Support the IEET




The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.



Search the IEET
Subscribe and Contribute to:


Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view




whats new at ieet

3.8 Billion Years of Wisdom: Intelligence in Nature (1 hr)

Bostrom on Superintelligence (2): The Instrumental Convergence Thesis

Boko Haram and the Threat of Islamic Extremism in Africa

Bostrom on Superintelligence (1): The Orthogonality Thesis

Dazed and Confused — The Case for Comprehensive Sexual Education

Soylent Update Keto Version


ieet books

Virtually Human: The Promise—-and the Peril—-of Digital Immortality
Author
by Martine Rothblatt


comments

kevinlagrandeur on 'What is the Difference between Posthumanism and Transhumanism?' (Jul 30, 2014)

kevinlagrandeur on 'What is the Difference between Posthumanism and Transhumanism?' (Jul 30, 2014)

rms on 'Convergent Risk, Social Futurism, and the Wave of Change (Part 2 of 2)' (Jul 30, 2014)

rms on 'The Maverick Nanny with a Dopamine Drip: Debunking Fallacies in the Theory of AI Motivation' (Jul 30, 2014)

CygnusX1 on 'Sherlock Holmes as Cyborg and the Future of Retail' (Jul 30, 2014)

CygnusX1 on 'The Problem with the Trolley Problem, or why I avoid utilitarians near subways' (Jul 30, 2014)

Taiwanlight on 'Building the Virtues Control Panel' (Jul 30, 2014)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



JET

Transhumanism and Marxism: Philosophical Connections

Sex Work, Technological Unemployment and the Basic Income Guarantee

Technological Unemployment but Still a Lot of Work…

Hottest Articles of the Last Month


Nanomedical Cognitive Enhancement
Jul 11, 2014
(6117) Hits
(0) Comments

Interview with Transhumanist Biohacker Rich Lee
Jul 8, 2014
(6005) Hits
(0) Comments

Virtually Sacred, by Robert Geraci – religion in World of Warcraft and Second Life
Jul 3, 2014
(4542) Hits
(0) Comments

What is the Difference between Posthumanism and Transhumanism?
Jul 28, 2014
(4334) Hits
(4) Comments



IEET > Rights > FreeThought > Life > Health > Vision > Fellows > Russell Blackford

Print Email permalink (1) Comments (2169) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


Iceland’s Illiberal Agenda


Russell Blackford
Russell Blackford
The Hell Fire Club

Posted: Feb 18, 2013

This (rather tendentious) article in The Guardian discusses the current initiatives in Iceland to ban certain kinds of online pornography. Before I go any further, let me remind readers that my position on pornography is that I am not against banning or severely regulating specific kinds of pornography if they can 1. be defined (reasonably) clearly and so be (reasonably) fenced off from the wider area of erotic literature and art, 2. be shown to cause ordinary harms in a way sufficiently inevitable, substantial, etc., to justify upstream laws – i.e. laws against activities that are relatively remote in the chain of causation from whatever ordinary harm eventuates.

That is the position on pornography that I sketch in Freedom of Religion and the Secular State, and I discuss it in an earlier post here at the Hellfire Club. Although I see great value in erotic literature and art, I am not such a free speech absolutist that I’m going to defend the legality of all forms of pornography even if a strong case can be made against specific forms (a case based on the ways Millian liberals will assess upstream laws in general).

The problem for anti-porn campaigners is that nothing like a strong case based on 1. and 2. in the first paragraph above has ever been made out. Yes… anecdotally, pornography may indirectly do harm to some people on some occasions by conveying misleading information to others. But that is far from being something that we’d normally see as enough to justify an upstream ban on any conduct. Many forms of communication would be in trouble if we thought that were enough (including religious teachings; much op.ed. material, and even supposedly “straight journalism”; and perhaps the majority of “nice” erotic material aimed largely at a female audience). In the end, I might be critical of a lot of individual pornographic items on aesthetic and even moral grounds, but the case for legal prohibition is weak because the evidence for ordinary harms so serious and likely, etc., as to require an upstream ban is just not there.

Notice the weakness of the research relied on in the Guardian article – for a start, it includes the execrable Gail Dines (who is not only a highly biased researcher, but also a nasty piece of work judging by the way she managed to piss off prominent Australian feminists like Leslie Cannold when she visited here a couple of years ago). It also includes mere speculation by Tim Jones, quoted as if it amounts to evidence.

Once again, I will support severe regulation of certain more extreme forms of pornography if the case is ever made out (including the case that we can draft workable laws… and I don’t demand that these laws provide an unreasonably bright line). It’s troubling, however, that Iceland has apparently introduced severe regulation of hardcopy pornography, has banned strip shows (where is the evidence that that was necessary on grounds that any Millian liberal would find acceptable?), and has banned prostitution (admittedly in the supposedly woman-friendly way that makes only the client, and not the prostitute, guilty of a crime). When you add this up, it looks like an illiberal and anti-sex agenda is being pursued in Iceland.

Given the very problematic case for any of these initiatives, we appear to be faced with a position where emotional reactions to stripping, prostitution, and pornography are being rationalised on new, supposedly liberal, secular, and feminist grounds. That is always a danger – if reasons based on religion and traditional morality cannot be relied on to ban widely disliked activities, new reasons will be contrived, even if the actual case is weak. Unfortunately, this entails that even highly secular countries such as Iceland cannot be trusted to be particularly more liberal, on balance, than religious countries like the United States.

Admittedly, Iceland may be more liberal about, say, social nudity (the American attitude to nudity, as with the notorious Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction incident, seems bizarre). But here we see Iceland steadily pursuing an illiberal agenda relating to sex work and freedom of expression. You can’t assume that secularism in a country’s population will solve all problems of moralism, anti-sex attitudes, and a general wish by governments and electorates to interfere with people’s lives.


Russell Blackford Ph.D. is a fellow of the IEET, an attorney, science fiction author and critic, philosopher, and public intellectual. Dr. Blackford serves as editor-in-chief of the IEET's Journal of Evolution and Technology. He lives in Newcastle, Australia, where he is a Conjoint Lecturer in the School of Humanities and Social Science at the University of Newcastle.
Print Email permalink (1) Comments (2170) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


COMMENTS


I think main point of the Icelandic politicians involved is limiting the access pre-teens and young teens have to violent pornography. That access to such content is now so widespread it could be considered a phenomenon amounting to a massive and global social experiment among countries with developed internet. The icelandic politicians recognise that attempting to block violent pornography is radical (for them as a highly liberal society) and not perfectly workable (which just means that tech-savvy adults will find workarounds), so considering those things I can’t think of a better country to try it. Firstly, they probably have they most egalitarian and smooth working democracy in the world (witness the recent Icelandic revolution) which means that the blocking system is less likely to be abused than elsewhere and also more likely to be overturned easily should it not be popular. Secondly, the social data resulting from the policy will be valuable for comparison over the long term, and more so than from internet-restricted countries less similar to ours.





YOUR COMMENT (IEET's comment policy)

Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: Cyborg Foundation: Extending Human Senses

Previous entry: Are we alone? Probably not, but are we looking in the right place?

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | AFRICAN FUTURES PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 119, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376