zlacker

Very sad to see this from the country that produced some of the most influential pro freedom of speech philosophy the world has ever seen.

>>HDThor+(OP)
Well they also produced pre-totalitarian authors, such as Thomas Hobbes and his advocacy of authoritarian states.

>>Saline+m6
I think this is the most uncharitable reading and understand of Hobbes that exists. The main argument (and context) is that men is evil and can only live in "civilization" by being forced into it by an absolutely powerful state. The fact this state is a monarchy, a dictatroship or a democracy is not the issue. The fact (in which he is right) a state needs absolute power and monopoly of that power. Modern democracies are a good example, they have the absolute power and thus are more stable and peaceful that warlord controlled pseudo-countries in Africa.

>>Saline+m6
You've confused the concept of an absolute sovereign with this which is control over the private lives of the individual and the family.

>>HDThor+(OP)
Freedom of speech is not the same as age restrictions on porn.

>>u_sama+Sp
From Wikipedia:

"The purpose of the commonwealth is peace, and the sovereign has the right to do whatever he thinks necessary for the preserving of peace and security and prevention of discord. Therefore, the sovereign may judge what opinions and doctrines are averse, who shall be allowed to speak to multitudes, and who shall examine the doctrines of all books before they are published."

This is an explicit restriction of free speech, in line with what's happening nowadays in the UK.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(Hobbes_book)

>>krona+AG
Hobbes makes plenty of comments about how the Sovereign is able to rule civil matters, such as speech, family or religion.

>>Saline+qt1
Yes the Sovereign adjudicates civil disputes. This is just how England has been Saxon times. There's nothing controversial about it in principal.

>>krona+8x1
Please:

"In Hobbes’ view, the sovereign had a crucial role in overseeing religious matters. This included the power to appoint religious leaders, regulate religious practices, and ensure that religious teachings were in line with the laws of the state. By doing so, the sovereign could maintain control over potential sources of dissent and prevent religious conflicts from arising."

https://polsci.institute/classical-political-philosophy/reli...

Same goes with restriction of free speech by the sovereign. I understand that you could say that it's fine and so on, but is clearly a slippery slope.

>>tim333+JP
Exactly. The idea that pornography has to be available to anyone regardless of age/maturity at any time and for any reason is insane. I suspect that a lot of the (mostly judicial) lawmaking in this area did not foresee the internet and its impacts. There is a big difference in the allowing people to go see a pornographic film in a specialized seedy cinema (where age-gating is trivial) and having it available to every child in their pocket.