The Name of Love
Far Right Nutjob
Time to shut Pornhub down
In the last few months, there have been several shocking cases of sex trafficking and child rape films that were hosted on Pornhub. A 15-year-old girl who had been missing for a year was finally found after her mother was tipped off that her daughter was being featured in videos on the site — 58…
www.washingtonexaminer.com
In the last few months, there have been several shocking cases of sex trafficking and child rape films that were hosted on Pornhub. A 15-year-old girl who had been missing for a year was finally found after her mother was tipped off that her daughter was being featured in videos on the site — 58 such videos of her rape and sexual abuse were discovered on Pornhub.
Her trafficker, who was seen in the videos raping the child, was identified using surveillance footage of him at a 7-Eleven where he was spotted with his victim. He is now facing a felony charge.
Also in recent news was the case of 22 women who were deceived and coerced by Michael Pratt, owner of GirlsDoPorn, into performing sex acts on film that were subsequently uploaded to Pornhub. These women sued GirlsDoPorn and won a $12.7 million lawsuit against the company. According to a federal indictment, Pratt and his co-conspirators produced child pornography and trafficked a minor. Pratt reportedly fled the United States for New Zealand and is currently wanted on a federal warrant. But there are other individuals complicit in these crimes that should also be wanted by law enforcement — CEO Ferris Antoon and COO David Tassillo of Mindgeek, the Canadian-based company that owns Pornhub.
You see, Pornhub is complicit in the trafficking of these women and minors and probably thousands more like them.
Seriously, all of the people responsible better repent to the Lord God or they will be roasted alive in Hell.
This just confirms all of my suspicions about pornography websites. Just check out this article's description of the BDSM website Kink Dot Com.
Kink’s rise from niche to marquee just happens to coincide with the arrival of Tube sites in 2006, which are uniquely effective at triggering the Coolidge Effect and turning porn addicts into novelty-seeking machines. It’s important to note that, while an attraction to what you might call “light kink”—fluffy pink handcuffs, a rhinestone-bedazzled blindfold, that sort of thing—has been hovering around in our popular culture for decades, and therefore some version of this has been part of pornography for ages, Kink is the real article. It’s not just acting. Women are caned and whipped until they are bruised and red. Not only are the sex acts themselves extreme (you name it, it’s there), but scenes are scripted around the psychological and symbolic, not just physical, degradation of the woman. Fifty Shades of Grey is to Kink as a Hitchcock movie is to a snuff film.
When the films have a storyline, it can usually be summed up with one word: rape. Or two words: brutal rape. It’s one thing to be aroused by a sadomasochistic scene where the sub (as the term of art goes) is shown visibly enjoying the treatment; it’s quite another to be aroused by watching a woman scream in agony and despair as she is held down and violently raped.
One series of Kink videos is based on the following concept: the pornstar is alone in a room with several men; the director explains to her (and we watch) that if she can leave the room, she gets cash; for each article of clothing she still has on at the end of the scene, she gets cash; for each sex act that one of the men gets to perform on her, he gets cash and she loses money. One has to grant them a devilish kind of cleverness: it lets them enact an actual violent rape with legal impunity. The woman really resists; the men really force themselves brutally on her. Of course, she “consented” to the whole thing, which, somehow, makes it legal.
I ask you to read that whole article, by the way. It's chock full of facts on pornography by a Catholic who would normally "recoil" at my "puritanical" views.
So how can we solve this problem? I think that these articles could give us some good ideas.
First Things said:There are at least three politically feasible legislative solutions to the pornography crisis that should pass constitutional muster under the guidelines established in Reno. The first solution is to regulate pornography at the Internet Service Provider level by passing a law or enacting a rule requiring ISPs to provide a default version of the Internet that is filtered of indecent content, while allowing adult users the ability to opt in to an unfiltered version of the Internet.
[...]
Another option, likely to face greater legal skepticism, is to regulate pornography websites through domain “zoning.” O’Connor and Rehnquist suggested “‘gateway’ technology” that “requires Internet users to enter information about themselves—perhaps an adult identification number or a credit card number—before they can access certain areas of cyberspace, much like a bouncer checks a person’s driver’s license before admitting him to a nightclub.”
[...]
The last solution is fairly aggressive and touches on a familiar issue. There has been much discussion among conservatives about rewriting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act: the immunity carve-out for Big Tech companies that allows them to avoid civil liability for content posted by users on their platforms. This protection also applies to user-submitted pornography aggregation sites—imagine Instagram or YouTube, but for pornography—which make up the majority of free pornography sites on the Internet.
Congress could rewrite the CDA so as to strip Section 230 immunity from sites that publish obscene and indecent material, thus opening these sites to civil liability for the content posted on their platforms. This would present a problem for many of these sites, especially the aggregation sites, which often host pornography featuring individuals who did not consent to having their likeness distributed to the public. In the distribution of such content, people are sexually exploited by a billion-dollar industry while receiving no compensation for the physical, professional, and emotional damages caused to them. They deserve their day in court.
Public Discourse said:The answer is that what has become a cultural force must be stymied chiefly by cultural counter-force. Effective social control of obscenity in a free, porn-saturated society calls for a creative, synergistic partnership among educators, pastors, journalists, and other culture-forming actors to morally stigmatize pornography as toxic to genuine reciprocity and mutuality in sexual relationships, as well as a standing threat to anything close to the healthy psycho-sexual development of children and teens. Public authority has an indispensable role to play in this partnership, too. For law powerfully shapes culture and thus shapes us—our actions, our attitudes, and our conception of right and wrong.
[...]
Criminal law enforcement should therefore be stepped up against those who recklessly expose children to pornography. The particularly callous disregard shown by such malefactors for the child’s well-being, as well as for his or her parents’ rightful authority to educate their children, makes them proper targets for prosecution.
Which laws are we talking about? New York’s basic “obscenity” prohibition (under which I occasionally prosecuted performers and sales clerks when I was a Manhattan prosecutor in the 1980s), is typical of state provisions. It criminalizes conduct by anyone who “produces, presents, or directs an obscene performance or participates in a part thereof which is obscene or which contributes to its obscenity.” On top of all state laws of this sort sits a group of federal prohibitions, including bans on importing, mailing, and possessing with intent to distribute “any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, motion picture, letter, writing, [or] print.”
Leave your comments below.