Porn Ban: Supreme Court Observation? Not Really.

Porn ban“The instant action is basically in obedience to the observation of the Supreme Court where the court asked the department to take action on the list of alleged porn sites provided by the petitioner,” telecom minister Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad is reported to have said.

“Obedience to the Supreme Court observation”? And what were those “observations” exactly?

“The issue is definitely serious and some steps need to be taken. The Centre is expected to take a stand…let us see what stand the Centre will take,” observed the Supreme Court.

The “issue” the Supreme Court referred to was child pornography; and not pornography per se. And the “stand” referred to the stand before the Supreme Court on the next date of hearing and not the stand of going around banning the pornographic websites left, right and center.

Regarding internet pornography in general, the same learned judge of the same Supreme Court observed the same day during the same proceedings thus: “Such interim orders cannot be passed by this court. Somebody may come to the court and say look I am above 18 and how can you stop me from watching it within the four walls of my room. It is a violation of Article 21.” What happened to that “observation” of the apex court?

How is the government reading what was not said into what was expressly observed when the two are the exact opposite of each other? If a ban on pornography violated Article 21, as clearly observed by the Supreme Court in denying the interim order prayed for, how can Center take a “stand” by doing exactly what the Supreme Court said could not be done without violating Article 21? So, what was Center’s “stand”? To go ahead and violate the mandate of Article 21?

So, who are you kidding, Mr. Prasad? Right from the start of this ban, the government has been singing this song of apex court “observation” against pornography on the Internet when there was no observation to that effect.

New Reports referred:

Child pornography stays banned but govt unblocks other sites. :Hindustan Times (August 5, 2015)

Can’t stop an adult from watching porn in his room, says SC. :The Hindu (July 9, 2015)

Advertisements

One thought on “Porn Ban: Supreme Court Observation? Not Really.

  1. 1. Revenge porn is a fact. It is a brutal, vicious, devastating, repugnant reality. Merely saying we don’t wish to go into the merits of the case doesn’t wash. Most videos that are uploaded under the “indian” category on these porn websites are of real ordinary people or unsuspecting girls who could have never thought in the wildest of their dreams that they would end up on a porn site. I happen to personally know someone who had to go through this. It destroys life, brings unbearable pain, traumatises and scars for life. You can’t be serious if you think all those “Indian” videos are being put up on the net by consenting individuals who derive pleasure from the fact that thousands would watch their private moments and jerk off to them. It is outright disgusting. It is also the most powerful argument in support of banning such sites but one you conveniently chose to side-step. Of course this is a moral issue. Why should this be allowed? This is immoral and hypocritical, and throwing around cliches like the “moral police” doesn’t really help. In fact after reading this article I actually feel that there is definitely a need for moral policing because apparently conscientious individuals seem unable to decide where to draw the line.

    2. The rest of your argument is even more bizarre and unconvincing. “Child pornography” is virtually banned everywhere. What does that mean? It is banned where? Is child pornography not accessible over the net? It is. Which means it is not banned everywhere as claimed. Also child pornography is not the only problem, revenge porn or voyeurism or amateur porn is also a big problem. Is it not the violation of the rights of the persons in those clips? But I suppose your right to watch people without clothes is paramount over those people’s rights to dignity and privacy. You find child pornography bad or morally reprehensible so it is ok if it is banned. Someone else may find some other kind of pornography bad or morally reprehensible. Yet someone may find the very existence and accessibility of pornography bad and morally reprehensible. So why should the line be drawn according to your moral sensitivities. It seems more reasonable to ban pornography altogether than to indulge in “acceptable porn-unacceptable porn” routine. Also why should the government spend energy in trying to figure out which sites have child porn and which don’t. Porn quite simply does not deserve that much effort. Also can you guarantee that a site which has no child porn today will have no child porn tomorrow? Why should the government bother itself with all this when porn obviously has no social merit and most definitely promotes prurience and objectification of women? The onus is not on the government to allow porn or go such to such lengths so that porn is freely accessible. The onus is on porn and people like yourself to demonstrate the social merit in it because there is definitely a whole lot of demerit that is pretty evident.

    3. And about the laws, well, I cannot deny there are a lot many archaic laws. But this here is not an instance of application of an unreasonable law in an unreasonable manner. the government’s actions and the supreme court’s concerns are definitely bonafide. Innocent, unsuspecting individuals cannot be allowed to be harmed and the society cannot be held to ransom to alleged “freedoms” of a bunch of hypocrites. All freedoms have limitations. Your freedoms are rooted in the constitution and therefore if there is anything wrong with this step of the government it should fairly easy to prove so in the court of law. Your extremely technical and theoretical approach to this issue betrays immaturity and an eagerness to take an “internet-populist” position. Classical case of ivory tower approach. Reality is much murkier. Please, the next time you speak about this topic or watch your stash of “indian” porn, try to remember that the hapless girl was tricked and duped. The person who did so most definitely was a monster but what does it make you when you choose to get off to that stuff.

    makes sense here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s