Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday November 30 2017, @02:26PM   Printer-friendly
from the internet-will-route-around-it dept.

French porn star piqued over Macron's desire to crackdown on X-rated films

A star of French porn films has challenged President Emmanuel Macron to meet with him and female porn actresses after France's leader aroused his anger by linking the porn industry to violence against women and inequality. Manuel Ferrara was furious over the president's speech at the weekend which outlined his plan to tackle violence against women and ensure equality between the sexes. According to Macron pornography makes women "an object of humiliation" and that action needs to be taken because porn films are now so widely watched among school children.

Ferrara hit back on Twitter and invited the president to discuss the issue. "I am involved in this industry that you are trying to demonize by making this kind of remark. I am ready to sit down with you and discuss a topic that by all accounts you know nothing about. I'm waiting for your call!" In an interview with France Inter radio the porn star continued to criticize the president saying he found his remark "shocking". "He demonizes the porn industry and is jumping to conclusions (faire un amalgame). It's the same with video games. It's like saying 'a teenager who plays Call of Duty is going to pick up a gun and kill everyone in his school'."

[...] On Saturday Macron announced his plan to extend the powers of France's broadcasting regulator CSA to cover X-rated films as well as launch an awareness campaign on pornography in secondary schools. "The CSA plays an indispensable role in regulating audiovisual content everywhere and stopping the most undignified behavior becoming a form of tacit propaganda," said the president. "Today we do not regulate access to video games, internet content and pornographic content that is increasingly available."

Also at BBC and Reason (archive).


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 30 2017, @04:07PM (8 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 30 2017, @04:07PM (#603480) Journal

    We've had that much technology since the early days of television. As soon as there were two or more channels in an area, people learned to tune in to what they preferred to watch. Or, even to turn the television off.

    Don't like porn? Don't watch porn. FFS, some people are so damned stupid. I don't like kiddy porn, I don't watch kiddy porn. I don't like bestiality, I don't go looking for bestiality. I don't like gay sex, I don't click on links promising gay sex. I like gun porn, so sometimes I click on gun porn. TMB seems to like fish porn, so he probably watches fish porn. I don't like Ford, I don't click on advertisements for Ford. What could be simpler? Oh - this asshole from France likes preacher porn, and thinks that we should all be watching preacher porn?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30 2017, @04:17PM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30 2017, @04:17PM (#603488)

    I mostly agree with that, however not all of your examples are equal.

    I don't like kiddy porn, I don't watch kiddy porn.

    At least one of the, um, "actors" in those is not legally able to consent. That's where we should draw the line.
    Unless you mean "porn that kids watch", in which case it's a parenting issue and you really shouldn't use a term with an established meaning.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 30 2017, @04:45PM (4 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 30 2017, @04:45PM (#603505) Journal

      You're right, but not all that much right. For the purpose of my argument, it matters little how legal the viewing material might be. I did mention bestiality, as well. Beasts aren't recognized as having the capacity to consent to having sex with humans either. I believe that bestiality is illegal everywhere in the United States.

      My whole argument was, "I don't like it, I don't watch it." Even on the hidden nets, where both are readily available, I don't go there.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30 2017, @04:58PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30 2017, @04:58PM (#603515)

        Animals can consent to sex no matter what the so called justice system says. Animals show clear signs of arousal when they want to have sex with humans. Time to move to Wyoming [wikipedia.org] which had the good sense not to ban it.

        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday November 30 2017, @06:57PM (1 child)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday November 30 2017, @06:57PM (#603585) Journal

          Do you speak from experience?

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday December 01 2017, @12:00AM

            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Friday December 01 2017, @12:00AM (#603732)

            He could be speaking from logic. I find it funny how pretty much everyone agrees (except organizations like PETA apparently) that non-human animals shouldn't be given the same rights as humans because they are different from humans, yet many people want to apply human standards of consent to non-human animals. How does that make sense? If we applied that logic consistently, all sex between non-human animals would necessarily be rape. A dog who humped someone's leg of its own volition would be a victim of sexual assault. And so on.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 01 2017, @10:35AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 01 2017, @10:35AM (#603851)

        Animals not able to consent? You try telling the dog humping your leg that it is not able to give consent, so please stop doing that...

    • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday December 01 2017, @12:08AM (1 child)

      by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Friday December 01 2017, @12:08AM (#603733)

      At least one of the, um, "actors" in those is not legally able to consent. That's where we should draw the line.

      It makes sense to go after the actual rapists. It isn't justifiable to go after every random loser who looks at the porn that has already been made, even if you try to justify by saying that it encourages more to be made in the future. If someone makes more because of some perceived demand for it, then that is still their own fault and they should be punished for it. Voodoo harm--harm supposedly inflicted upon rape victims whenever someone looks at the porn--does not exist. Such feelings are entirely subjective and no matter how much censorship you do, there is always a chance that more copies of the data are still out there somewhere; it's therefore best to focus on getting over the event, regardless of the difficulty. If voodoo harm did exist, the FBI would be in trouble for distributing so much child porn themselves.

      Making possession of anything illegal also has the effect of making it easy to frame anyone for a crime, especially when the prohibited thing is merely data.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 01 2017, @10:40AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 01 2017, @10:40AM (#603852)

        I'm fine with going after anyone paying for it. That does actually encourage the production. This includes payment in the form of "upload something new to be able to download other new stuff".

        But if we ban freely sharing it, with the excuse that it encourages the production of more, we need to stop punishing music and movie pirates for encouraging the production of more music and movies.