Click Here for FREE PORN…Debate

June 20, 2013 / Matthew Clemente / 1 Comment

No, our website was not hacked by spammers. Instead the BBC’s Moral Maze is back . . . and hotter than ever. Here is a description of the debate:

The statistics on internet porn are eye-popping enough – it’s claimed that 36% of internet content is pornography, with one in four queries to search engines being porn-related the online porn industry makes more than $3,000 a second. But if that isn’t enough to convince you that pornography has long since abandoned the seedy confines of the top shelves and colonised mainstream media, then perhaps the fact that porn is to get an academic journal devoted to the study of the genre might. Concerns about the volume, nature and easy availability of porn have been growing for some time, but the recent trials of Stuart Hazell, convicted for killing 12-year-old Tia Sharp, and Mark Bridger for killing five year old April Jones have brought the issue in to sharp focus. Both men were found to have violent pornography on their computers and one of them was watching it just hours before he carried out the murder. This week the Culture Secretary Maria Millar and charities held a summit meeting with internet service providers demanding that they do something to reduce access to obscene images, especially by children. The “ban porn/don’t ban porn” argument has raged, perhaps ever since the Lady Chatterley trail. Of course there are the issues of freedom of speech and censorship, but has technology changed so rapidly in recent years that the moral framework of the debate needs to be changed? Do we have the moral language to balance the right of consenting adults to watch other consenting adults having sex against the fact that such hardcore porn is so easily available and consumed, especially by adolescent boys? Is it the job of the state to police what goes online, or should parents be taking more care what their children are doing online? Is the normalisation of porn culture subtly damaging us all by commodifying and brutalising relationships – reducing them to animalistic couplings? Or is that being hopelessly romantic? Combative, provocative and engaging debate chaired by Michael Buerk. With Claire Fox, Melanie Phillips, Matthew Taylor and Giles Fraser. Witnesses: Jerry Barnett – Former Chairman of the Adult Industry Trade Association, Reg Bailey, Chief Executive of Mothers’ Union, Myles Jackman – Solicitor. Sexual freedom and obscenity specialist, Eleanor Mills – Sunday Times campaigning reporter

More on Rape and Victims’ Rights

April 22, 2013 / Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

More on Rape and Victims’ Rights

After yesterday’s post about the emotional Radio Lab segment, “Rape and Reasonable Doubt”, I was reminded of a Moral Maze episode that debated victims’ rights and how victims are/should be treated in the criminal justice system. This Moral Maze debate provides an intellectual take on an issue that is emotionally charged and has high moral stakes.

Here is a part of Moral Maze‘s description of the episode:

The death of Frances Andrade, who killed herself days after testifying against Michael Brewer, the choirmaster who indecently assaulted her, has prompted a debate on how courts handle such cases. Could her suicide have been prevented? Did the defence counsel who cross-examined her, calling her a liar and a fantasist, bear some responsibility for her death? Or is it always important for the defence to challenge prosecution witnesses as robustly as the judge will allow? If so, the duty to protect vulnerable witnesses must rest with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service – and yet their overriding aim is to obtain a conviction. Frances Andrade was persuaded to give evidence (she did not herself initiate the investigation); perhaps she would have been better advised not to?

Moral Maze: Same-Sex Marriage

March 29, 2013 / Matthew Clemente / 1 Comment

Moral Maze: Same-Sex Marriage

This week, same-sex marriage dominated the news with the Supreme Court cases of United v. States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry. The same-sex marriage debate is not unique to the United States, however. Across the pond, the topic is just as controversial. Recently, the British House of Commons approved gay marriage with the support of conservative Prime Minister David Cameron.

If you are passionate about gay rights, this episode (43 minutes) of the Moral Maze is a must. It is dry (*cough* British), but it is also the most intelligent debate about same-sex marriage that I have ever heard.

Finally, if you are interested in being part of the SLACE podcast next year. Aside from interviews and recorded events, the podcast will also include debates in this format. Students will encompass the panelists, who will question “experts” (probably mostly professors) advocating various positions. Ideally, there would be one of these debates per semester. Members of Moot Court would make ideal panelists.

What About The Poor?

March 14, 2013 / Matthew Clemente / 1 Comment

What About The Poor?

If one were to believe American political rhetoric, it would seem that there are no poor people in the United States. Neither Republicans nor Democrats discuss poverty, or “the little guy.” Instead, both political parties talk of the plight of the mythic “middle class.” Of course, the middle class is not as large as our politics would suggest. Especially in the wake of the Great Recession, there is staggering (and disturbing) number of Americans living in poverty–nearly 50 million people, or 1 in 5 children in the US. This episode of the Moral Maze radio programme (yes, it is British) debates the ethics of poverty, entitlements (“benefits” in the British lexicon), and the social safety net.

The show is a bit on the dry side and runs approximately 43 minutes. It is, however, relevant to potential SLACE members as this is the format that will be utilized by the SLACE debate podcast.