Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New Europe)   EU voting a ban on pornography, 'Eliminating Gender Stereotypes in the EU' is the innocuous title of a report that sounds like the sort of thing few would object to, but as Swedish Pirate MEP, Christian Engstrom notes, the devil is in the details   (neurope.eu ) divider line
    More: Scary, Christian Engstrom, self-abuse, right to protest, sex ratio, stereotypes, genders  
•       •       •

1980 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Mar 2013 at 12:19 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



83 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-03-07 09:28:13 AM  
I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.
 
2013-03-07 09:32:34 AM  

Voiceofreason01: I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.


I bet you are oppressing a woman right now!
 
2013-03-07 09:56:09 AM  
He seems to go into greater detail about this on his blog, but it looks like the contentious wording is from a resolution already in place from 1997, and his issue is that re-using the language in this day and age, since "media" covers the internet as well, is problematic.
 
2013-03-07 11:24:50 AM  
I am constantly fascinated and amused when political leaders and those calling for governmental action literally know zilch when it comes to certain aspects of technology.

So when it comes to internet pornography...yeah that cat is out of the bag and is not going back in...ever...
 
2013-03-07 11:30:38 AM  

Endive Wombat: So when it comes to internet pornography...yeah that cat

pussy is out of the bag and is not going back in...ever...

FTFY?
 
2013-03-07 11:30:58 AM  

Endive Wombat: I am constantly fascinated and amused when political leaders and those calling for governmental action literally know zilch when it comes to certain aspects of technology.

So when it comes to internet pornography...yeah that cat is out of the bag and is not going back in...ever...



No, no, I totally know a site where they do that.
 
2013-03-07 12:21:58 PM  

Snarfangel: Voiceofreason01: I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.

I bet you are oppressing a woman right now!


Yes, but only with his penis.

/won't someone think of the kittens?
 
2013-03-07 12:25:15 PM  
Is amateur porn ok?
 
2013-03-07 12:27:10 PM  
No, subby. the devil isn't in the details. The Devil in Miss Jones.
 
2013-03-07 12:28:16 PM  

Voiceofreason01: I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.


EU Free speech rights.


It's always funny when Americans think they're the only people in the world to have rights. /I don't have to carry my driving licence, or any ID, with me. Or have to tell a cop my name if he asks.
 
2013-03-07 12:30:22 PM  

Flint Ironstag: Voiceofreason01: I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.

EU Free speech rights.


It's always funny when Americans think they're the only people in the world to have rights. /I don't have to carry my driving licence, or any ID, with me. Or have to tell a cop my name if he asks.


2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

hmm... freedom-y
 
2013-03-07 12:30:37 PM  
They should have just called it the "Violence Against Women" act.

Who the hell would vote against that?
 
2013-03-07 12:32:15 PM  

Flint Ironstag: /I don't have to carry my driving licence, or any ID, with me.


We only have to carry a driver's license if we're driving. You can wander around here without ID all you want.
 
2013-03-07 12:33:48 PM  
"Eliminating Gender Sterotypes"

Like that men have penises and women have vaginas?
 
2013-03-07 12:33:52 PM  

Flint Ironstag: Voiceofreason01: I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.

EU Free speech rights.


It's always funny when Americans think they're the only people in the world to have rights. /I don't have to carry my driving licence, or any ID, with me. Or have to tell a cop my name if he asks.


Oh, and from your link: "for the protection of health or morals."

Morals? Whose morals?
 
2013-03-07 12:34:17 PM  
What kind of misogynist would vote against "Eliminating Gender Stereotypes"?
 
2013-03-07 12:34:21 PM  
I say we get one of the SoCal porn studios to hire about a half a dozen Euro hotties, dress them up in these suits, and have them suck off some homeless dudes on tape.

Then send a few hundred copies to the EU for "research purposes"

conservativehome.blogs.com
 
2013-03-07 12:35:00 PM  

vygramul: Flint Ironstag: /I don't have to carry my driving licence, or any ID, with me.

We only have to carry a driver's license if we're driving. You can wander around here without ID all you want.


My point was I don't have to carry any ID even when driving. My DL lives in my fire safe at home. Haven't seen it for years.
 
2013-03-07 12:36:42 PM  
Wait, is nudity "porn" now?  I can never keep track.
 
2013-03-07 12:37:00 PM  
Maybe they just want to curtail the shiat that comes from Germany?
 
2013-03-07 12:37:16 PM  
The ban is on objectifying women in advertising.  The industry had 15 years to police themselves, they didn't, and now the EU parliament is stepping in.

If you think it's OK that skinny women (and only skinny women) are used to advertise the majority of product out there, that women are shown in subservient, smiling roles in this advertising, and that there has been no forward progress (and indeed increased objectification in some regards) in 15 years, well... perhaps the EU isn't the place for you.

I'm not surprised that the Internet party wants to keep women naked and objectified in the media.
 
2013-03-07 12:37:17 PM  

skullkrusher: Flint Ironstag: Voiceofreason01: I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.

EU Free speech rights.


It's always funny when Americans think they're the only people in the world to have rights. /I don't have to carry my driving licence, or any ID, with me. Or have to tell a cop my name if he asks.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

hmm... freedom-y


US First Amendment:
Freedom of speech does not include the right: To incite actions that would harm others (e.g. "[S]hout[ing] 'fire' in a crowded theater."). Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). To make or distribute obscene materials. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest. United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968). To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988). Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986). Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event. Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

Seems appropriate to the subject at hand....
 
2013-03-07 12:37:55 PM  
EU voting a ban on pornography, 'Eliminating Gender Stereotypes in the EU' is the innocuous title of a report that sounds like the sort of thing few would object to, but as Swedish Pirate MEP, Christian Engstrom notes, the devil is in the details Miss Jones.

/old school
 
2013-03-07 12:38:08 PM  

Crunch61: Wait, is nudity "porn" now?  I can never keep track.


And taking a photo of your child covered in bubbles in the bath with only their eyes and mouth visible is child porn
 
2013-03-07 12:39:58 PM  

Flint Ironstag: skullkrusher: Flint Ironstag: Voiceofreason01: I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.

EU Free speech rights.


It's always funny when Americans think they're the only people in the world to have rights. /I don't have to carry my driving licence, or any ID, with me. Or have to tell a cop my name if he asks.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

hmm... freedom-y

US First Amendment:
Freedom of speech does not include the right: To incite actions that would harm others (e.g. "[S]hout[ing] 'fire' in a crowded theater."). Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). To make or distribute obscene materials. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest. United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968). To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988). Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986). Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event. Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

Se ...


yet we make a whole shiatload of porn. We can criticize religion. Some might call that immoral. Would be a shame if such people came to power in the EU.
 
2013-03-07 12:40:50 PM  

Unemployedingreenland: EU voting a ban on pornography, 'Eliminating Gender Stereotypes in the EU' is the innocuous title of a report that sounds like the sort of thing few would object to, but as Swedish Pirate MEP, Christian Engstrom notes, the devil is in the details Miss Jones.

/old school


If it falls out, I will punish you.

beat ya to it though

No, subby. the devil isn't in the details. The Devil in Miss Jones.


 
2013-03-07 12:40:54 PM  

Bored Horde: The ban is on objectifying women in advertising.  The industry had 15 years to police themselves, they didn't, and now the EU parliament is stepping in.

If you think it's OK that skinny women (and only skinny women) are used to advertise the majority of product out there, that women are shown in subservient, smiling roles in this advertising, and that there has been no forward progress (and indeed increased objectification in some regards) in 15 years, well... perhaps the EU isn't the place for you.

I'm not surprised that the Internet party wants to keep women naked and objectified in the media.


What about TV sitcoms where the common, go-to stereotype for men is a wimpy, doofy, and stupid loser who has a wife that's always got a quip, a rebellious teenage daughter...

Shouldn't we be doing something about that too?
 
2013-03-07 12:41:07 PM  

Flint Ironstag: My point was I don't have to carry any ID even when driving. My DL lives in my fire safe at home. Haven't seen it for years.


Interesting... if you lend your car to someone who gets pulled over, how do they issue a violation?

/I bet Olivier Klozov at 123 Milchstrasse is getting tired of all those tickets showing up in the mail...
 
2013-03-07 12:41:48 PM  

Snarfangel: Voiceofreason01: I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.

I bet you are oppressing a woman right now!


Oppressing women gives me the weirdest Boehner.
 
2013-03-07 12:42:54 PM  

vygramul: Flint Ironstag: Voiceofreason01: I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.

EU Free speech rights.


It's always funny when Americans think they're the only people in the world to have rights. /I don't have to carry my driving licence, or any ID, with me. Or have to tell a cop my name if he asks.

Oh, and from your link: "for the protection of health or morals."

Morals? Whose morals?


If you think American laws aren't crafted on morality you're blind.
 
2013-03-07 12:43:18 PM  

skullkrusher: Unemployedingreenland: EU voting a ban on pornography, 'Eliminating Gender Stereotypes in the EU' is the innocuous title of a report that sounds like the sort of thing few would object to, but as Swedish Pirate MEP, Christian Engstrom notes, the devil is in the details Miss Jones.

/old school

If it falls out, I will punish you.

beat ya to it though

No, subby. the devil isn't in the details. The Devil in Miss Jones.


Missed it.  Hat's off to you sir.

/shakes tiny impotent fist
 
2013-03-07 12:46:30 PM  

skullkrusher: yet we make a whole shiatload of porn. We can criticize religion. Some might call that immoral. Would be a shame if such people came to power in the EU.


So the EU "morals" clause must be "ban everything!" but the US "obscene" clause isn't really anything?

Strange, it's almost like both the US and the EU rely on courts to decide what the letter of the law means....
 
2013-03-07 12:47:20 PM  

Endive Wombat: Bored Horde: The ban is on objectifying women in advertising.  The industry had 15 years to police themselves, they didn't, and now the EU parliament is stepping in.

If you think it's OK that skinny women (and only skinny women) are used to advertise the majority of product out there, that women are shown in subservient, smiling roles in this advertising, and that there has been no forward progress (and indeed increased objectification in some regards) in 15 years, well... perhaps the EU isn't the place for you.

I'm not surprised that the Internet party wants to keep women naked and objectified in the media.

What about TV sitcoms where the common, go-to stereotype for men is a wimpy, doofy, and stupid loser who has a wife that's always got a quip, a rebellious teenage daughter...

Shouldn't we be doing something about that too?


The woman in that sit-com has no agency beyond enabling her husband and children, and cleaning up their messes.  She's also universally a woman between Size 0-6, and has a husband that ranges from slender and athletic to fat and slovenly.  Her children are boys and girls of various sizes and inclinations.

Are you sure you want to keep using this example?
 
2013-03-07 12:47:38 PM  

Bored Horde: vygramul: Flint Ironstag: Voiceofreason01: I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.

EU Free speech rights.


It's always funny when Americans think they're the only people in the world to have rights. /I don't have to carry my driving licence, or any ID, with me. Or have to tell a cop my name if he asks.

Oh, and from your link: "for the protection of health or morals."

Morals? Whose morals?

If you think American laws aren't crafted on morality you're blind.


And in the EU we don't go apeshiat if someone sees a nipple on TV...
 
2013-03-07 12:48:39 PM  
The point is, that as access to material through technology changes, bigger societal issues change.  20-30 years ago access to "pornography" for most people, including teens, was maybe a Playboy centerfold with the girl's leg covering her privates.  Young people had difficulty accessing this material because they had to physically acquire it but could not legally buy it retail.  While not banned in many places, it was understood that it was harmful and degrading to women and thus should not be tolerated in polite society.  In the age of the internet pornography has come to mean something much much different: violent, misogynistic rape-simulation where young people are exposed to material like sadomasochism, mock-suffocation, torture, "fisting" and eating of human wastes.  Some strong measure of control is required and it's better to err on the side of caution than to risk children being heavily influenced by the most extreme aspects of fringe human sexuality, which could result in a generation of adults desensitized to sexual violence and perversion.
 
2013-03-07 12:51:03 PM  

Flint Ironstag: skullkrusher: yet we make a whole shiatload of porn. We can criticize religion. Some might call that immoral. Would be a shame if such people came to power in the EU.

So the EU "morals" clause must be "ban everything!" but the US "obscene" clause isn't really anything?

Strange, it's almost like both the US and the EU rely on courts to decide what the letter of the law means....


"immoral" is a good bit more encompassing than "obscene". Like anything, as long as it is applied in a way that society feels is acceptable (I don't think there's a broad support for legalized neo-nazi speech) it doesn't pose much of a problem.
 
2013-03-07 12:51:45 PM  
I have the weirdest boner...
 
2013-03-07 12:53:05 PM  
Bored Horde:

Are you sure you want to keep using this example?

Look, sex sells.  This is no mystery.  To 99.9999999% of the population this is more attractive/exciting/enticing:

www.whitegadget.com

than this:
1.bp.blogspot.com

...and there is nothing wrong with acknowledging this fact.
 
2013-03-07 12:56:10 PM  

skullkrusher: Flint Ironstag: skullkrusher: yet we make a whole shiatload of porn. We can criticize religion. Some might call that immoral. Would be a shame if such people came to power in the EU.

So the EU "morals" clause must be "ban everything!" but the US "obscene" clause isn't really anything?

Strange, it's almost like both the US and the EU rely on courts to decide what the letter of the law means....

"immoral" is a good bit more encompassing than "obscene". Like anything, as long as it is applied in a way that society feels is acceptable (I don't think there's a broad support for legalized neo-nazi speech) it doesn't pose much of a problem.


The point is that both are up to the courts to decide where the line falls. Both the US and the UK, for example, have laws restricting free speech in certain areas, whether it's called morality or obscenity, the courts can decide what that means in individual cases.
The fact that both countries have fairly freely available porn suggests both courts have taken a similar view. The fact that it in the US that such a big deal was made of Nipplegate while in the UK the biggest selling newspaper has a topless woman on page three every day and no one bats an eye suggests it is the US that is less free.
 
2013-03-07 12:59:05 PM  

Endive Wombat: Bored Horde:

Are you sure you want to keep using this example?

Look, sex sells.  This is no mystery.  To 99.9999999% of the population this is more attractive/exciting/enticing:

[www.whitegadget.com image 850x637]

than this:
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 300x384]

...and there is nothing wrong with acknowledging this fact.


It's almost as though there was a term for an artificial constraint imposed on a discussion, where a spectrum is reduced to two extreme choices...

I wonder what they'd call that.  Perhaps the false dichotomy.
 
2013-03-07 01:00:12 PM  

Flint Ironstag: The fact that both countries have fairly freely available porn suggests both courts have taken a similar view. The fact that it in the US that such a big deal was made of Nipplegate while in the UK the biggest selling newspaper has a topless woman on page three every day and no one bats an eye suggests it is the US that is less free.


no, it suggests the US is more prudish.
 
2013-03-07 01:03:03 PM  

Flint Ironstag: Voiceofreason01: I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.

EU Free speech rights.


It's always funny when Americans think they're the only people in the world to have rights. /I don't have to carry my driving licence, or any ID, with me. Or have to tell a cop my name if he asks.


that's search and seizure, not free speech...and yes we Americans are doing a lousy job in that area.
 
2013-03-07 01:07:46 PM  

skullkrusher: Flint Ironstag: Voiceofreason01: I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.

EU Free speech rights.


It's always funny when Americans think they're the only people in the world to have rights. /I don't have to carry my driving licence, or any ID, with me. Or have to tell a cop my name if he asks.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

hmm... freedom-y


It's like the "void where prohibited" style of mouse print when you buy a goddamn cell phone.
 
2013-03-07 01:08:02 PM  
I can't wait for the Daily Mail story on this.

Politically correctness gone mad, The Europeans are stopping us from wanking.

Then prime minister's questions time.

What are we going to do about these baaaaastaarrrdds in Brussels stopping us from wanking off to porn?

[Do it in any english/scots/n.irish/ welsh accent. It still works]
 
2013-03-07 01:09:49 PM  
If they are eliminating porn because of gender stereotypes is gay porn still cool?
 
2013-03-07 01:15:18 PM  

Bored Horde: It's almost as though there was a term for an artificial constraint imposed on a discussion, where a spectrum is reduced to two extreme choices...

I wonder what they'd call that.  Perhaps the false dichotomy.


Look, this is Fark.  We use the most extreme examples to prove our point.  Fark you and your "grey areas!!!"
 
2013-03-07 01:18:13 PM  

Bored Horde: vygramul: Flint Ironstag: Voiceofreason01: I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.

EU Free speech rights.


It's always funny when Americans think they're the only people in the world to have rights. /I don't have to carry my driving licence, or any ID, with me. Or have to tell a cop my name if he asks.

Oh, and from your link: "for the protection of health or morals."

Morals? Whose morals?

If you think American laws aren't crafted on morality you're blind.


They are and they aren't. At least it's not explicitly enshrined.
 
2013-03-07 01:19:54 PM  

Flint Ironstag: Bored Horde: vygramul: Flint Ironstag: Voiceofreason01: I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.

EU Free speech rights.


It's always funny when Americans think they're the only people in the world to have rights. /I don't have to carry my driving licence, or any ID, with me. Or have to tell a cop my name if he asks.

Oh, and from your link: "for the protection of health or morals."

Morals? Whose morals?

If you think American laws aren't crafted on morality you're blind.

And in the EU we don't go apeshiat if someone sees a nipple on TV...


The public airwaves have that problem here, but not cable TV.

Both Europe and the US/Canada have an enormous amount of freedoms. But we both have our vulnerabilities and they manifest in different, outrageous ways.
 
2013-03-07 01:24:27 PM  

Flint Ironstag: It's always funny when Americans think they're the only people in the world to have rights. /I don't have to carry my driving licence, or any ID, with me. Or have to tell a cop my name if he asks.


On the flip side, your parliament simply marks your email as spam if they don't like you.

Oh, and I don't have to carry my ID or tell a cop my name without cause, either.
 
2013-03-07 01:24:36 PM  

wotthefark: If they are eliminating porn because of gender stereotypes is gay porn still cool?


They aren't banning porn.  It's a non-binding guidance report for member nations that urges them to ban sexist pornographic content from public and readily-available commercial media.
 
2013-03-07 01:25:29 PM  

vygramul: Bored Horde: vygramul: Flint Ironstag: Voiceofreason01: I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.

EU Free speech rights.


It's always funny when Americans think they're the only people in the world to have rights. /I don't have to carry my driving licence, or any ID, with me. Or have to tell a cop my name if he asks.

Oh, and from your link: "for the protection of health or morals."

Morals? Whose morals?

If you think American laws aren't crafted on morality you're blind.

They are and they aren't. At least it's not explicitly enshrined.


DOMA.
 
2013-03-07 01:27:27 PM  

Bored Horde: wotthefark: If they are eliminating porn because of gender stereotypes is gay porn still cool?

They aren't banning porn.  It's a non-binding guidance report for member nations that urges them to ban sexist pornographic content from public and readily-available commercial media.


does that include money shots? Gotta keep the money shots.
 
2013-03-07 01:28:47 PM  
www.threadbombing.com
 
2013-03-07 01:37:06 PM  
They can have my porn when they pry it from my warm, sticky hands.
 
2013-03-07 01:37:16 PM  
Of course it should be noted that the Euro Parliament can vote all the resolutions it likes and no-one outside that building will ever take the slightest bit of notice, let alone implement a continent-wide law applying their nonsense.
 
2013-03-07 01:56:39 PM  

wotthefark: I can't wait for the Daily Mail story on this.

Politically correctness gone mad, The Europeans are stopping us from wanking.

Then prime minister's questions time.

What are we going to do about these baaaaastaarrrdds in Brussels stopping us from wanking off to porn?

[Do it in any english/scots/n.irish/ welsh accent. It still works]



My son was thrown out of school today for letting a girl in hisclass wank him off. I sat him down and said "Son, that's three schools this year. Maybe teaching isn't for you."  /Popbiatch.
 
2013-03-07 01:57:57 PM  

Stone Meadow: Flint Ironstag: It's always funny when Americans think they're the only people in the world to have rights. /I don't have to carry my driving licence, or any ID, with me. Or have to tell a cop my name if he asks.

On the flip side, your parliament simply marks your email as spam if they don't like you.

Oh, and I don't have to carry my ID or tell a cop my name without cause, either.


In the US you have to carry your DL when driving. I don't. And many states require you to tell a cop your name and address without probable cause. I can tell a bobby to get stuffed.
 
2013-03-07 01:58:27 PM  

Bored Horde: wotthefark: If they are eliminating porn because of gender stereotypes is gay porn still cool?

They aren't banning porn.  It's a non-binding guidance report for member nations that urges them to ban sexist pornographic content from public and readily-available commercial media.


By some definition all hetro porn is sexist and all non-hetro porn isn't including necrobeastiality, no?

If it's nonbinding then why even go after S&M porn?
 
2013-03-07 02:07:18 PM  

Bored Horde: The ban is on objectifying women in advertising.  The industry had 15 years to police themselves, they didn't, and now the EU parliament is stepping in.

If you think it's OK that skinny women (and only skinny women) are used to advertise the majority of product out there, that women are shown in subservient, smiling roles in this advertising, and that there has been no forward progress (and indeed increased objectification in some regards) in 15 years, well... perhaps the EU isn't the place for you.

I'm not surprised that the Internet party wants to keep women naked and objectified in the media.


This is funny to me because I had you Farkied with the quote, "I love how people who settled with fat chicks dubbed them 'curvy' to hide their shame."
 
2013-03-07 02:12:21 PM  

Bored Horde: They aren't banning porn. It's a non-binding guidance report for member nations that urges them to ban sexist pornographic content from public and readily-available commercial media.


How does one define a piece of porn as "sexist?"

Whatever one considers "over the top"... there's someone else out there that's sexually into that thing.
 
2013-03-07 02:15:06 PM  

Fast Thick Pants: Flint Ironstag: My point was I don't have to carry any ID even when driving. My DL lives in my fire safe at home. Haven't seen it for years.

Interesting... if you lend your car to someone who gets pulled over, how do they issue a violation?

/I bet Olivier Klozov at 123 Milchstrasse is getting tired of all those tickets showing up in the mail...


There has been an ongoing saga in the UK media recently over a politician that was caught speeding by an speed camera, and persuaded (or "coerced") his wife to claim she was driving it at the time.
 
2013-03-07 02:15:40 PM  

Bored Horde: vygramul: Bored Horde: vygramul: Flint Ironstag: Voiceofreason01: I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.

EU Free speech rights.


It's always funny when Americans think they're the only people in the world to have rights. /I don't have to carry my driving licence, or any ID, with me. Or have to tell a cop my name if he asks.

Oh, and from your link: "for the protection of health or morals."

Morals? Whose morals?

If you think American laws aren't crafted on morality you're blind.

They are and they aren't. At least it's not explicitly enshrined.

DOMA.


I meant that laws should be morally crafted isn't explicitly enshrined, not that explicit moralities aren't enshrined.
 
2013-03-07 02:16:45 PM  

Flint Ironstag: Stone Meadow: ...I don't have to carry my ID or tell a cop my name without cause, either.

In the US you have to carry your DL when driving. I don't. And many states require you to tell a cop your name and address without probable cause. I can tell a bobby to get stuffed.


Nope...not yours. You're conflating "reasonable suspicion" with "probable cause", though they aren't the same thing at all here, and cops cannot stop you and ask your name and address without cause.

Moreover, driving is not a right, so yes, I have to carry my DL and proof of insurance while driving as proof I meet the legal requirements to drive. Other than crossing international borders, AT NO OTHER TIME am I legally required to carry any ID whatsoever.
 
2013-03-07 02:17:02 PM  

Bored Horde: The ban is on objectifying women in advertising.  The industry had 15 years to police themselves, they didn't, and now the EU parliament is stepping in.

If you think it's OK that skinny women (and only skinny women) are used to advertise the majority of product out there, that women are shown in subservient, smiling roles in this advertising, and that there has been no forward progress (and indeed increased objectification in some regards) in 15 years, well... perhaps the EU isn't the place for you.

I'm not surprised that the Internet party wants to keep women naked and objectified in the media.


www.miataturbo.net
 
2013-03-07 02:18:13 PM  

Stone Meadow: Flint Ironstag: It's always funny when Americans think they're the only people in the world to have rights. /I don't have to carry my driving licence, or any ID, with me. Or have to tell a cop my name if he asks.

On the flip side, your parliament simply marks your email as spam if they don't like you.

Oh, and I don't have to carry my ID or tell a cop my name without cause, either.


Of course your senators and other representatives respond to any letters to them with form letters telling you how many easy ways you can contribute money to help them do whatever you just complained they have previously been doing, so that is hardly an improvement.
 
2013-03-07 02:31:55 PM  

xria: Of course your senators and other representatives respond to any letters to them with form letters telling you how many easy ways you can contribute money to help them do whatever you just complained they have previously been doing, so that is hardly an improvement.


Actually, our Senators and Representatives pretty much have to meet face to face with their constituents...often to their considerable discomfort.

l3.yimg.com

It all goes back to that unpleasantness with George over something, something representation... ;^)
 
2013-03-07 02:57:03 PM  

Bored Horde: The ban is on objectifying women in advertising.  The industry had 15 years to police themselves, they didn't, and now the EU parliament is stepping in.

If you think it's OK that skinny women (and only skinny women) are used to advertise the majority of product out there, that women are shown in subservient, smiling roles in this advertising, and that there has been no forward progress (and indeed increased objectification in some regards) in 15 years, well... perhaps the EU isn't the place for you.

I'm not surprised that the Internet party wants to keep women naked and objectified in the media.


Yes.  Women in commercials should be fat, ugly and in charge!

Who cares what people want to see, who cares what helps a company sell their product, fatties must not be made to feel bad about being a fatty!
 
2013-03-07 03:00:47 PM  
fatties must not be made to feel bad about being a fatty!

I am absolutely in favor of keeping fat people out of any advertisements I might see.
 
2013-03-07 03:03:29 PM  

Voiceofreason01: I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.


I look at this and chuckle because we're watching multiple amendments being eroded away to nothing.

But it would never happen to free speech.
 
2013-03-07 03:04:30 PM  

Stone Meadow: Flint Ironstag: Stone Meadow: ...I don't have to carry my ID or tell a cop my name without cause, either.

In the US you have to carry your DL when driving. I don't. And many states require you to tell a cop your name and address without probable cause. I can tell a bobby to get stuffed.

Nope...not yours. You're conflating "reasonable suspicion" with "probable cause", though they aren't the same thing at all here, and cops cannot stop you and ask your name and address without cause.

Moreover, driving is not a right, so yes, I have to carry my DL and proof of insurance while driving as proof I meet the legal requirements to drive. Other than crossing international borders, AT NO OTHER TIME am I legally required to carry any ID whatsoever.


Re driving, that is my whole point. I am not required to carry any ID even when driving. Americans do.

And US cops in many states can require you to give your name and address with a vague suspicion of any offence. In the UK even if an officer has suspicion they still cannot demand my name and address.
Link.

What is a "stop and search"?
A stop and search is more serious than a stop and account. An officer can stop you and search you if she has reasonable grounds to suspect that you are carrying weapons, drugs, items that have been stolen or anything that you could use to commit a crime. An officer can also stop you for any reason if you are in an area where, for instance, there is a risk of violence taking place, there is a terrorist threat or where the police have seen people with weapons.
During a stop and search, the officer is required to attempt to carry out the search with your consent, but can continue the search without your co-operation and can use reasonable force if you resist the search. As with a stop and account, you have the right to a receipt and the officer must record the reason for the stop and search.
Is a stop and search an arrest?
No, a stop and search stop is not an arrest. It can, however, result in an arrest.
If I am stopped and searched, do I have to give my name and address?

Although the police will likely ask for your name and address, you are not required to give it unless the police arrest you or are reporting you for an offence.

There are a bunch more as well. Police in the UK are not allowed to lie to suspects during an interview, like the old "your buddy has confessed and admitted you did it" trick. Not allowed here.

Not saying the US is "worse" overall than the EU, but there is this belief many Americans have that they have rights while the rest of the world is a police state.
 
2013-03-07 03:24:01 PM  

Flint Ironstag: Not saying the US is "worse" overall than the EU, but there is this belief many Americans have that they have rights while the rest of the world is a police state



I think that's a gross overstatement. Maybe 20 years ago...but not today. Hell, 20 years ago much of the rest of the world WAS a police state. Not the EU and Commonwealth, though.
 
2013-03-07 03:35:31 PM  
Came for the Miss Jones reference.  Leaving satisfied.
 
2013-03-07 05:20:17 PM  

lilbjorn: Came for the Miss Jones reference.  Leaving satisfied.


ironic, if you think about it
 
2013-03-07 05:31:27 PM  
men were getting off without a woman's permission? time to ban porn.
 
2013-03-07 05:35:09 PM  

Bored Horde: They aren't banning porn.  It's a non-binding guidance report for member nations that urges them to ban sexist pornographic content from public and readily-available commercial media.


Is there pornographic content that isn't sexist?

/because that sounds boring
 
xcv
2013-03-07 05:43:46 PM  

liam76: Bored Horde: The ban is on objectifying women in advertising.  The industry had 15 years to police themselves, they didn't, and now the EU parliament is stepping in.

If you think it's OK that skinny women (and only skinny women) are used to advertise the majority of product out there, that women are shown in subservient, smiling roles in this advertising, and that there has been no forward progress (and indeed increased objectification in some regards) in 15 years, well... perhaps the EU isn't the place for you.

I'm not surprised that the Internet party wants to keep women naked and objectified in the media.

Yes.  Women in commercials should be fat, ugly and in charge!

Who cares what people want to see, who cares what helps a company sell their product, fatties must not be made to feel bad about being a fatty!



I kind of hope these feelgood activists create a backlash where companies start using unattractive women in parody advertisements featuring competitors' products. Businesses will attempt to outdo each other in creating an association between a rival brand and ugly people.

That's assuming these ads aren't consciously or unconsciously ignored by the majority of the populace.
 
2013-03-07 05:54:31 PM  

Bored Horde: wotthefark: If they are eliminating porn because of gender stereotypes is gay porn still cool?

They aren't banning porn.  It's a non-binding guidance report for member nations that urges them to ban sexist pornographic content from public and readily-available commercial media.


who gets to define what is and is not sexist? some people think that it is sexist to have good looking actors on TV. other people think those people are dumbfarks.
 
2013-03-07 06:27:14 PM  

Elvis Presleys Death Throne: I say we get one of the SoCal porn studios to hire about a half a dozen Euro hotties, dress them up in these suits, and have them suck off some homeless dudes on tape.

Then send a few hundred copies to the EU for "research purposes"


You know, "Have them suck off some homeless dudes" is quite jarring. The kind of suggestion where you'd rightly be shunned from society if we were talking about anyone but porn stars.

Makes you wonder if the EU has a point.
 
2013-03-07 06:33:10 PM  

ib_thinkin: Elvis Presleys Death Throne: I say we get one of the SoCal porn studios to hire about a half a dozen Euro hotties, dress them up in these suits, and have them suck off some homeless dudes on tape.

Then send a few hundred copies to the EU for "research purposes"

You know, "Have them suck off some homeless dudes" is quite jarring. The kind of suggestion where you'd rightly be shunned from society if we were talking about anyone but porn stars.

Makes you wonder if the EU has a point.


They have to wear condoms now anyways.

Give me Euro s&m lesbian porn any day of the week.

Because they are lesbian it's not sexist.
 
2013-03-07 06:39:31 PM  
Bad news for everyone who hasn't already been stockpiling scud books in preparation for the Apocalypse.
 
2013-03-07 11:14:59 PM  
The .eu TLD will be reduced to one site: http://bringbacktheporn.eu
 
2013-03-07 11:59:29 PM  

Voiceofreason01: I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.


Then why are you beeping swear words and broadcasting TV shows with a delay so that you can censor them?
 
2013-03-08 01:09:11 AM  
What will Germans do for their scat fix?
 
Displayed 83 of 83 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report