... nasty. Its a pleasure to talk with you by any measure, :wink:

Also, I didn't know that a national issue takes precedence over UN proposals. If that's so, I'll withdraw my support for this proposal, as it goes against game mechanics.

Well, not exactly what I meant, well it is, kinda.

I mean by the "precedent idea", that many people find if there is already a national issue available on an topic then there is proof that nations have had the game ordained right to decide with those available options on how to handle such an issue. I don't know if its an actual rule per-say, but it is quite important to remember, lest we end up with another "euthanasia still able to decide on counter to Int. law" debacle again ...

:)

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "

Don't worry, I under-stand, and am more then glad your being so civil about it all, many more new players, when they learn things won't go their way on certain topics straight away, get a little ... nasty. Its a pleasure to talk with you by any measure,

Well, I may be rather new here, but not at some other boards, so I know some thing or two of board ethiquette. Besides, I'm not someone who freaks out when things wouldn't go my way. Never been a n00b, several times a newbie, though :) I always try to uphold a certain basic level of politeness. There should be more people acting thus IMHO :)

:roll: I know, if only my personal frying-pan threat was physical :wink:

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "

I don't see a problem with making a proposal from national issues, after all the purpose of the UN is 'mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest.'

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

I don't see a problem with making a proposal from national issues, after all the purpose of the UN is 'mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest.'

I agree. IMHO, this game is more fun when we attack controversial issues, it makes for more interesting debate, and many of those topics are already issues.

Pornography being an excess of sex(uality) is not a cultural opinion. It's fact.
In most countries, children/teenagers are also educated on this subject on school. Besides, I think seeing pornographic material on websites is no better sex-education than a vague birds-and-bees story of one's parents.

We already mentioned that the worst danger of porn was that it's unrealistic. Our point was a general one; that some cultures (our own included) believe that more than just cold hard information is necessary to give individuals a healthy attitude to sex. If it's a taboo subject (illustrated, perhaps, by people scuttling around shutting down naughty websites) then children are going to get the impression that there's something wrong about sex.

So, in conclusion: cultural opinion.

We already mentioned that the worst danger of porn was that it's unrealistic. Our point was a general one; that some cultures (our own included) believe that more than just cold hard information is necessary to give individuals a healthy attitude to sex. If it's a taboo subject (illustrated, perhaps, by people scuttling around shutting down naughty websites) then children are going to get the impression that there's something wrong about sex.

So, in conclusion: cultural opinion.
My point is, that banning pornography is not tabooing sex or sexuality, but ridding society of the excesses of sex and sexuality. I don't consider pornography as belonging to a "healthy attitude to sex" but a cold hard exploitation of it.

My point is, that banning pornography is not tabooing sex or sexuality, but ridding society of the excesses of sex and sexuality. I don't consider pornography as belonging to a "healthy attitude to sex" but a cold hard exploitation of it.

My point is, in order for it to be considered an excess you already need a taboo.

Can be cold hard exploitation. Doesn't have to be.

I don't see why there's needed a taboo on sex(uality) for pornography to be considered an excess of it.
Maybe I'm oldfashioned in this respect, but I connect sex with love, whereas many people nowadays predominantly connect it with lust (and, sometimes, also a bit with love, but not first and foremost).

To me it depends on the situation. Why would banning pornography help.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

This resolution would not even be enforceable. There is parental control and monitoring software available that can accomplish this task. Seeing as how the internet is world-wide, seeing as such a resolution only effects UN nations, and seeing as how all nations are not in the UN. Parents should use the available resources and products to police their children if this is a problem, not the duty of the gov't.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

Sex can be about love, it can be about lust, it can be about power or friendship or boredom or your Auntie Josephine. It's not for the government to decide which are legitimate and which aren't.

There's also a natinal issue about euthanasia, but still there was proposal for legalising euthanasia which was voted into a resolution, was passed and put into effect. What's the difference?


Actually there was never a resolution that legalized euthanasia. The resolution was in the form of a questions "Why don't we?" not in the form of force. Might I note that the Republic of Tekania is both a UN member, and has decreed Euthanasia as illegal....

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")