Slashdot Mirror
'Extreme' Web Sites Under Fire From UK Police
An anonymous reader writes "A conference on electronic crime, taking place in London this week, has thrown up some interesting news. Britain's top hi-tech police officer has demanded a crackdown on Web sites devoted to 'abhorrent' subjects such as cannibalism and necrophilia. What happened to freedom of expression online?"
When cannibalism is outlawed, only outlaws will be cannibals!
I especially liked the cannibalism article that linked off this one -- and ended with:
"Meiwes made a video of the event, which was shown to the court during a closed session. He could be released early for good behaviour."
I assume good behaviour would be that he kept his napkin in his lap next time.
What happened to freedom of expression online
Freedom of anything is going the way of the 8-track tape.
The terrorists seem to have won.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
I want to judge by myself...
:p
Can you post the URL of the 'abhorrent' sites please?
IF (and only IF) it's illegal and/or incites to commit illegal acts, then good riddance.
Freedom of expression is not freedom from responsibility.
And sadly, it's clearly not freedom from stupidity either.
"The Internet is no place for people looking for 'perverse gratification', claims the police officer leading the UK's fight against e-crime."
Apparently they think that anyone who is attracted to corpses should not waste their time online and go straight to the real thing!Good thing I only visit those "Extreme Linux" sites..!
First they came for the Cannibals
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Cannibal.
Then they came for the Necrophiliacs
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Necrophiliacs.
Then they came for the anarchists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade anarchists.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
The same lawbook that holds protection freedom of expression also outlaws things like necrophilia. If you walked into a morgue to get a snack, you can expect to be put in jail. If you sold books containing HOWTOs on corpse-buggery, you would, in fact, get shit-hammered by the law. This is no different. If you want to act like a retard on the internet, you're better off doing it from a country that doesn't outlaw your particular brand of idiocy.
REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.
"What happened to freedom of expression online?" I think Microsoft patented it
Setec Astronomy
Where will I get my info on cannibalism now?!?!
We're talking about the United Kingdom here...heck..they don't even have freedom fries there, how do you expect them to have freedom?
Europe has no free speech clause like the USA right?
a) There is no "Freedom of expression online" - anything online is governed by regular laws in the "Real World"
b) There is no "Freedom of expression" law in the UK - it's not a right like in the US.
c) Yes, perhaps cracking down on the web-sites might be stupid...
What happened to freedom of expression online?
Some psycho killed a teacher and the Daily Mail and Sun needed a good campaign. The pedophiles-infest-the-web thing wasn't working out for them lately so this is a better angle for them to whip up a bit of hysteria. Apparently the necrophiliacs and asphyxia fans infest the Intarweb just as much as the pedophiles and terrorists, much to the surprise of the newspapers and general public.
Hysteria based on uninformed opinions; it's whats for diner!
Do your research, the BBC is publicly funded but (as the recent debacle proves) is anything _but_ a "government organ."
-- "...I'm a bad guy because I, well, I sing some rock-and-roll songs." M. Manson
..ain't the same as getting.
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
UK citizens are subjects of the crown and not people living under a free state. They do not have a right to free expression.
Died circa 1995 with the commercialization of the net. Oh I miss those glorious bitnet/fidonet days.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
The First Ammendment to the US Constitution doesn't apply internationally..
Ah, that British penchant for understatement.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Will they discriminate between consensual and non-consensual cannibalism? My right to be nibbles!
Somehow, I think it is connected to this whole "9/11" thing. Every authoritarian politician is looking at USA's increased fascist tendencies, thinking "If THEY can do it, we can too".
All we (who care) can do is yell. And try to make others care (and yell).
I shall go and tell the indestructible man that someone plans to murder him.
I strongly feel that freedom of speech must be defended at all costs, however, there is content on the web that i dont want to see, and i just dont. But when i think of people that can see that content and make something bad of it, free speech doesnt guarantee my freedom anymore, giving someone the blueprints for a car bomb.
If you want freedom of speech, you should be responsable for your speech, in other words, i think anything that is posted on a website, can be related to an identifiable person. Perhaps your fingerprint or something. This is too controversial anyway, so if im troll please ignore.
"The quality of life is inversely proportional to the number of keys on your keyring."
...he will soon be running for office. I love how some porno site gets blamed for a murderer's action. No one blames religion when some crazy says God told them to do it. This is just a blame at unpopular groups by some hairless-balled wannabe politician.
So did the guy who strangled the person decide to do it after visiting the necrophilia website or did he visit the website because he was already into necrophilia? I am not a big expert of necrophilia but somehow I don't think it is something you see a picture of and go - oh I liked to do that, let me go murder somebody.
It is only my opinion, however I view cannibalism, necrophelia, beastiality and pedophelia all part of the same taboo categories that should never be accepted by humanity. Freedom of expression? Shit, it more like freedom to be a completely degraded individual? Well if it's not against the law now, it should be. That shit is just plain offensive to 99.999% of the population. Freedom of expression? I'd rather have people know there are limits to how low a person should go before they have debased themselves and humanity by indulging their sick fantasies. We've relaxed things a lot (I personally enjoy lots of kinds of legal porn) on the Internet and TV. There are just some things that shouldn't be tollerated - cannibalism, necrophelia, beastiality, and pedophelia. Period.
The more time they spend working on some website no one's ever going to look at, the less time they have for actually *doing* weird creepy stuff. I say 'leave their websites alone.'
Freedom of expression should not be placed above human rights. Eating people and defiling their corpses isn't freedom of expression, it is abuse of human rights. Put things in perspective and things seem a bit clearer.
Here in the USA, we have a big fuss over seeing one female breast exposed on national TV. Meanwhile, in London there's a newspaper that makes a point of publishing a photo of a topless model on one of the first few pages.
In parts of Europe, pro-Nazi material that we're willing to tolerate in the USA is absolutely forbiden, particularly in the places that were invaded during World War II. We can write off Nazis as political loonies, but those places feel terror when the topic is brought up since they saw it first hand.
So, what's taboo here might be fine there, and what's taboo there might be fine here. It's one of the problems that the Internet runs into as the first truely global medium.
So, because something is illegal to do, you believe it should be illegal to discuss? There's a difference in describing how to cook a human for eating, and in encouraging someone to go kill someone to eat.
we better hope no one from slashdot commits a high profile murder 'cause then law enforcement will ask that all website related to Linux and anti-Microsoft ways and conspiracy theories be taken down/blocked because only a murderer would be into high technology, equal rights and the belief that only people who publish their source code have nothing to hide.
Despite our common language, many laws are quite different between the US and UK, freedom of speech exists, just not to the same degree as we like to think it does here in the states.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Freedom of speech online is going the same place freedom of speech in the US is: down the tubes. (look at all of the BS and crackdowns that have come in the wake of Janet Jackson's (ugly) boob shot. The FCC is "reigning things in"....effectively restricting free speech).
Chris Knight is my hero.
It doesn't exist, get over it.
In case you hadn't noticed different countries have different standards of what's considered "acceptable" behavior:
In the US it's acceptable for the government to kill people who have be convicted of certain crimes if sentenced to death by a court.
In France it's acceptable for a TV ad for shower gel to show a naked woman soaping her breasts.
In Iran it's acceptable for women to be stoned to death for adultery.
So web sites should be no different. If in the UK it's considered unacceptable to have these types of sites then it's OK for the UK to not wanted them hosted there.
It might go against your "First Amendment" nirvana principles, but try this one out in the US to test "your rights online": start a free web site with pictures of child pornography; I think you'll find that that's considered unacceptable in the US.
John.
Britain's top hi-tech police officer has demanded a crackdown on Web sites devoted to 'abhorrent' subjects such as cannibalism and necrophilia.
burp.....
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
How would this even begin to be enforced? If we start cracking down here, all the websites will relocate to China, or else somewhere where we don't have jurisdiction, and nothing will change.
RoseColor red={0, 0xffff, 0x0000, 0x0000};VioletColour blue={0, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0xffff};find / -name *mybase*|chown you
Everyone knows that the United Kingdom hates Freedom, err, France more than anyone.
I cringed when I read that. Everyday the internet is becoming more of a corperate-controlled broadcast medium.
Then they came to get me,but
Fist the anarchists killed me,
then the Necophiliacs fucked me,
then the Cannibals eat me,
and there was no one left for them to get...
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
What happened to freedom of expression online?
Idiot. These things are illegal, why should they suddenly be legal just because they're online instead? It's still the law. It's not them taking down sites for the sake of it, they're doing it to abide by the laws which were brought in by our elected-leaders.
--- any post that takes longer than 20 seconds to write, isn't worth writing
...is not a guaranteed right in the UK, like in the US.
Ask the people in China and Saudi Arabia what happened. It's not a matter of freedom of expression online, it's a matter of freedom of expression in various nations. The Internet is only as free as where you live.
Yes. Let's mandate that British ISPs block access to 'abhorrent' material. And while we're at it, let's add pornography and spam too. It's worked so well everywhere else in the world, it's a wonder the Brits haven't done this earlier.
These guys don't even need to *read* history! It's only been happening for as long as there's been an internet, and yet they still manage not to notice.
High-speed Road Trip (18.000KPH)
Does anyone know if its legal or not to publish a book on cannibalism and necrophilia with the same kind of content the web sites are showing??? In the UK and/or the US??? I know there are different laws in the different countries.
If you can publish a book or other writing on it then I wouldn't see a problem with it on the net.
Evolution or ID?
There must be accountability on the web. Period.
And not every permutation and combination of human desire *should* be expressed. Yes, we must have the freedom to express political dissent, but, for crying out loud, if there's not going to be self-restraint, then the restraint has to come from somewhere else. And, sure, I'd rather not the govt be doing this, but are you going to put your ps2 controller down to solve the problems of pedophilia and terrorism?
STFU.
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
of course this is much more exciting than chasing bicycle thiefs and rapists. staying inside the office with "hot coffee and donuts" is much more comfortable than writing parking fines in the rain. or maybe a new "special task force" / department is taking care of this nonsense?
Remember, these people aren't preaching their content to their masses (unlike some other annoying organizations I could name). They are pretty secluded (AFAIK) and I fail to see how this is an issue for the rest of the populace of the world. The world is not all happy butterflies and sunny summer afternoons. The world has a lot of evil, disgusting crap in it too. But, trying to stop that is an endless fight. There will always be that counterbalance of depravity and perverseness in the world. We're human! That's what being human means! Each individual human makes a choice, of which they will be. That doesn't mean that you should keep people from making those choices; if you do, we become little better than mindless automatons.
What happened to freedom of expression online?
This article takes place in the UK. I believe that limited freedoms is one of the things that made the people now living in the US want to split from Britain. But at the pace things are going, it looks like those wanting freedom will have to create a new country.
IANALANAUC (I am not a lawyer and not a US Citizen) but isn't the concept of "Freedom Of Expression" a US law only?
.. take China or North Korea for instance.
.. I learnt how far a protester could throw a stone, that some Neo Nazis don;t know which hand to salute with, and that pathetic little Amps cranked up to 11 distort the sound so much that you couldn't hear what the KKK had to say in the first place.
While the concept is interesting and has its good and bad points(*), I am sure it is only a legal concept in the US. The rest of the world in general gives some lip service to the idea, but does not have it codefied in laws.
And there are many regimes around the world that do not grant such rights at all
So why are you suprised when some non US regime says that there should ne a crack down on websites that they object to?
And if you think that you really have free speach in the US try having a discussion on paedophilia and see how far you get. Not that I advocate it, but the subject is so highly charged that you risk being pilloried just for mentioning it.
*I was in in Pittsburgh one year when the KKK was given the right to march and hold a rally espousing their racist views. Is this what Freedom of Speech was meant for?
But I will say it was entertaining
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
I don't see how I can comment without actually reviewing these sites in person. Links please :)
If someone whats to post links to less contraversial non mainstream sites involving naked bodies I'd be happy to review those too.
So is a necrophiliac cannibal someone who plays with their food before they eat it?
Meanwhile, a shocking report has just been released indicating that most practising cannibals and necrophiliacs have repeatedly ridden in automobiles, trains, or other methods of high-speed transportation. Detective chief superintendent Len Hynds - who has been witnessed operating an automobile at high speed, and is rumoured to be a frequent passenger on British Rail and the London Underground - could not be reached for comment.
You folks who see a slippery slope in shutting down necro and cannibal sites are foolishly overacting. The first amendment has never meant that we have the freedom to say anything we want. There are certain forms of speech that have long be recognized as not falling under the protection of the first amendment, e.g. Commercial Speech, Obscene Speech & Speech that endangers public safety. And despite these limitations, free speech in this country endures. Yeah sure every now and then we have set backs, the sedition act, macarthyism, the patriot act, but We have a history of recognizing those mistakes and correcting them so freedom of speech may live on. Defend the speech of necro-loving all you want, but it is a loser issue.
"Publicly funded" is another term for "government controlled".
No it isn't. I suggest you do your reseatch and find out what a Royal Charter is and how TV Licensing operates and get back to us on that.
Hope that helps. Have a nice day.
If the contents on a website are illegal, then it must be shut down. If the contents on a web site are considered extremely objectional, but if they are not illegal, then the police should simply leave it alone.
This guy may be applauded for trying to make "the Internet a more law-abiding place" as long he remembers it's not for him to define "law-abiding".
Hynds' statement may also anger those who believe that one of the Web's great strengths is that it accommodates such a wide range of interests, free from censorship.
That's just something that's not true. The Internet may be designed in a censorship-resistant way that makes it a whole lot easier to publish things, but the laws that regulate published material still apply. The First Amendment might limit how much censoring can go on in the USA, but other places don't have such limits.
Dickheads like you, who are sitting around still enjoying freedoms unimagined even a century ago, shit on their graves everytime you misuse the term.
McCarthyism was not a "Setback". The vast majority of its "victims" were treators who had joined Stalin's organization (CPUSA) and had thus declared themselves enemy foreign agents.
Earlier this month, it was reported that a man convicted of murdering a special needs teacher by strangulation has been a regular visitor to pornographic Web sites that included images of necrophilia.
I remember this on the news (afew weeks ago) and this is the only reason he's decided to have this crack smoking session.
erm i mean crack down on these sites. Its a total media stunt to better his career in the eyes of the idiots who make up a large number of people in this country.
Hynds' statement may also anger those who believe that one of the Web's great strengths is that it accommodates such a wide range of interests, free from censorship.
Damn right it does, hopefully this is the last we will hear about it - once the media attention has gone why would he bother? But really, screw you Len Hynds you have no idea what the internet is and you shouldnt have your job.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Seriously, where? It's the old chestnut about freedom of speech not including the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre. Do we accept websites advocating genocide should be guaranteed "freedom of expression", or hate crimes? Most people will draw a line somewhere, and again for most of them, advocates of cannibalism and necrophilia will be pretty near to that line if not over it. I don't think anyone's arguing that rational debates encompassing these topics need to be banned; you're talking about a small number of websites that cater to obsessives.
I think there's some room for moderation. Many good things stop being good things when in excess. Moreover, as one desirous to see those freedoms of expression we have kept, I think it's important to limit ourselves to defending positions the general public can understand. Standing up for necrophiliacs, cannibals and paedophiles will result in people not listening when we talk about something that has more general effect and is pertinent to their wellbeing.
Savant
You win non sequitur of the week award, dumbass. Another geek kid who thinks he knows history. Argh, enough of you ignorant fools, already...
If the site serves a legitimate positive purpose then I'd give it some leeway. Whether you agree or not, there is some argument for pro-gun sites that relates to open source code. Not an extremely strong argument, mind you, but if you know that the SWAT team is using a SIG-551 and you can only muster an MAC-10, maybe you'll stay at home. I'm not even entirely convinced that all pro-gun sites should be protected (and I am generally pro-guns) but at least you can sort of say that there is some type of benefit provided by those sites.
Necrophilia? For God's sake, this is, in my non-professional opinion, not a sexual preference but a symptom of some psychological problems. A necrophilia fan website is not far removed from giving heroin to a junkie - it's what he wants but it's not going to help him.
I like freedom of speech. I don't think that harmful speech that serves no purpose but to facilitate violent crimes needs to be protected. If the cannibalism and necrophilia website fans disagree with me, then let them produce a website that promotes dealing with these fetishes and becoming productive members of society rather than glorify violent crimes - that I would gladly see protected by freedom of speech.
I hope everyone takes this VERY seriously.
Sit down some day and actually TALK to a victim of cannibalism or necrophilia.
The things they tell you will change you forever
---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---
What happened to freedom of expression online
Freedom of anything is going the way of the 8-track tape.
The terrorists seem to have won.
I'm not trying to flame, but what if online freedom includes child porn? Or people being murdered while being taped and then the movies played out online? If we outlaw these isn't that a "freedom of experssion" also?
I know, it's an extreme. But where do we draw that line? The line may be in different places for different people. Who's right? Who's wrong? Who's the one saying who's right and wrong? Why do tornados always hit moble homes? Why does the phone always ring when you're in the shower? I digress..
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
Honestly, when did the internet become a haven of free speech? It never did and never will do because it's an international medium. Now, I'm a UK citizen and I'm 100% happy for my national laws to be used to shut down such a site.
What is free speech? I live in a democracy that allows me, should I so wish, to *campaign* for the legalisation for necrophilia. I can talk to anyone and everyone about it. If I can convince voters and lawmakers that it's OK, then I get my wish. If not, tough. It would remain illegal and I would have to accept the consequences of that. Free speech allows me to campaign for changes to the law, but it doesn't allow me to flaunt the laws I don't like.
I'm reminded of this tune from Pop Will Eat Itself.
Part of the lyrics go
"Freedom of expression doesn't make it all right. Trampled under foot by the rise of the right."
In other words (I believe) if you don't fight for your rights, you will surely lose them.
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Nice response. Confronted with historical facts you do not agree with, you respond with insults in a message that is totally lacking in any factual contact. The historic record stands.
cannibalism and necrophilia? seems like an oxymoron to me
If everyone was a cannibal, the only people left would be necrophiliacs. Even cannibals have some taste....
These whiners are just the kinds of people who need to be killed, corpse-fucked, and eaten.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
I believe that laws governing freedom of expression and its regulation vary from country to country. While here in the US, the First Amendment is doing reasonably well, but those protections don't guarantee someone in England the same rights unfortunately.
Some people just forget that US != RestOfWorld
"Yeah, but you fucking Americunts are a bunch of bible-thumping religious loonies who supported Hitler in principle - until he started murdering Jews"
As opposed to the Europeans who went beyond principle, and supported him in allegiance and deed in the hundreds of thousands throughout much of Europe?
It is not a 'right' in the UK because that's not how UK law works. The basic principle of UK law is you are allowed to do anything you like provided it's not expressly outlawed.
So we do have freedom of expression in the UK, it's just not something explicitly granted.
You need to follow it, though. It also allows us to discuss and express opinions on actions in other countries. It's just some geeks bantering about concepts of free expression. I wouldn't worry about it.
And if you think that you really have free speach in the US try having a discussion on paedophilia and see how far you get.
You might want to contact NAMBLA. That's exactly what they do, and yet they continue to freely exist even though a lot of people know about them via stand up comedy and South Park episodes.
but the subject is so highly charged that you risk being pilloried just for mentioning it.
What are you talking about? It's discussed constantly on the TV and radio when a big case erupts (Michael Jackson being the current archtype).
Now, if you're at a party and perhaps express the opinion along the lines that you think its an idea whose time has come, yeah, you might get some less than enthusiastic responses.
--- Ban humanity.
Called Manbeef.com that claimed to cater to the human-eating connoisseur. The parody was so well done, many people thought it was for real, and the police even investigated.
How on Earth is he going to police this? What about all those sites outside the UK which can still be accessed by UK residents? Just another example of a so-called leader who doesn't get what the first 'w' stands for.
Skim through the last parts of the Marquis De Sade's "120 Days of Sodom". If that book is legal, then any fiction is legal.
It basically consists of interviews with people involved in the porn industry (from the front office to the business end of the camera) and talks about the environment in which they work. They spend part of their time focusing on a couple who are into making "extreme" stuff. The PBS camera crew actually walked out while these guys were making a "rape" video because they couldn't take what they were seeing, despite conceding that it was nominally consensual. The directors' only instructions to the woman were simply to "let it happen". Everyone knew what was going to happen (including being slapped around... and worse) except her!
Kind of makes you think a bit about what is and is not over the line with regard to "freedom of expression".
The full show is available online from the PBS web site.
First they came for the pedophilia--and I did nothing. Then they came for the cannibalism--and I did nothing. Then they came for the vorephilia and I did nothing. Finally they came for wild co-eds in wet T-shirts and every one said "What the FUCK are you on!? Cut that out!" and put a damn stop to it.
-M.
The original says:
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945
So next time think before modding!
The Internet is no place for people looking for 'perverse gratification', claims the police officer leading the UK's fight against e-crime
The most senior officer from the UK's Hi-Tech Crime Unit has called for Web sites devoted to subjects such as cannibalism and necrophilia to be closed down, claiming they contribute to Internet criminality.
Detective chief superintendent Len Hynds, who is the head of Britain's National Hi-Tech Crime Unit (NHTCU), said on Tuesday that the most vulnerable people in society need to be protected from corrupting influences.
"For the Internet to take the final step to adulthood it must first deal with those fringe elements that choose to promote abhorrent activities like cannibalism and necrophilia," Hynds told the e-Crime Congress 2004 in London.
"For it [the Internet] to continue to grow as a mainstream medium for businesses, education and entertainment, it must design out the minority factors that inhabit cyberspace for their own perverse gratification," Hynds added.
According to Hynds, Web sites devoted to such extreme material are the online equivalent of graffiti and litter. He believes that taking a zero tolerance on this kind of content could make the Internet a more law-abiding place.
But a clampdown on sites devoted to subjects such as cannibalism could be all but impossible to enforce.
Earlier this month, it was reported that a man convicted of murdering a special needs teacher by strangulation has been a regular visitor to pornographic Web sites that included images of necrophilia.
The family of the victim has called on Internet service providers to close down or filter out such material, but the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) has already warned that the legal position is complicated.
"At the IWF we do sometimes receive complaints about Web sites and material which contains adult content, but unless they are hosted in the UK and may potentially be 'borderline extreme' in terms of content, i.e. it is unclear as to whether the images may be illegal, it is not within our remit to further investigate these sites," according to a statement from the Foundation.
"Due to the increasing diversity in social attitudes, 'adult' content, the context in which it is viewed and possessed and any 'influence' it may have, is very difficult to govern," the statement continued.
Hynds' statement may also anger those who believe that one of the Web's great strengths is that it accommodates such a wide range of interests, free from censorship.
Join the Free Software Foundation
British Government != British Government.
You loose. Would you like to play Trolling 101 again? (Y/n): _
This example of how not to design a webpage. Pay special attention to the content in the iframe.
"Slashdot - the one place on the internet where guys brag about how small it is." - that IT girl
Nice Troll. Completely disconnected from reality. Note especially the clever mis-use of flaunt when he meant to say flout.
OK, I'll bite. Um...isn't an uncontrolled unregulated decentralized transnational communications network by definition a haven for free speech?
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
This is to be expected and is perfectly fine. We're talking about the internet, son, not newspapers, etc.
might be for you to look up Johnathan Swift upon your next trip to a book store.
But it's neither a pop-up, nor a picture book.
Heh :)
This is an old argument. At once time, one of the "BBC is not government" arguers made the claim "It has nothing to do with the government; it was started by the Queen".
Certain tiny segments of the human population are interested in fringe activities ranging from the benign - say collecting punch cards to the bizarre - necrophilia to the sick - kiddie porn. These people have existed and will continue to exist. The Egyptians killed a guy for shagging a corpse in what 800 bce.
The difference with the net is that people with fringe interests can find each other far more easily than ever before. This has had many many good effects - like chat groups for people with rare diseases. So too some outright freaks can now find each.
But despite all the legislation, all the website takedowns, all the moralizing, sick freaks will always be around. Track them and jail them if they break the law, but don't pretend that "removing" them from the web will have any effect.
The article says that the most vunerable people need protecting. Perhaps instead of censoring the internet they should issue licenses for surfing the net. You could take an exam (like the driving test) to see if you are repsonsible enough.
This is definitely a troll in your opinion, but tell me:
Why has it never been a case when racistic and/or National Socialistic pages have been shut down, and the authors arrested?
This has been happening for years...
There's no .yeaaargghhh TLD. Check your facts, mister.
In practice, it might be hard to establish that this was a consentual affair, but the key point here is that I think it should be allowed *if* the 'victim' agrees (being of sound mind etc etc).
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
It's not MY responsibility to make sure that nobody in your country reads my web page. YOU are responsible for your own actions.
If I write a book which is perfectly legal in this country and someone manages to obtain a copy in a country it is illegal in, is it my fault? Heck no.
The governments needs to wise up and realize that this is really a border control problem related to a truly global media. They either need to change their paradigms or get some new technology if they want to control it.
What a bunch of European prudes!
Isn't it the 21st century?
goatse.cx part of the crackdown?
(yeah yeah yeah... I know it wasn't related see here )
*shrug*
e.
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
That's probably the silliest thing I've ever heard. The Internet is the best place for people looking for 'perverse gratification'. I mean -- it's always worked for me.
-Turkey
So the line you draw is far short of the [currently] "legal porn" that you, personally, enjoy.
Funny that, isn't it?
There. Now, Slashdot will be banned because I talk about cannibalism.
... cannibalism must be resorted to when one's comrades become too uppity... or too hungry.
::burp::
I will tell you this - Colonel Jellybelly will never trouble me again.
-
FATMOUSE MUST FEED.
You don't see her doing those commercial's for poor starving kids in Africa anymore do you? That's because they ate her.
This presumes that laws are reasonable. For example, the Chinese government has very different ideas as to what should legally be presented online than our governments (and societies) may.
Likewise, there is a great difference between a fetish roleplay site and one which provides an illustrated guide to sawing the top off a woman's skull in order that you might copulate with the brain matter.
Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Gates M'dna wgah'nagl fhtagn.
For a moment there I thought there were going to outlaw use of the term "extreme" in the naming of computer products. Next that that travesty, cannabalism is a quaint eccentricity.
Ok, throwing karma out the window but it's all worth it.
How can a country claim to embrace freedom of speech when it is so polluted with racists and racist organizations like the KKK, homophobic groups opposing gay marriage, anti-Islam sentiment, the Patriot Act, CNN, Ashcroft and most of all the association of liberalism with support of terrorism?
George Orwell predicted in 1984 that the government manipulates the masses by using "doublespeak" - naming a word that means the opposite of what it really means.
Cue Patriot Act.
Cue "freedom fries".
And the neo-Con sheep will flock to polls in November, eager to swallow four more years of Bushit.
I can't help think of Scene from My Dad the Mortician, from The Parking Lot Is Full.
Han-Wen Nienhuys -- LilyPond
As for "uncontrolled unregulated decentralized transnational communications network". Well, some parts of it are controlled and regulated. That's why I can't just pick my own IP address. As for transnational, why if you look carefully you will find that it certainly links nations but I would suggest that the majority of it is hosted on actual countries with actual legal systems. And we do have international laws. So it's not prima facie outside the reach of all law. Any I would argue that any "free speech" that the internet has ever had is largely an accident. It was never designed or intended as a free speech medium per se. So yes it may once have been a free speech haven and may even continue to be, but it doesn't have an inalienable right to be one.
There's been government sanction against us upskirt fetishists for years. New York even made it illegal to secretly film people in public places for the purposes of masturbation. Now we've got to have other purposes! I yearn for the days when we'll be free, free as a cotton sundress blowing in the spring breeze, lifting the soft, thin material like a lover's gentle caress to reveal a round --
Oh, uh, excuse me. I think I need more Xanax.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
That's the UK press through and through. Even worse when its press + IT.
Car analogies break down.
Aren't we talking about websites dedicated to cannibalism and necrophilia? Relativisms aside, that's extreme, no quotes required.
First you're eaten, then you're subjected to being screwed...
Here's something for your perusal: a charming little story about a man who wrote about vile acts involving children... so vile, in fact, that he was sent to prison for ten years.
He didn't do any of the act described, he just talked about it... but it turns out to be illegal under Ohio law. Possession of child porn materials (which isn't just pictures) is against the law. A picture is worth a thousand words... but apparently enough words will get you into trouble as well (and I don't necessarily disagree). Not all speech is A-OK... no "fire!" in a crowded theatre... no talking about killing the president... and no talking about the torture/molestation/imprisonment of children.
The individual in question sounds like a sick guy, so as a parent myself, I can't say I'm sorry to see he's off the street.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
You are their friend, their brother, and their teacher.
The approach that I'd like to see is twofold.
First, the official involved pretty much grabbed a "this porn causes people to commit crimes" principle out of the air. I'm very dubious that his personal opinion (and one that isn't currently mine) should be weighty enough to merit instituting censorship.
Second, I don't understand why the official can't do the standard thing that I'd like to see pro-censorship advocates do. If the official really thinks that porn of a particular variety is bad, why doesn't he, instead of simply suppressing it, explain his reasoning. If he really is (a) correct in his reasoning and (b) the value systems of others are similar to his own (and I don't think that he should be trying to govern their actions if his are different from the masses), then his explanation should institute a similar opinion in others, and "innoculate" them against the cannibalistic necrophilia meme.
Consider what the official has claimed. Images of porn cause criminality. That's a pretty severe allegation. He's claiming not just correlation (which would seem quite reasonable to me) but causality, which doesn't seem reasonable at all.
If the official really thinks that images are so influential, why do the English have James Bond? He frequently endangers others recklessly, destroys property, ignores military and government authority, etc. I don't see the mass of Britons running out and trying to blow up ships.
Heck, video games are plausibly even more influential -- you take *on the role* of someone. How many FPSes are there where you take out a gun and start shooting people? Most of 'em. You don't follow police rules for requirements on when to shoot, you simply try to end lives, frequently of almost anything that moves. Why aren't there masses of shootings in Britain if violent video games, so apparently much more influential, have failed to convince people to commit murder? Is it because the censors have made the blood in the games green? Is it because images really *don't* affect people to the degree that the British official assumed?
I personally feel that if there's someone with a necrophilia and cannibalism fetish, but that they recognize it and can have said fetish without running out and engaging in it (and there are a hell of a lot of fetishes and fantasies out there that don't get followed up on, like making love to a actress or whatnot), there doesn't seem to be much reason to try to force them underground.
Remember when the British thought that homosexuality was awful, deviant sexual behavior that needed to be corrected? Turing (a major player in *saving* many British asses from death, and a person that is now considered a pretty wronged great man) had his security clearance revoked, was forced to take hormone injections and modify his behavior, and was eventually driven to suicide.
People that buy peppy sports cars cause a *hell* of a lot more deaths each year than people that have cannibalism fetishes. Should peppy sports cars be banned in favor of station wagons? More human lives would be saved, and that's the only really convincing factor that I can think of.
May we never see th
I think you'll find that I ate her. She tasted of marshmallows.
Christian, who worships a story
That is what you religion says it is....
If the server is in the UK and contains "illegal" material as defined by UK law, then why shouldn't UK authorities be able to shut it down? Shouldn't be any different than a book or magazine.
If the server isn't in the UK then what are we debating? They can't do anything about it (yet.)
While personally I think we have basic rights and freedoms, ( including the right to 'speak' ) it seems that governments only extend those rights when it benefits them.
If they change their minds, or feel threatened, they take them away and make excuses for why....
---- Booth was a patriot ----
well that is because no one can defend a point of view to the extreme. For instance, right now, there is no control over the contents of the internet, and many people thinks this needs to be stopped. I think that is too radical, but drawing the line is moral and so it varies amongst us.
What i say is freedom of speech must be treated as such, freedom. Your freedom ends when it can harm the liberty of others, so if your freedom of speech is damaging other people, or even their privacy, you are not free to speak anymore.
And another thing, anonimacy has to be out of the question, because if you want to say something there is no reason for you to hide behind it...or is it?.
"The quality of life is inversely proportional to the number of keys on your keyring."
I'm sure most people would be horrified to find out that a funeral worker had been buggering poor Grandma Alice :\ When my great-aunt died last summer, we found out the funeral home we had used was being investigated for cremating bodies without the caskets that the families had purchased and was reusing caskets. That was sickening enough for us!
"What happened to freedom of expression online?"
Freedom of expression needs some limits, specifically when that "expression" hurts others. Things like cannabalism and necrophilia aren't just socially unacceptable, they are massively detrimental to society as a whole. Have our standards gotten so low that we tolerate anything? We won't tolerate hate speech or child pornography online, but cannablism needs a "how to" page? Come on?
When we discuss "free expression" being limited I think of things like the Patriot Act or DMCA where people can be jailed (or greatly hassled) for discussing the wrong ideas/ideology or technologies in a public forum. The fact that we have to supress some topics based on those laws is an example of free expression being damaged. But the idea that my neighbor Fred can't pop online and find a recipe for making a pizza out of me seems not only good, but after reading some assertions here today, necessary.
say: "Eat me" to cops.
Sig it.
... there wouldn't need to be a ban on "free speech". People would be allowed to place anything they like on the internet, and act in anyway as they see fit.
In this ideal world, people would not be thinking of (let alone placing !) the things outlawed by our world, and would have much other things on their minds.
As this is not an ideal world, alas, people will have to learn to draw a line at someplace whilst not restricting that which should not be banned.
The fear that is underlying here is the fear of an endless circle in which we are drawn, leading to more and more "purity" and causing a minority of people to more and more decide what the majority of people can and cannot see by their *own* "pure rules". In some countries this is called "dictatorship".
For example, if this minority were Bill Gates, it could probably be a ban on Linux-related stuff.
Instead of constantly shouting on what should be banned and what not, we should give ourselves a chance to think about it: Sites that a majority of the people, by their *own* knowledge - not by some knowledge put forward by mass-media et al, dislike should be possible to ban.
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
The web sites were not advertising that they were doing it, as I read the article. They contained content that catered to cannibalistic and necrophiliac fetishists.
First, catering to a fetish is not uncommon. S&M is a lighter form of roleplaying rape. Rape is decidedly illegal (well, in at least the United States and the UK). However, catering to fetishes associated with an action that is criminal is not.
Let's see. There are a number of movies that contain people (including the good guys) commiting acts of violence and disregard for human life that would be decidedly illegal all over the place. Should web sites containing information about action films be illegal?
Hell, the best thing to come out of the UK has to be Monty Python, and they have a bunch of lunatics running around murdering people. Do you feel it necessary to censor that? People *have* claimed that violence in media leads to violence, just as this official is claiming that content relating to crimes causes crimes.
I personally don't feel that there is a significant cause-and-effect, or there'd be a lot of people killed from little kids growing up after watching Westerns and playing with tin soldiers.
May we never see th
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
> What happened to freedom of expression online?"
The UK does not have a "Constitution" per se
- no document that specifically empowers the
government. "Rights" there are actually grants
from the gov't in its sublime wisdom - done with
laws passed by Parliament. And they can be revoked
the exact same way. There is really no
equivalent of a Constitutional appeal, therefore
no real "rights" as Americans understand them.
Once they successfully get a crime unit to take down these sites, then it'll only be a matter of time before anti-war sites, anti-government sites will get taken down as well.
At that point the government will force web site creators to get licences to publish on the web and will of course block/deny/delay sites that would compete with commercial media monopolies.
Don't think just because it's in the UK it won't happen here. With Bush in charge you can bet it's only a matter of time.
Because the guy that accepted to be killed had some psychological/psychiatric probems, so did the freak that was doing the cannibalism.
A sane, modern society would :
A) Help the guy that got killed with his mental problems, and minimize threat to people like this by making the cannibal's behavior illegal and morally unacceptable.
B) Try to fix whatever is wrong with the cannibal's brain/social behavior, and/or handle people like that by removing them from society to prevent harm.
Something cannot be considered "consentual" if it can only be consented by someone with serious psychiatric problems. There's a huge difference between most consentual acts, like sex (straight and otherwise), drinking, smoking (tobacco or otherwise) and getting killed by someone for his own pleasure.
"What happened to freedom of expression online?"
but I ask "What happened to good taste?"
Just because you CAN do a thing is not necessarily a reason why you SHOULD.
Goatse everywhere! Goatse to the Queen!
Whenver I read of anyone trying to get something banned, I am always reminded of the plight of Marquis de Sade. He published his works only to get them banned. Napolean had he sent to prison for his views! His heirs had his unpublished works burnt.
The ban on his works wasn't lifted till the middle of the 20th century in most countries.
So can we consider this banning thing something to do with the fact that we are not yet advanced/mature/whatever enough to accept what these cannibal/necrophila websites have to say? Maybe sometime in the future they will be perfectly acceptable topics of discussion to a more enlightened society?
Dont make a better sig, you insensitive clod!
Government's purpose is to balance the matrix.
...or is it the other way around? or is it *and* the other way around?
..or perhaps I am!
Slashdot's purpose is to unbalance the matrix.
You obviously see that I could never be a programmer!
If I was to beat the crap out of you, can I be protected using the freedom of speech? By kicking your ass, I am trying to make a political statement on how I feel about your political and moral positions. Seems fair enough?
How about this one:
I walk into a bank and demand the tellers to fill up a bag with money. I think thats Ok since I would simply be making a statement of supporting anti-establishment.
How about if someone blows up some buildings and kills a few thousand people because they don't like the polician views of the government. That should also be protected under freedom of speech, right?
Under the freedom of speech, we could also protect discussions on how to commit fraud, murder, rape, hate crimes, terriorism, and vandaulism, and of course SPAM! Where is the crime in that?
If a governing body supports freedom of expression does that preclude that there is no such thing as "going too far" or crossing the preverbal line of moral decency? Would race centered "hate speech" be ok? Is that simply just another point of view and an equally valid opinion just because someone gives it a voice? How about computer animations of child-sex? Is that just art?
Nop, i didn't think someone was gonna do _that_ joke on _this_ thread =)
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
http://www.burknet.com/robsfantasy/Britain.html That guy runs an informative Necrophilia Site and has a strong opinion on the BBC.
Who is to say what a sane person might agree to? (not referring to this particular case, but to the idea in general).
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
And every society has protections from free communication, the trivial example are libel and slander laws. Apparently you can't say anything you want. In Canada, you can be prosecuted for publishing material that, for example, denies that the holocaust ever occured, or material which otherwise promotes "hate crimes." In Britain there are laws that are Draconian by comparison to the US and Canada, both countries whose legal systems borrowed heavily from the British system, even to the point of citing precedent....
As for how causing one computer to send bits to another is a credible threat, you can't be that facile, can you? What if those bits are a collection of child pronography? I would say someone's rights and liberties were violated to create that content. Distribution of that content is continued abrogation of that person's rights. Or what about that stream of libelous and slanderous bits? Isn't that as reprehensible as the old fashioned ear to mouth or printed page varieties?
No society has ever allowed completely free communication. While the most successful societies have been those that allow the most freedom of communication and thought, none has been so foolish as to not have some proscribed communication. Such are necessary to protect society from the misinterpretations of simpletons who aren't sophisticated enough to understand that a right is only one so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of another. The basis of libel and slander laws.
I think it less material that the libel is transmitted electronically than the fact that it is libel.
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
Is he talking about sites like this one?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
"Web sites devoted to 'abhorrent' subjects such as cannibalism and necrophilia. What happened to freedom of expression online?"
What happened to human decency?
rather than the US system wherein you can only do what the constitution AND your laws allow you to.
Completely wrong. If you read the US Constitution, you will see that it does not describe what rights people have.
What then is the US Constitution? It is a contract between states. It describes what the federal government is allowed to do. The US government is given only those powers which are explicitly listed in the constitution.
The states in turn derive their authority solely from their respective state constitutions. The states likewise are not permitted to take on any powers that are not allowed for in their constitutions. Each such constitution is a grant of authority directly from the people of the state. The states are also limited by portions of the US constitution.
In this way, the authority of government in the US is derived from the people. Government does not have any powers which have not been explicitly granted.
In contrast, the British government derives its authority from the English monarch, who derives her or his authority by hereditary succession and (allegedly) by divine right.
On the other hand some people feel that harry potters use of magic gives childeren the wrong idea.
Somewhere in between the rest of us have to live. The world and the law are not perfect places were you can live with absolutist ideas like "freedom of speech" or "protect the childeren".
I don't know what the sites in question contain but both deal with pure criminal acts. You can't be a cannibal or necrophiliac without breaking the law. And unless you are volunteering I think that is a pretty good law. There is a good reason for "bad" sites wich deal with the making of molotov cocktails and such, today's terrorists are tomorrows freedom fighters. Telling people how to eat other people is not a skill needed by people with access to the internet. Order a pizza instead.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
In case you are confused about rights such as freedom of expression, and so on:
These are human rights. In a broad sense, they can never be given up, even if a tyrannical government claims to supercede them.
If you are a religious person, they are derived from the Creator. Otherwise, I really don't know where they're supposed to come from.
... or I'll kill you, I'll eat your brain and I'll fsck your empty skull!
Signatures are for stupids.
Who the fuck cares. People that write/read that shit are disgusting and are approaching the boundary of what can be considered human. You people with your freedom rants are a bunch of dirty hippies.
Without taking a political position, let me just point out that the English word marriage already has a definition: "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife". Any attempt to redefine that word based on political correctness smacks of "whims and prejudices" to me.
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
Crying out loud. The British Government does not (and hasn't for the last 200 years) derive its authority from the Crown. The US Consitution *does* lay down what the rights of US citizens are courtesy of the decrees that the contributing States must accord with. I know that and I'm not a Yank (there is a God.) Additionally, the moron who declared that suspects are guilty until proven innocent is clearly one wave short of a shipwreck. D'you think that 'Murrica *really* made up its laws without any reference material? That the Senate is the bastion of the World's original democracy? Get a clue, dood.
## NB: Comment here
Safe and secret necrophilia, assuming it isn't precluded by murder (just as most pederast cases do not include kidnapping), has zero cost to society. Instead, we should ban defiling corpses in front of loved ones and all sorts of high-health risk activities (like smoking -- off the top of my head I'd guess lung cancer costs more to treat than whatever you get from necrophilia).
Similarly, cannibalism of people who died for other causes, weren't "downers" (this is how they tell if cattle are safe to eat), and have no loved ones whose griving will be aided by a corpse, has zero cost to society. Actually it would have negative cost if John Doe's meat were sold instead of just being worm food.
... when you think yoou've won a war, and in fact it was only a battle. Just a couple of things. 1. Do not let your guard down. 2. Always fight when anyones rights are abused, lest there be nobody left when *yours* are. --Qtone I *am* one of the quiet ones...
Least we don't have to worry about these two groups banding together to make this legal.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Not necessarily. In the UK there's a defence of "artistic merit", which means that a "serious" (for want of a better word) book or film can address subjects which might otherwise be regarded by the law as being beyond the pale.
fredom of speech, well okay. ... what ... 10 years old and
... i get kicked from
but what is there to learn from
necrophilia and canibalisem?
we guys talked about this when we where
like
there wasn't a public internet.
now if you're 20 and over and interesed
in this subject, well the law
should revoke your freedom of "speech".
this u.s. citing for "freedom of speech"
is rediculous. we live in a time
utterly completely differnet from the time
when this law was INVENTED!
i'm fed up! so much b#llshitis happening
under the hood of "freedom of speech".
it factuality it is non-existant in normal human
behaviour and has to be enforced BY LAW.
i'm arguing from a position of a IRC-ler that
has "offended" IRC OPs by showing them that
what they're writing ("talking about") negates
itself and what happens
the channel. this is not a one time acurange
but happens weekly (no BOT, no FLOOD, no COLOR,
etc..)
in human (natural) behaviour, freedom of speech
is non existant. every human given the power,
will only allow others in his realm of power
to say what he himself finds fit. this is normal,
necrophilia and canibalism are not.
so go f#ck yourself and the dead guy your
eating.
Even a bishop of the State Church was investigated by the police for daring to state a very watered-down rendition of Christian and Jewish doctrine.
Oh, good. A fun post to discuss.
Because the guy that accepted to be killed had some psychological/psychiatric probems
What do you define as "problems"? Is it in "differing from the norm"? Do you define Heaven's Gate cult members to have problems, wanting to ride a UFO away? How about Christians, who think that there is an all-powerful Father that they're going to hang out with after they get sideswiped by a Ford Explorer? How about a number of fundamental religious types that refuse modern medical treatment? How about left-handers -- that was considered problematic behavior at one point, and left-handers were frequently forced to modify their behavior in an attempt to train them to act "properly". Did Albert Einstein have "problems" for using bizarre and uncommon ideas? Is it things that might pose a threat to you, or society at large? Is it a subconscious fear that you or a loved one might be killed and eaten, and that you are vaguely suspicious that necrophiliac material promotes necrophiliac behavior? Or, what about actual necrophilia -- in this case, both subjects were willing and interested. Should they be prevented from doing so? Perhaps you're concerned that they are being self-destructive, which is clearly irrational. What about people that pierce themselves or have their tongues surgicially forked -- isn't that behavior self-destructive? How about people that have their children circumcised -- genital mutilation -- is that acceptable, and if so, why? Is Russian roulette "problem" behavior, and if so, why is white water rafting not?
so did the freak that was doing the cannibalism.
You clearly intend "freak" as a perjorative, but yes, he certainly had different desires than the general population.
A sane, modern society would :
Oh, good. This promises controversy.
Help the guy that got killed with his mental problems,
By "help", you mean "bring into line with the general population, because his thoughts deviate unacceptably", right? Remember Turing -- society "helped" him to be straight. It did work to make him more in line with what's considered normal. Of course, it also forced hormone injections and behavior modification on him, and eventually drove him to sucide. Perhaps that isn't a "sane, modern society"? After all, that was a good fifty years ago that the Brits were doing this. Maybe we should look to today, where people that protest male circumcision have problems and people that advocate female circumcision have problems?
Try to fix whatever is wrong with the cannibal's brain/social behavior, and/or handle people like that by removing them from society to prevent harm.
What do you consider harm? Killing someone that wanted to die? Are assisted suicides harmful? Why are sports car dealers legal, when they facilitate people engaging in behavior that risks human lives? Why is Go acceptable? People waste *years* of their life on something that has minimal benefit to society versus other things they could be doing -- Go is clearly self-destructive behavior, but you have no problem with it being played? Why?
Something cannot be considered "consentual" if it can only be consented by someone with serious psychiatric problems. There's a huge difference between most consentual acts, like sex (straight and otherwise), drinking, smoking (tobacco or otherwise) and getting killed by someone for his own pleasure.
Ah, now we get some answers. The sort of people with problems, that need to be helped back into normalcy, are those with "serious psychiatric problems". Or do we? It seems like this is a circular definition.
Among behavior that has been considered abnormal and in need of correction at various times:
* Homosexuality (up to and including this century)
* Polygamy (current US)
* Heresy (Mideval England)
* Left-handedness (US public schools, until sometime in the last hundred years)
* Any
May we never see th
Post the URL's on /. and see them taken down within minutes!
I'm always amazed when people talk about freedom of speech as though there should never be limits. "Speech" can cause direct physical harm -- take well known examples in the media, such as published lists of abortion doctors, or NAMBLA instructions on the proper techniques for drugging and raping children.
There used to be a balance to this -- nutballs could write whatever they wanted, but no one had to publish them or give them a venue. Now every freak of nature has a pulpet, with zero accountability.
I think a lot of people just give "free speech" a blanket blessing because it's a whole lot easier than figuring out exactly where limits should be.
-Loooeeeee says "Screw your rights. Let's talk about your responsibilites"
The great fascist leaders of the 20th century in Europe (Hitler, Lenin, Mussolini, and Stalin) did not lack for Europeans to goose-step along and do their will.
We have lots of people like that right here in the United States. They're called Republicans. Or more specifically, neo-cons.
I just don't see why this specifically is a new issue. I'm sure there are books out that describe how to commit suidice. The Hemlock Society has published books and pamplets that describe just that. I'd be fairly certain they've done this long before the internet became popular.
The idiotic (and dangerous) Anarchists Cookbook was published many years ago, and I don't think the author or publisher was held responsible for the stupid people who've undoubtedly harmed themselves doing the things described in the book.
AccountKiller
See, there is your problem (coming from a US citizen)... Your government is based on the government having ultimate power, and as such, rights are granted to you by the government. US law is structured such that the ultimate rights are with the people, and the government gets it's rights from the people, not the other way around.
Granted, this is more of a philosophical ideal, but the fact remains... If the majority of the people stood up in protest of the government, the government must bend (yea, that's also part of the reason 2nd amendment is important).
Don't believe me? Lets see...I'm running a website that has (jokingly) advocated screwing dead hookers, eating aborted fetuses, and killing off pop stars (oh what a grand world it would be). Worst I can get is a slap on the wrist by my ISP saying "no... we won't let you host that". So I can still host it elsewhere... and there's jack shit the US can legally do about it. If I were in the UK, odds are I'd be doing jailtime right now (even though most of the offensive writings are not written by me).
You don't have freedom of speech. You are legally allowed to petition the government. And the government can take that away from you.
What does that spell? some petition.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
If we want to stick to dictionary definitions, then perhaps the word marriage itself is outdated since it no longer applies to any unions be they hetero or homo? Some facts:
1. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality in today's society. Anyone who says otherwise is a dinosaur and will soon perish.
2. Sexual preference has no bearing on committment as evidenced by the dismal failure that heterosexual marriage is.
3. Humans are not naturally monogamous, and monogamy has little to do with committment and responsibility.
With those facts in mind, then I will suggest that marriage (based on relgious morals) is a completely outdated concept and should be aboloished. Marriage (as a social construct) is more relevant today, but since there is so much stigma attached to the word, it should also be aboloshed and all marriages anulled. Instead we can replace the outdated notion of marriage with a superior concept that validates both homosexual and heterosexual relationships in every legal way as long as we no longer recognize tradtitional marriage. The main reason for this is that then no one is given second class status and we finally state officially that, regardless of sexual preference, the unity of two people is valid. At that point, religions are free to recognize this new status, but are forbidden from using the divisive concept of marriage. Anyone caught performing a traditional "marriage" ceremony or recognizing illegal documents will be guilty of hate crime.
A little too complicated huh? Why on't we just accept that fact that there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual union and stop letting the fucking religious looney birds pull our chains? Hmmm???
Un-news
Thank you for pointing out the obvious point that all of the proponents of "Gay Marriage" miss... and apparently the mods miss too, since they're modding you down.
"Marriage" already has a definition. There is no need to re-define it.
While the argument that there may exist a need to extend the same legal protections/benefits to homosexual couples that are afforded heterosexual couples, there's no compelling need to re-define the word "marriage" itself. In fact, judging by the stuff being thrown around lately, I'd say there IS a need to tackle that issue of extension of protections/benefits - but changing language isn't the right way to go about it - changing laws is.
"Civil Union" in one sense refers to a pair of people joined in a legally sanctioned arrangement... is not "marriage" simply the heterosexual subset thereof? Why should we attempt to re-define marriage? There's no need. Just come up with another word, perhaps "egairram" to describe the homosexual subset of civil unions.
The danger, to my method of thinking, resides in the current clamor among the homosexual community to define marriage as a "union between lovers." This starts us down a slippery slope...
"Can I get married to my mother/sister/brother/father/son/daughter? No? Why not? How dare you say 'it's unnatural' - isn't that the same derogatory term that used to be used in reference to homosexuality? We love each other, and you said that's what marriage is about." Now we have to throw incest out the window.
"Can I get married to two women? Why not? We all love each other, and you said that's what marriage is about." Now bigamy goes out the window.
"Can we five men and six ladies all get married in an eleven-way arrangement? Why not? We all love love each other, and you said that's what marriage is about."
"What about my dog? Can I marry my dog? We love each other?" This is the only next clear 'discriminatory' line that makes any sort of logical sense - that marriage is confined to one species.
By the time we get to this point, the word "marriage" has been, in essence, stripped of all of its current meaning and reduced to "whatever the speaker feels like saying it means." That's no way to run a language.
The word "marriage" does not need redefinition (which, despite their noise to the contrary, is in fact what current homosexual activist groups are trying to do - but they're barking up the wrong tree). What we need to focus on instead of redefining and already well-defined term is a legal mechanism to secure the same rights afforded to a heterosexual couple for a homosexual couple. Due to certain legal benefits that go with this (e.g., tax benefits, health care benefits, power of attorney, joint ownership, etc.) it may be practical to limit such unions to a total of two members (otherwise things get horrifically complicated).
*shrugs* But then, I guess I'm being old-fashioned and discriminatory when I say certain words have meanings and it's not a good idea to change those meanings on a whim rather than focusing on the REAL issue at hand... securing of legal benefits for those whose unions do not fall under the definition of "marriage" - not by needlessly broadening the definition of "marriage" but by instead offering a list of alternatives, of which marriage is but one option, that afford that set of legal benefits.
--AC
Soylent Green.
That a newspaper in London makes a point of showing topless women proves the point that Europe is concerned about such things. Sex sells in Europe just as much in the US, because the overall aditude isn't any different. Hwoever in Europe it is allowed to show breasts publiclly, while in the US it is not. If Europe had the "healthy" aditude they claimed to have it wouldn't be worth anyones bother.
By putting the word "abhorrent" in speech marks the poster suggests that these practices are somehow merely borderline or even acceptable.
Would you eat another human if you were stranded on an island for a month with a couple of other people, and you had a chance of living through the period if some of the strandees were eaten? Here's an even better one -- what if your child/sister/mother could be saved by consuming the flesh of one of those people? Would you sacrifice a life to stick to social norms?
I claim that the primary reason for avoiding cannibalism is because of a specific moral mandate against it. I furthermore claim that morals exist because they provide general, irrational rules that can be useful (because they don't allow one to make logical rules, and immediately rule out potentially harmful behavior). Cannibalism is dangerous because it provides a severe disease vector (quite serious in some animals where cannibalism is common), because if conducted on unwilling subjects, it can mean that people might lose the ability to not have to "watch their back", so folks have built up moral imperatives not to engage in cannibalism. But morality is frequently irrational, and doesn't always suggest the best course of action.
Would we be worse off if we had cannibals running around? Yeah, probably. Are we worse off with people drinking alcohol in society? Yeah, probably. Which one is more likely to cost more lives? Frankly, I'm a lot more frightened being in a bar with a violent drunk than I am of someone eating me.
I live in a democracy that allows me, should I so wish, to *campaign* for the legalisation for necrophilia.
Free speech allows me to campaign for changes to the law, but it doesn't allow me to flaunt the laws I don't like.
Do you speed?
More people are killed from speeding than from cannibals.
If you speed, why do you consider flaunting the law on it reasonable, but necrophilia unacceptable?
Heck, speeding can kill living people. Necrophilia, at worse, offends the sensibilities of a few people (not involved) and potentially religious beliefs (again, of a few people not involved in the act). Why is necrophilia unacceptable, but homosexuality acceptable? Heck, why are *blowjobs* acceptable? There are people offended by blowjobs. What gives you the right to engage in sexual behavior with your willing partner that offends those people? And why doesn't it give that same right to necrophiliacs? Women don't reproduce with their mouths, so you getting a blowjob makes no evolutionary sense, and really doesn't have any justification other than "it feels good and I like it" -- the same justification a necrophiliac would use.
May we never see th
I don't have an issue if homosexuals want to get together and have the same rights as married heterosexuals. Just don't make me throw out my dictionary in the process. Call it something else like "legal union" and then make sure "legal unions" get the same benefits as "marriages".
You don't want gays to be allowed to have marriages but you want them to be allowed to get the same benefits and the same deal if they have legal unions? So you're getting all worked up over semantics? Over a word?
Pardon my language, but please tell me what the fucking difference would be then? I believe Shakespeare put it best when he said "a rose by any other name would still smell so sweet".
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
that the most vulnerable people in society need to be protected from corrupting influences Yes, those vulnerable dead people need to be protected from the corrupting influence of the necrophiliacs.
The ECHR is enacted in English law through the Human Rights Act 1998.
Section 3 of the Act states that courts must, wherever possible, interpret existing legislation in a way that is compatible with the provisions of the ECHR.
Section 4 states that where a piece of existing legislation cannot be interpreted in a manner consistent with the ECHR, the court can make a "Declaration of Incompatibility". This doesn't have the effect of changing the law in question, but is supposed to act as a "flag" for the Government, calling on them to change the law. That isn't the same thing as saying that everything is legal: necrophilia, bestiality child abuse, etc. are illegal in the UK and the HRA doesn't change that.
IANAL, but I did act as a trainer on the HRA for a major Government department prior to its introduction, so I've sat through numerous lectures on how it works and how it relates to other UK law, as well as the European Court of Human Rights (which, as an aside, and before anyone else makes the same mistake that most people do when talking about it, is nothing to do with the European Union and therefore has nothing to do with "European Law", which is the general term for legislation passed by the European Parliament (which is an institution of the EU).
The American Bowling Congress, with their promotions that use violent images, is clearly responsible for those deaths. The blood of America's children is on their hands.
Bad troll... inconsistent arguments!
...
3. Humans are not naturally monogamous, and monogamy has little to do with committment and responsibility.
The main reason for this is that then no one is given second class status and we finally state officially that, regardless of sexual preference, the unity of two people is valid.
So, even though we're not naturally monogamous, we're limiting the state of "unity" to only two people (i.e., a monogamous relationship)?
And under your argument, aren't those outside a "unity" arrangement second class citizens?
Your points on the concept of marriage being somewhat out of line with society's views are interesting, but your post is riddled with inconsistent logic, as well as ad hominim attacks ("fucking religious looney birds"?!?) hence I award to you no troll points today. In fact, I penalize you ten troll points for (a) use of ad hominims in an argument that is couched as a rational one (irrational trolls can use them, but "rational" ones cannot) and (b) blatantly inconsistent internal logic.
Please turn in your troll badge at once.
--AC
The "Slippery Slope" argument is used far too often by everyone for or against anything they want to.
Morality is a continuum from "good" to "bad" and everything people do falls somewhere in between. Somewhere in the middle each society has to draw a line marking legal from illegal, or else there would be anarchy and the collapse of human civilization. Different nations may draw their line in different places, but wherever they draw it it will result in the "slippery slope" because the next worse, or better, action could be permitted/allowed if the line was moved only a little in either direction.
Now, there are some nations that draw their lines at extremes, most often leaning towards too much governmental control over private lives, but even the most free and open society imaginable would still be on a slippery slope because that's all there is.
If God had had a computer it would have taken him 7 months to create the earth...if he even bothered to do it at all.
... is already a serious enough crime. The underlying mechanism of communication that facilitates the process of conspiring, is irrelevant.
You are confusing government and sovereignty. In the UK, Queen Elizabeth is the sovereign. Can you dispute that?
The article doesn't make it clear. Most people will scream and shout about it being a violation of free speech. I would say I would agree, except I'm not worried so much about sites that "promote" so much as sites that "explain" it, or describe the "history" of it.
I watched a great documentary on the history of cannibalism. There were stories of tribes of cannibalists who ate their dead because they felt a spiritual connection to their family members. Most people attribute Cannibalism to the act of murdering someone against their will and eating them like an animal. This documentary showed that this latter interpretation was just fear and lack of understanding.
Also, Generational cannibalism is in general BAD for your health. This is where your family members die you eat their remains out of a sense of spirituality. It's bad for your health as they have identified tribes suffering from degenerative brain diseases passed down through the remains of their family.
It's this kind of information I DO NOT want lost to an overzealous witch hunt. To me, this article does not make that distinction.
And that's the purpose of free speech, and the fundamental philosophy behind it. Sometime's it drives me up a wall when someone speaks up some kind of nazi supremisist BS and I just want them to shut up and wish their speech wasn't protected. But then there are situations like this when Someone says some kind of damage is being done and they don't explain themselves and start attacking blindly, destroying good information with the bad. It's up to us to decide what is good and bad.
Besides... has anyone really bothered to ask the true damage of what a site about necrophilia or cannibalism does? If someone is murdering for the purposes thereof... well that's murder, and we have laws covering that.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
... You obviously know as little about the US and its legal system as the person you flamed knows about that of the uk. It definitely was an american who opined, "better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you stupid than to speak and remove all doubt". The us government does many horrible things, but you haven't a clue about what they do right.
Sure, they can try to crack down on sites relating to sadism, necrophilia, or bestiality...but wouldn't that be beating a dead horse?
I hope that after I die the one word people use to describe me is "resurrected."
Without taking a political position, let me just point out that the English word marriage already has a definition: "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife".
This has to be the silliest objection yet! Meanings of words change and evolve over time. The dictionary merely records current usage.
And under your argument, aren't those outside a "unity" arrangement second class citizens?
No. They are simply "single and looking".
but your post is riddled with inconsistent logic, as well as ad hominim attacks ("fucking religious looney birds"?!?) hence I award to you no troll points today.
It's more likely that you disagree with me, so you label me a troll in the hopes that I will get modded down as such. But again, you are completely incorrect. Personally, I like mixing logic (inconsistent or not) with ad hominems and just general profanity. It seems to be the only tool that works on some people. It's not my fault that people will only give you some "spect" these days if you throw the profanity around.
Un-news
Very valid concerns. The counter to this is that the sexual exploitation of a child is illegal, as is the murder of a human being. Thus, the commission of such acts is illegal.
If a site has stories, drawings, staged fakes or manipulated images that simulate such acts no real crime has been committed (there is some argument in the courts and government's as to whether drawing of child porn is legal or not), and therefore isn't illegal as such.
I find both topics abhorant and disgusting. But should it be illegal for people to write stories, draw pictures, manipulate images or stage fakes? I don't think so. It's not anything I want to look at, but that's a personal issue and none of the governments business.
Every one of your accepted "interests" is someone elses' most abhorant perversions. The unfortunate side effect of freedom of speech (which not all countries have, unfortunately) is that you have to put up with a lot of things you don't like. I'd rather put up with Country and Western music, Rap and Disco that be told I can't listen to my favoriite musical genre. I'd rather have to block certain (IMHO) disgusting pages in my HOSTS file than be told that I can't oogle this year's SI Swimsuit issue on my PC.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Of course, the U.N. isn't a governing body that makes enforcable laws superceding those of its member sovereign nations. It's more of a toothless tiger whose declarations hold as much water as a sieve.
And it will remain so as long as nations such as the US who claim to be world leaders use its channels when it suits them but ignore and ridicule it whenever it looks like they won't get their own way. Part of being a world leader is showing leadership. If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem.
Perhaps the US needs to start being a part of the solution by showing better leadership on issues such as the Kyoto accord, the International Criminal Court, the Geneva Convention and human rights, landmine usage, the Israeli/Palestinean situation, etc.
A sieve is what you end up with when you constantly drill holes into your best water bowl.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Honestly, having grown up in NYC in the 80's and having gone to school in and around Harlem, I can't help but feel like I would welcome such a system here in the States.
Does it really bother the majority of Brits that there are security cameras present? Is it a hindrance, or a nagging fear of abuse of the surveillance system?
Were I to have children, I wouldn't think twice about whether or not I'd want the streets they walked along to be monitored.
Are you a stupid marxist, evil marxist or just a marxist?
The discussion here honestly reminds me of an episode of TV Nation. The show decided to examine what gets the most donations and sympathy in a mailing campaign: personal tragedy, a registered charity, or somebody famous.
For the somebody famous section, the show chose Jeffrey Dahmer, and declared in their letters that it was a matter of basic rights and freedoms, and that people should be allowed to eat whatever and whoever they want.
At the end of a month, personal tragedy was in last place, the registered charity had gotten some money, and a flood of cash came in for "Friends of Jeffrey Dahmer."
Truth be told, given the choice, I'd rather have the sicko reading about something like cannibalism than actually doing it. I also think that it falls under freedom of expression - nobody is forcing anybody to actually see these sites, and so long as they aren't actually advocating that you go out and eat your fellow man/woman, it comes down to a matter of taste (if you'll pardon the expression). Just because you don't like what they have to say, doesn't mean they don't have a right to say it.
Besides, somehow I can't help thinking of it in terms of a Mastercard commercial...
Putting up a site about cannibalism, etc....tasteless.
Actually eating somebody after reading about it on the site...stupid and sick.
Bragging about it later...dumb enough to qualify for a Darwin Award.
Getting put in jail because you were stupid enough to look at a site, eat somebody, and brag about it later...priceless.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
Seriously though if this person is so highly placed doesn't he understand how hard/impossible this would be. Part of the reason that speech is so free is that it is more or less impossible to police everyone.
Take the Great Firewall of China as a case in point. There the entire national internet infrastructure was built to accomidate censoship, The full weight of the government is behind it and yet it still doesn't work perfectly. Yes people are slowed down but, as the recent postings on bird flu have shown the government's power is fundamentally limited.
It reminds me of an old articel in wired that covered the firewall. They interviewed one party offoicial that talked with stars in her eyes about an internet made "safe" were everything that you did was logged (for your protection) and noone was anonymous. They then interviewed the man who designed, built and runs the firewall. When presented with the comments of the party official he asserted that she was (to paraphrase) "dreaming on".
Check out this real life story Cannibalism and Your Teen
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
> Article 19.
> Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
>
>I would have thought that this would cover it.
You have obligations to the State, because the State alone is the source of your personality. A little weird and metaphysical, but whatever.
Yeah, that covers it. If your government decides that it doesn't like how you're going about exercising the privileges granted to you by Article 19, it has the power to kick your ass.
But if it doesn't, there's...
What the fuck? What the fucking fuck fuck?
Suppose a US president asked Congress to pass an amendment to the United States Constitution that said "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United States". Would you ACLU-symps and UN-symps be OK with that too?
Hell, if the US tried something like that, even the ACLU might rethink its position on the Second Amendment.
Dude... how did we even get to this question? I expect you are just trolling.
D'you think that 'Murrica *really* made up its laws without any reference material? That the Senate is the bastion of the World's original democracy?
And Britain is? I think there are quite a few Ancient Athenians that would beg to differ with you.
--Obyron
Actually the US criminalsystem works the same way. If I was to go out and commit some horrible act I could not bhe prosecuted for it under the due proecess ammendment of the US constitution unless there was a specific law I coudl be charged with.
there is no "What he did was just morally wrong" law in the US.
Dumbass
www.sco.com
Well, I think they're abhorrent...
Webster has updated their definition of marriage.
Definition 1-a-1 still includes only hetero couples, but definition 1-a-2 is for persons of the same sex.
Yes. This is why private ownership of firearms is protected, so that an armed citizenry can resist unpopular government mandates. Where the courts and police cannot effect justice, the people are entitled to step in.
The alternative is to disarm the citizenry, making us subject to the whims of police agencies
Yup, Google and you'll find recipes.
The reasons for cannibalism in the past are often myriad...some believed that eating an enemy's body part would make them stronger; in some cultures it was a courtesy or honour to eat parts of a family member when they passed on.
hope that offends you. If so, then we can take as a given that there are certain behaviors you think should NOT be broadcast during the Superbowl Half Time Show without warning viewers.
Don't be an asshat. Bestiality is very rare and physiologically abnormal, whereas just about every boy and girl in this country spends the first 6 months of their life staring at a breast several times per day.
Get some fucking perspective.
"I feel as though if people of different races fall in love, it is unwanted. If it happens, that is fine, but it should be something [to be] avoided." Does this make sense in any way aside from prejudice?
"I do not want my child to marry a person of a different race. Ask every person in the U.S. if they want their child to marry a person of a different race. More than 80% will say no." Does that make any sense?
"This is only about a black man's want to feel like his love for a white woman is exactly the same as a white man who loves a white woman. It is not. What needs to be de[a]lt with here is a black man's issues with need[ing] to feel the same wa[y] as a white man does towards a white woman. Or any number of similar quand[a]rys."
This is obviously racist tripe, but at one time would have been just as accepted as your argument against gay people.
Meanwhile, what makes you think that a gay man wants to feel the same as a man does towards a woman? They don't need someone else to tell them they're in love, and nobody's looking for that kind of legitimation. They're looking for equal treatment in the most important human relationship, a love relationship, and for their love to be recognized as legitimate. And, of course, for legal rights that the government insists on handing out. The issue is people not wanting to be discriminated against because they love others. Or, how about this --
"What needs to be dealt with here is a closed-minded straight man's issues with needing to feel different from the way a gay man loves another man.
"Deal with that. That's the issue."
Seems a bit more psychologically accurate to me.
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
The reason that websites where discussion of 'extreme' subjects have come under fire is quite simple. Once upon a time, before technology made it possible for people with similar interests to come together in some form or another, from the far reaches of the globe, there was little or no chance of more than one cannibal/cannibalism-fetishist to find one another. Now, with the advent of these online resources, we've got greater concentrations of people with unusual fetishes or interests. A critical mass is reached when, finally, a guy that really wants to eat somebody's liver with fava beans encounters the guy that's keen to have his liver consumed. As an aside, I'm pretty sure that if you fantasize about either eating somebody or being eaten, getting it on with a dead person or whatever, that's fine. It's your fantasy, you deal with the psychological repercussions. Also, if you take your fantasy of being eaten into reality, well, then, you're just dumb, but stupidity shouldn't be against the law. Finally, if you bring your fantasy of performing cannibalism or necrophilia into reality, you've broken a law, because even if you did get consent from the person you're doing it to, they're not going to back you up on it. They're dead. And even if they're on video tape, saying that they gave you permission, with a notarized copy of what they said, signed and perfectly legal...the court'll still say they were mentally incapable of making such a decision, because anyone crazy enough to want to be eaten, well, they're just crazy enough to be mentally incompetent.
Software is like a goldfish - it'll grow to fit the size of it's bowl...
Yeah, like the idiots who keep spouting the illogic about the British government's BBC branch "not being of the government, but instead of the Queen".
Perhaps the obvious must be stated: the Queen IS the government, idiots!
The most obvious difference between British and US government is, of course, the accent.
-----------------------
You are what you think.
ah yes, what happened to that. i remember before the internet was widespread we could go around mugging, stealing, killing, raping etc.
i miss the good old days when we had freedom
(for those who cant remember, this was never the case, laws are there for a reason and yes, online laws are there for a reason too)
It is just dissapointing to think some people feel they have the right to tell others how to live their lives and deny them rights. IMO, the meaning of life is love, whether that be man, woman, or big screen plasma, that is what life is for--being happy and making others happy. Some people just don't get it, and never will, so sometimes its just better to save your breath.
btw... i'm hetero and engaged, not that it effects the argument, but just fyi
"The truth suffers from too much analysis"
Hey, kids!
Kill your parents while they're sleeping, have sex with their corpses, then eat them.
And the link you give also has another definition: "A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same sex marriage".
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
It got partially eaten then made love to.
I wonder if anyone mentioned to these people that if they guy was willing to kill those people just on a whim, that he had some serious physiological issues to begin with. The guy could have picked up a book on medieval samurai and their sword techniques, and decided to see if he could actually decapitate someone, and the author still wouldn't be liable.
Don't hate the playa, hate the game.
If you run a service that arguably exists only to facilitate crime, expect to end up arguing about it in court. This isn't complicated - if you run a website that facilitates crime you can be found liable and guilty of breaking laws.
I don't buy it. You're talking about content aimed an cannibalism fetishists versus the actual, physical crime of cannibalism. There are damned few actual cannibals running around. Serial murderers have a habit of standing out.
Here's an article written by a cannibalism and snuff fetishist. I think that you'll find that it's pretty clear that said person finds actual cannibalism frightening and appalling. There is a tremendous line between people that run out and kill and eat people, and people that have cannibal fantasies. There is a tremendous difference between people that fantasize about BSDM content and actual rapists. There is a tremdous difference between fantasizing about killing your boss/George Bush and actually doing so. There is a tremdous difference between people that fantasize about having sex with an actress and the guy that actually goes out and starts stalking her. The line between the two is quite significant. The issue that I take is that the police officer in the article is either ignoring that line, or attempting to draw connections across the line that I'm not sure I find convincing.
May we never see th
I don't know about it being illegal, but that sounds like every other Friday night in Wales.
IIRC Divine Right doesn't apply any more. The English Civil War sorted that one out.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
I'm not trolling.
It is obvious that the "working class" is not interested
in pseudo-intellectual marxist theories from university
brats. The new market place for the marxists is gay
marriages and other "modern" phenomena that is not
supported by common sense - or the laws of nature.
Man, I am so getting GTA VIII when it comes out!
Fuck you! Why don't you go troll your daddy's asshole you shit eating tard.
"Linux has been declared abhorrent, and offers nothing but perverse gratification" says MS exec. We are moving to push through legislation that will block and remove all sites converning this 'Linux'.
We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
The US Constitution does not define rights, of any kind. It defines the structure, powers and responsibilities of the government of the United States. Just because most people let the government do stuff that it isn't supposed to do, doesn't change what the Constitution is. State constitutions do the same for individual states. The British constitution (which is not a single document like most) does the same thing for the UK.
As for "innocent until proven guilty", that goes back to the Magna Carta (I think it was also present in Anglo-Saxon law, but I'm not sure). But it didn't always hold. Pirates and smugglers were generally "guilty till proven innocent". This was also quite common with colonists, who often didn't even receive a jury trial.
Save me Jeabus!
Freedom of expression is not guaranteed - it's not a right, but a privelege (at least, it was when I spent my first 27 years there).
If the govt says you can't say or do something, that's the law.
Again, I say to you worthless shitpile, where did I ever bring up the "working class" or "pseudo-marxist" threories in my posts above? I think you must be a fucktard. Or else you're that stupid mother fucking Slashdot editor I modded down last week.
Gross and unfathomable, no? But I think the same is true of any sexual fetish -- if you're not somebody who shares that fetish!
i do understand that some content might not be appreciated online by people or governments. in france for example, we do not have a free speech amendement like the US constitution has. we have a free speech unless we do things like nazi propaganda or promoting killing people because of their religion, skin color, or stuff alike. while i do understand this is rather desirable as people should be accepted as they are, i have a problem with censorship. first, i believe that ideas should be fought with ideas and not law. if you have a law, it means that somewhere, someone or a group of persons chooses what is legal and what is not. this means that if today we censor pedophilia or promotion of crime, we could end up someday in a democratic country with laws that will make any critic of the government or something more sensitive (like it would not be allowed to criticize history as publied by the government, and you all know that he who can rewrite history has a great deal of power over coming societies). :)
i thus would prefer to have freedom of speech written in constitution and this would not be modifiable without the majority of people in the country to vote for a modification. this way, politics would not be able to introduce laws that could censor valued content like criticism of political power or things alike. of course, this will allow some people to publish and discuss their political views which are "extreme" to other people, but we if we have censorship, we let people choose for everyone else and if this goes wrong someday, it is gonna be very bad. i feel that it's a binary question. you do not have free speech if it is not absolute and for everyone. this, including people you would really dislike or even hate.
i like to recall a quote from Voltaire, that said to someone he didn't share his ideas : "sir, i might not like your ideas and will fight them, but i am ready to fight for your right to express those as i expose mines". i tend to prefer the US constitution about it rather than our current laws in France. i do not trust that politicians can always remain "serious". if someday extreme-right or left politicans get in power, they will be able to legally and by using law to outlaw anything that will go against them, and we will have to leave to be able to keep our free speech. uk should fight those ideas with ideas and if a web site promoted crime to have it closed. but those ideas of "cleaning" internet is just a digital ethnic-alike cleansing i dont like. not because of what it is but of what it could become if it goes wrong. i would prefer the government to trust us, we the people, to fight ideas that are dangerous to democracy. we should let everyone express their ideas, and respect their freedom to talk.
how can we ask for freedom of speech if it is not available to everyone, blindly as justice should be ? that is why justice has a blindfold over her eyes. there is a tendency in governments to distrust their people and good will to fight dangerous ideas or crime-promoting things. i believe the majority of people is rather sane and good for each other and we are probably able to take care of those matters without people choosing what we can talk about, and what we are not able to talk about because "we" would have a tendency to bad things. there is no good censorship. because it has been used in history to have political opponents shut up. it is like weapons. it is not because they can be used for crimes they would be wrong. but this is another very difficult subject to talk about
I think you are confusing freedom with licence. Freedom implies responsibility. In any civilised country, it is granted within bounds set by the government. If you don't like it you get to vote against them next election.
English law DOES NOT HAVE the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise thanks to the Criminal Justice Act in the early nineties. In Scotland, you cannot incriminate yourself - so responding to a traffic offence and identifying yourself as the culprit from a speed camera photo is illegal! Very different systems. Also the Anti-Terrorism act allows citizens to be held without charge for an indefinite time. This came about to combat the irish threat in the 80's, long before bush and his oddball war for oil/power.
Also in Scotland there are 3 verdicts - guilty, innocent and Not Proven.
Also, your example about the box of matches does not hold true in England. The 1996 offensive weapons act makes it illegal to carry any offensive object in a public place. this would include a pocket penknife (of any size). You *will* be charged for carrying a pocket penknife in London - even if you had no intention whatsoever of using it to garot someone. If you had a box of matches in one pocket and lighter fluid in the other then you could well be charged, or at least, receive a caution.
rd
I think the answer I cut and pasted below this paragraph applies here. The poster of the article talked about freedom. It's best not to talk about freedom out of the context of reality, otherwise the discussion can become so abstract as to be devoid of all meaning. Before we can have a rational discussion about this, we need to be sure of what we mean by freedom in this context. In this context, we're talking about the "freedom" of people to discuss and plan certain highly unethical acts.) We no longer observe the "right" of people to enter into slavery (that's one freedom that we have taken away, because we understand that it results in less freedom), and in this case, it makes sense to make sure that people who frequent such websites don't try to actually eat someone. I'm not weighing in one way or another, as I haven't put a lot of thought into this particular issue, but we need to be careful not to always come down on the side of "freedom" before evaluating what we really mean by the word.
A friend asked:
"Why should people who earn more have to pay a larger percentage of taxes than someone else? Why should people be penalized for earning more?"
My initial answer was that asking questions outside of the context of reality often does not serve to increase our understanding of how things work, or which choice we should make. I followed up by asking him why I should have to have eight hours of my day controlled in a dictatorial fashion by someone else, why shouldn't I (and millions of other Americans) have complete freedom to do what I want with my working life? He tried to give an answer, but it summed up to, "that's the way things are." My second answer was, why should one man be able to be a dictator over millions of people. An example would be, why should a man, let's call him Joe, for example, be able to bark out orders to thousands of people, with the threat of them not being able to eat if they don't do what he says, and at the same time, be able to tell hundreds of millions of people what they are allowed to consume, sounds a lot like Soviet style Communism if you ask me. In this case, we'll call him Bill Gates Outside of the context of reality, such a question would make you say, "Well, one man shouldn't have dictatorial power over people, and have the choice over what they will be able to consume." Inside the context of our present day world, most would say,"Well, he's Bill Gates, and he's done X, Y, and Z, therefore, he deserves to have that control over Microsoft, which just happens to control vast portions of the software industry and just happens to have a scale of economy larger than most countries." Outside the context of reality, most people would answer my friend's question as, "Well, a man shouldn't be punished for earning more!" However, when we look at the real world situation and ask why someone in East St. Louis who can barely feed their kids and can't even afford healthcare should ever have to pay as large of a percentage of taxes as a man who has near dictatorial control over a vast region of the worldwide economy, with a company that has a net income that rivals the GDP of many 3rd world dictatorships (and democracies for that matter), we can evaluate the question properly, and say that in a society that cares about it's people, she shouldn't have to pay as large a percentage of taxes as Bill Gates.
Often times, those who win political debates are those who can spin the questions the best, so that those questions favor their own side, and make their opponent look like a fool, or unjust, cruel, etc. If we really want to reach a sane and just policy, we need to have enough facts and data, and we need to evaluate our answer in the context of those facts. Spinning arguments on their head to favor a certain ideology, while it may be a convenient way to win a debate against a lesser gifted opponent, is no way to reach a true understanding or to make an informed decision. In the lopsided version of reality that we have in America, where one man can't eat, and another gets vast sums of money, progressive taxation starts to make sense.
The US Constitution does not define rights, of any kind.
However, the Bill of Rights does. And Britain doesn't have one of those either.
But it seems to me like there are grounds for trying to shut down websites that promote certain behaviours that a society decides to reject. The problem is, as usual, where to draw the line.
Whilst we all agree that using dmca to shut down some random hacking website is wrong.
Anyone here care to defend websites teaching you how to eat your neighbour? (and leave free speech alone - we loose the credibility we so badly need when it comes to the things we really are knowledgeable at)
TODO: 753) write sig.
Please bear in mind that cannibalism and necrophilia are not unethical. They may be immoral, disgusting and offensive to many people, but there is nothing unethical about eating or fucking a dead body. It's just a ethical as burning it, shooting the ash into space, burying it in the ground, freezing it in liquid nitrogen, hanging it on the tree, etc.
It has been considered normal and even worthy to eat parts of the dead in many cultures. It is considered totally acceptable to engage in the acts of kissing with the dead, caressing them and talking to them. I don't see any principal difference from necrophilia or cannibalism.
It is indeed not mainstream, but then Internet censorship is not mainstream either. And I am not suggesting a crackdown on the UK's Hi-Tech Crime Unit. BTW, doesn't it disturb you that the UK has a Hi-Tech Crime Unit? Where is the world going? The next thing you know, the UK will get itself a "Raping Innocent Children Team" or "Blatant Corruption Division"...
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
As with all violent porn, the issue is whether there are people who don't get the "this is just a fantasy" bit and actually go out and murder people, for sex or for lunch. They even made a movie about it.
How about "Jail all stupid journalists and close all tabloid rags" campaign? Now that would be really useful, since cannibals kill one person per year or so, but tabloids manage to dumb and besot millions of people every day a new issue hits the stands.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Fortunately for us, they also made the Constitution exceedingly difficult to change, keeping it a stable document for future generations. The only downside to it is that there is (apparently) insufficient enforcement of its provisions. The legislature knowingly and unknowingly passes unconstitutional laws all the time, requiring an expensive and tedious judicial process to repeal it, at which point they can quickly rewrite the law and put it back in action, repeating the process ad naseum. It also let a huge hole for "executive orders" which are orders by the President and can only be stopped by impeachment of the President (another difficult process) AFAIK.
I'm sorry if you feel offended. However; my opinion on today's marxism stands.
Again, I say to you worthless shitpile, where did I ever bring up the "working class" or "pseudo-marxist" threories in my posts above?
No you didn't. I did.
Ah, now i see. It is my quoting style that you don't like.
The Internet is no place for people looking for 'perverse gratification', claims the police officer leading the UK's fight against e-crime Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah... *wipes tears*... hahahahahahahahah... hahahahah...hahahahahahahaha....
If you can't publish anywhere else, you can't publish on the web. It's just another medium.
Timothy's silly notion of "freedom of expression online" is bogus. But, it plays up to people who think the web is different. It ain't.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Death: "Oh, Sandy...oh, Sandy.... Sandy? Oh man, I'm gonna be a virgin forever...or will I?"
Yo mama so fake, she failed the Turing Test.
I think people assume you are trolling because you are stating opinion as fact, eg:
> Some facts:
>1. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality in today's society. Anyone who says otherwise is a dinosaur and will soon perish.
Any time someone says their opinion is fact without any type of justification, research, links, articles, studies, etc. most people just assume they are zealots. It doesn't matter which side of the isle you are on either.
>It's not my fault that people will only give you some "spect" these days if you throw the profanity around.
This isn't true at all. You watch too much sensationalist TV. Name calling is so much easier for you, than actually doing research or just admitting you believe in something but have no scientific or logical basis for it(which is fine, but call it like it is, don't resort to empty rhetoric). In fact when I have a discussion with someone and they resort to name calling, using cheap shot jokes in the arguements, etc. I assume they don't have anything else useful to say and I have won the argument.
-Comedian
The most obvious difference between British and US government is, of course, the accent.
Agreed, making the British model infinitely superior to the US one.
What happened to freedom of expression online?
What do you think the K stands for in UK? "States"? There are freedoms similar to those of the United States all over the world, but that similarity doesn't mean squat without a constitution that expressly grants us rights that most of the rest of the world do not have.
The European Convention on Human Rights of 1950 extended free expression to the citizenry of the signing countries, but there are many limitations to that "free" expression:
"The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary." (bold added by RP)
Thanks, but I prefer the US Constitution.
RP
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I love how the US Freedom zealots bring up freedom everytime these kinds of laws come up (caveat: I am a US citizen).
This is no big surprise, really. Newflash, clownboats. Most of the rest of the world doesn't have the EXTREME love of individual liberties we have in the US. If you look at everything from speech issues to gun control to privacy to x, you will see that in most other countries, the citizenry are willing, even happy, to give up a little freedom in exchange for some security. Where as we in the US keep dragging out the tired old Franklin quote whenever this comes up.
Most of the world does not want quite as much freedom as we do. Most of the world doesn't see restriction of "obviously" offensive/potentially dangerous speech as such a big deal as we do (see the large numbers of hate speech restrictions in Europe as an example). This is not news. Get over it. While the growing internationalization of the Net will bring unparalleled freedom to much of the world, it will at the same time very likely result in some curtailment of Net freedom verses what we in the US want, *because the rest of the world doesn't want it.*
IIRC Divine Right doesn't apply any more. The English Civil War sorted that one out.
:)
Yep, God lost
However, the Bill of Rights does. And Britain doesn't have one of those either.
Britain does indeed have a Bill of Rights. It is in no way similar to the US Bill of Rights, but that doesn't change the fact that your comment was based on total ignorance.
mod parent up
And.... would you be allowed to create a website campaigning for your views? That's the whole point of this article, should people be allowed to try to advertise currently illegal activities?
Well, so much for my idea of a new Goth Oriented Vampiric Necrocannibalism Anonymous Page (GOVNAP).
One Word: Dogma
If the religious community at large, simply said "You know what, this is a dumb fight, we don't care", then they would begin to lose their grip on the minds of their followers. If one piece of 'Absolute Truth' is invalidated, how long before another and another and another?
Dogma doesn't allow the Reverend to step up and say "Ya know, we think we may have misunderstood God's take on this whole gay issue". He has spent years telling his faithful Parishinors that 'God WILL smite the evildoer, including 'Men who lie with men". If he was wrong on that bit, how long before other evildoers slip away from judgement? The potential for a mass sobering up from the Opium of the People is a real threat.
Get a life, not a lifestyle. - Hikem Bey
>Not surprising since the US legal system was >inherited from the British,
Really?
I guess with the educational system being what it is, you have to remind people that 200 years ago you were british!!
Exactly! That's what I've been saying for years! The internet isn't for public use, it's just a new source of advertising for businesses and the entertainment industry. Power to the... um, big business!
Next let's burn the encyclopedia and dictionary! I bet there's definitions for cannibalism and necrophilia in there. God forbid anyone educate themselves, ain't be no learnin' on dis hur inturnet.
Jeez, before you know it they'll be taking away the guns and putting video cameras on every street corner.... oh, wait, this is britian, isn't it?
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Gee thanks. I was going to watch that show. Not now. I wouldn't be able to see it without wondering when the hamster scene is going to appear in the show.
How is the internet relevent here. Either this is ilegal in britain and it's the governments job to fight it, or it's legal and they can't do anything to it. No diffrent then they would with printed material.
"What happened to freedom of expression online?"
It died, then someone humped it and then ate it.
The UK's Hi-Tech Crime Unit wants to control the Internet in order to protect us from necrophilia?
From Wikipedia: Necrophilia is also lesser known in some contexts as "the desire to control". This term has been used in this sense by certain authors, for example, by Erich Fromm, for describing those with so much need for control of others that the extent of control which the victims are subjected to is such that, in effect, they are dead, ie, they have zero self control.
See also this one.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Extreme websites such as
Extreme political views.
Actions we can do to denfend the integrity of the freedom of speech our democracy rests on?
A blog I run for the wealth
"For it [the Internet] to continue to grow as a mainstream medium for businesses, education and entertainment, it must design out the minority factors that inhabit cyberspace for their own perverse gratification," Hynds added.
DESIGN OUT THE MINORITY FACTORS?!?! I'm sorry, but when we start talking about "*****ing out" the minority factors, I immediately think of stifling minority opinions. I realize that the UK doesn't have a single document like the US's Bill of Rights that mandates freedom of speech, but surely the thousand years or so of case law has left some sort of precedent for liberty!
I'm not being particularly hard on Britain though; God knows my country has its share of crazies like Ashcroft trying to eliminate "morally corrupt" ideas from the internet, but this is the first I've heard of England clearly trying to get in on the act.
*****
Dear Mary,
I yearn for you tragically,
A.T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
If it's not Child Porn they pick out some other emotive but badly reasoned argument.
What the hell has the internet got to do with this ->
"Earlier this month, it was reported that a man convicted of murdering a special needs teacher by strangulation has been a regular visitor to pornographic Web sites that included images of necrophilia."
Goodness me, they are bent on silencing political activists!
A blog I run for the wealth
Obviously. *BSD is dead, remember?
But then listening to music with "repetitive beats" in a group of 3 or more people outside is illegal (under laws to stop "raves") so the UK govt is quite fond of drafting broad laws.
Hasn't anyone tried to bomb the living shit out of whoever comes up with this?
> Were I to have children, I wouldn't think twice about whether or not I'd want the streets they walked along to be monitored.
Until you found out that even police officers can be kidnappers, and that such a person would be a significantly greater threat. The fear that opponents have of these systems is that it makes abuse much easier, and safeguarding against abuse much harder. Nobody has anything to fear from the honest watchdogs, but they're not the ones that worry us.
Virg
After several days of finding nothing to use my mod points on.. you post this!
That was a good catch, I wish I could mod you up!
Scott.
I agree with you on both points. But... there is no point in debating with morons and that is largley what American society has become. We're a society who is proud of our stupidity and we LOVE to emphasize it every chance we get.
Un-news
I don't recall freedom of expression in Britain...I think that's why we left! :-)
Seriously--even in the US local communities are able to pass laws about what they consider illegally obscene. I live in California though, so that sort of thing doesn't apply to me. hehehe
sev
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
You must love spending your life waiting for you chance to vote. How much pleasure it must give you to punch out those chads. How many times a year do you get to express you opinions this way? Once? Twice? Three times would be awesome!
I live to vote. But I often wonder what's the point.
OK, then let me throw you a different spin. If I write a story (a completely fictional story, that is) of someone going to the local kindergarten, grabbing a child, and gruesomely murdering that child, I haven't committed a crime. I can distribute that story on line, and the authorities will not come knocking.
Now, if I change that story only a bit, so that the character now commits a sexual act against the child, but does not murder the child, the mere posession of the story is a criminal offense. If I put the story on a back shelf and never tell anyone it's there, but somehow the authorities find out about it, I can be incarcerated for more than a decade.
Can you tell me why there's a punishment for a fictional depiction of child rape, but no punishment for a fictional depiction of child murder? Not so obvious any more, is it?
Virg
While I agree that the poster was quite ignorant of British law, you do not seem to know the U.S. Constitution very well, either. I am not American, but I have read the document and taken civics class, so here's my quick explanation of the constitution of the U.S. to non-Americans.
... abridging the freedom ... or the right of the people ...
... shall not be infringed.
... shall not be violated
... the accused shall enjoy the right ...
... the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, ...
The constitution lays out what the federal government can and cannot do. The parts which you believe 'lay down what the rights of US citizens are' do not, in fact, do so. They merely prohibit the federal government from passing laws limiting those rights. They should not be taken to mean that those are the only rights that the people have, or that the constitution is "providing" rights to the people. The basic idea is that even if you're in Communist China or Nazi Germany, you have the right to free speech, fair trials, etc. - it's just that the government there does not recognize those rights. In the constitution, the founders decided to specifically cite certain rights the the federal government would have to respect. In fact, some of the founders did not want rights to be mentioned in the constitution at all, because they felt that would lead to people thinking as you do, that rights are created by the constitution and that rights not listed do not exist.
Let's look at the actual wording of those amendments that mention rights: (from here
Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law
Amendment 2: the right of the people
Amendment 4: The right of the people
Amendment 6:
Amendment 7:
Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Nowhere in the constitution does it just say "The people have a right to..." a particular right. They all take the form of telling the government not to infringe on them. It is taken as a given that rights exist outside of the ones listed in the constitution, as amendment 9 specifically says. When new amendments are added that "give" new rights, such as women's sufferage, they do not mean that the right suddenly came into existence when the amendment was passed, but that the government was infringing on that right up to that time.
btw, You say that Britain doesn't need a constitution, but how does it know what powers the government has, and what procedures it must take to change the system? I'm thinking in particular about Tony Blair removing the House of Lords by himself. Where does it say he had the power to do so? If he can do that, can he remove the House of Commons? Throw the Royals out? The equivalent in America would require a constitutional convention and ratification by the states, so having a prime minister make arbritary changes like that seems frightening. Not that the House of Lords seemed like a good idea to begin with, but still...
You are confusing government and sovereignty. In the UK, Queen Elizabeth is the sovereign. Can you dispute that?
I would definitely dispute that. The English civil war settled that parliament is sovereign. Try a Google search for "sovereignty of parliament" if you want any supporting cites.
please please please let all the small-minded bigots stop living in the fantasy land that is the bible and come back to reality!
Speaking of which, all you fundies that are so excited about seeing that new Mel Gibson movie because "your God" dies in it, please turn your brains back on and think for yourself again.
Jesus was probably a good guy, but his followers are destroying his image.
If carrying screwdrivers is outlawed, only outlaws will carry screwdrivers. (Sorry, had to say it.)
"What happened to freedom of expression online?" I know, it's an extreme. But where do we draw that line? I suppose thats a good way to draw the line (click on "human responsobility" to get the declaration). Extreme individual freedom obviously can mean restrictions for others.
All posts claiming something about homosexuality leads down a slippery slope (what you can't have lovers without including the dog?) will cause an immediate EOT. End. Of. Thread.
Theres a hugeass difference between cable and broadcast. Broadcast uses airwaves, which are limited and publicly owned. Cable is a privately owned network that potentially has unlimited bandwidth (by adding more cable/channels.) People PAY for the privelege of aquiring cable television. I as a citizen already own the public airwaves.
The laws regarding broadcast television are quite simple. Television stations do not own airwaves, they are granted limited use of them by the government. Since they are publicly owned and limited, the government has an interest in regulating this so that a small portion of people, say for example the people who think that nudity is acceptable in all public venues, don't have the ability to coopt television for only themselves.
The same way that the government is responsible for providing police for public travelways and services for all citizens, they are responsible for making sure that television doesn't become anarchy. We all own it, so it should me more or less accessible to all.
The Janet Jacksom "event" which I am so incredibly sick of, was a commercial spectacle designed to cater to the prurience of the american viewer. It violated community standards in close to 100 out of 100 communities in the United States of America. It had no artistic intentions, it was pandering rather than entertaining. It by definition is the lowest common denominator of content on television. It was wrong, Viacom should be punished, there is nothing wrong or obsolete with telling these clowns enough is enough, they don't own television.
We can look at retirement rates of ultra wealthy businessmen who live in rich countries versus those who live in poor countries.
should be...
We can look at retirement rates of ultra wealthy businessmen who live in countries with high taxes versus those who live in countries with low taxes.
I've yelled fire in a crowded theatre. For the most part people just give you strange looks...
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
When are people going to be responsible for their own acts? Censoring the Internet, or anything else for that matter, is approaching the problems stated, from the wrong way around. Why isn't anyone interested in educating people about making choices and resulting consequences, but instead are some how obsessed with attacking the so-called 'influences'. Stating that anything is an influence causing people to commit crimes, is silly, and shows us just how insanely lost and disillusioned our current state of society, the global one, has become. I don't care if a website shows you how to professionally skin someone alive and cook their organs to make a gourmet meal, that site holds no responsibility if you actually go off and do it. You as an individual, must decide what you do, and do not do.
This is all tied up with the same moral problem that people seem to find with GTA III, and I feel that area reflects the same problem, individuals not wanting to take responsibility for their own actions. There always has to be some external influence to blame or point the finger at.
I'm actually proud of how much the internet has withstood this kind of social degradation over the years when it comes to free expression. Although things are slowly starting to change now, there is still time.
Not that silly. (IANAL, but...) It means that legally same sex couples can't be 'married'.
Doesn't mean they can't be in some sort of legal union that has the same rights as marriage though.
Frankly, as long as same-sex couples don't become mandatory - let them do what they will. If we don't stop them 'seeing' each other, why stop them putting that relationship in a contract?
What is free speech? I live in a democracy that allows me, should I so wish, to *campaign* for the legalisation for necrophilia. I can talk to anyone and everyone about it. ...
Aren't those statements contradictory? You can talk about something, but you can't put up a website about it? What's the difference?
*sigh*. Yes I know scotland has a separate legal system. So does Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. (You might also note that all the systems are joined at the top, since they share the same highest court, namely the House of Lords.) But this minor mistake on my part is rendered inconsequential compared to the nonsense you write. I'll just respond to the more egregious errors:
"Scotland has a (superior) legal system that is derived from Roman Law (even today proceedings are in Latin)."
Are you smoking crack? Whether Scots law is superior is a matter of taste, though you should note that it's very much a hybrid common-law/Roman-law system. But thinking that they still argue in Latin? All lawyers are fond of the occasional Latin turn-of-phrase, but it's been several hundred years since proceedings were conducted in latin any court in Britain.
"Scotland has fully adopted the EU Human Rights Act whilst England is lagging behind. "
There is no such thing as the 'EU Human Rights Act'. The Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (commonly known as the European Convention on Human Rights, or ECHR) was promulgated in (I believe) 1947 by an organisation called the Council of Europe, which is unrelated to the E.U., which did not exist in even embryonic form until the Treaty of Rome in 1956. The ECHR is enforced by the European Court of Human Rights, in Strasbourg, while EU law is under the aegis of the European Court of Justice, in Luxembourg. There are no organisational links between the two.
The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the ECHR into both English and Scottish law simultaneously. As far as I know there is no difference between the two nations regarding the applicability of the ECHR. Please point me to the provisions of the relevant legislation showing this is not the case.
"English law DOES NOT HAVE the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise thanks to the Criminal Justice Act in the early nineties."
This is truly complete, total, utter bollocks. If that were the case, why was there such uproar when the Home Secretary suggested changing the standard of proof in terrorism cases (a position from which he backtracked today.) There is not one single criminal offence in English law where the presumption of innocence does not apply.
"Also, your example about the box of matches does not hold true in England. The 1996 offensive weapons act makes it illegal to carry any offensive object in a public place. this would include a pocket penknife (of any size). You *will* be charged for carrying a pocket penknife in London - even if you had no intention whatsoever of using it to garot someone. If you had a box of matches in one pocket and lighter fluid in the other then you could well be charged, or at least, receive a caution."
You are labouring under various misapprehensions here. Firstly, if you care to read the act (all Acts of Parliament can be found on government websites) you'll see that the offence is actually "carrying an offensive weapon without lawful excuse". Thus clearly carrying a lighter and lighter fluid is not an offence is you were using it to light your cigarette. Further, as regards knives the offence of 'carrying a bladed or pointed article in a public place' specifically excludes folding pocket-knives with blades under 3 inches long, and excludes knives carried for use at work. So you should be safe with your penknife.
Secondly, of course you could be arrested, charged and cautioned for carrying a lighter or box of matches. You can be arrested for walking down the street if the police feel like it. But that doesn't mean you'll be convicted.
"Also the Anti-Terrorism act allows citizens to be held without charge for an indefinite time. This came about to combat the irish threat in the 80's, long before bush and his oddball war for oil/power."
The power to detain UK citizens without trial was introduced by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. It was repealed in
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
enough said.
But what about mine.
your dog does not have the intellectual capacity to understand and make contracts.
Her name is Pepper. She's very clever, and adept at ignoring me and getting into all kinds of mischief. She can't write her name, she's illiterate, but she can make a mark with her paw, or urinary tract.
If you'd like to talk more privately about this, please email me at lazlototh@hotmail.com.
What is free speech? I live in a democracy that allows me, should I so wish, to *campaign* for the legalisation for necrophilia. I can talk to anyone and everyone about it.
Can you put up a web site about it?
Some people don't see the Internet (or anywhere else) as a place for free expression. They see the Internet (and everywhere else) as a place for making money and perpetuating standard values. Such people usually get their way. The days of free expression on the Internet are numbered, as they are everywhere else. By consolidating control of the Internet into entities whose primary interests are making money and avoiding problems, we are moving it toward a self-regulated sales and entertainment (with education as an occasional side-effect, like on television and radio) driven by conformity and propriety.
As for Tony Blair removing the House of Lords by himself - if he could do so, he would have done long ago. As it is, he's negotiating with the other main parties to try to find a solution to the half-implemented "reforms" which he can get passed by both Houses of Parliament. Technically, he can get by without the approval of the House of Lords, using the Parliament Act of 1910, but to do so takes years of getting his bill passed by the Commons and rejected by the Lords. (There is also a technical requirement for Royal Assent, although should the Queen fail to give assent to a bill passed by both Houses it would provoke a constitional crisis).
As to whether the House of Lords was "a good idea to begin with" - I can't comment on its origins, but I know I'm against the current government's efforts to "reform" it, which I see as gerrymandering.
There are two ways of interpreting that, and I think only one is correct. There's probably no country which hates France more than the UK hates France, but the UK probably hates the US more than the UK hates France.
note also that the uk has the highest number of cctv
More cameras could mean more freedom. For some reason feedom is interpreted more and more often as "anonymity". The problem with complete anonymity is that there are no more responsability for your acts, therefore not much freedom left.
For example in a society where we would all be completely anonymous, I could kill you without consequences for me. How free would you be ?
On the other hand, in a society where anonymity is removed, everybody becomes responsible for their acts, therefore you could walk in the middle of the night anywhere without fearing others, because if somebody did something to you, they would have to answer their act (hence, chances are that nobody will not do anything to you in fear of the consequences).
Cameras everywhere might enhanced freedom...
ot that silly. (IANAL, but...) It means that legally same sex couples can't be 'married'.
One does not have to be a lawyer to know that the dictionary does not have the force of law. They don't even all agree. For example, in Webster's International Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd Edition Unabridged, the 4th definition under "marriage" is: "Any intimate or close union."
I left England a few years ago to live in the U.S. because the English are so whimpish about standing up for freedom. They have such silly laws, like the "Obscene Publications Act" and not too long back it was illegal to trade on Sundays. When you buy a television in England the store gives your name and address to the government so they can check you have a license.... I could go on.
There's no First Amendment and Parliament has absolute power to pass any obscure law they want to. Political ads are not allowed and there's hardly ever any propositions (referendums) on the ballot.
The British system of government is an extension of an archaic monarchial contract with its roots in the idea that some are born to lead, others are born to follow.
Chief Constables in the U.K. (unlike DAs and Sheriffs in the U.S.) are all appointed because the elite element is too fucking scared that your average Joe might have an adverse opinion.
Without taking a political position, let me just point out that the English word marriage already has a definition: "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife". Any attempt to redefine that word based on political correctness smacks of "whims and prejudices" to me.
The point is not whether or not there is an existing definition, but that the existing definition is prejudicial in that it doesn't apply equally to everyone.
In fact, the above definition of marriage is inherently prejudicially exclusive in that it presumes that every human individual is either a "man" or a "woman." The prejudice is in the erroneous assumption that gender is a binary state which is clearly false. The definitions that are sorely in need of reexamination are far more rudimentary than "marriage"-- that of "man" and "woman."
How then, does the term "marriage" apply to an individual who is completely hermaphroditic, such as in a dizygotic chimera? How about an individual who is only partially intersexed, such as an genetic XXY individual, pseudohermaphrodite or someone with an endocrine or hormonal disorder? What about someone who is transgendered via a medical procedure? And what if such a procedure wasn't voluntary, such as when newborn males with small penises are thought to be females, surgically "corrected" and grow up believing they are females only to find out later (perhaps at puberty, or even later) they are otherwise male? Who gets to decide what gender these people are and on what basis?
Does marriage simply not apply to some of these individuals? What do you do if one of these persons ends up inadvertently married to the "same" gender but who had honestly believed they were different genders when they got married and found out later that perhaps they are not? How "male" does one have to be to be considered "male" enough to marry as a male? 51%?... 80%?.... 95%?.... What does it mean to have such a fundamental social institution that simply doesn't apply to certain people?
Can we simply ignore the issue because it's only a minority population of individuals with indeterminate or intermediate gender? How large would such a population have to be to be taken into consideration regarding "marriage?" How do you determine if someone is a member of such a population-- what means are to be used for determining intermediacy and how intermediate do you have to be to be considered one of such a group? What if the only "intermediacy" you have is that you find yourself attracted to the same sex? Apparently, even that is too much intermediacy for "marriage" to apply, at least in some quarters-- suggesting that the required percentages of "maleness" or "femaleness" required for marriage are quite high.
And finally, does love have anything at all to do with marriage given the kind of constraints some people would apparently apply?
IMHO-- How better could we undermine the institution of marriage then to withhold it from certain classes of persons? How could we make it more irrelevant to society at large than to pass a constitutional amendment proclaiming it an exclusive club? Watch what you wish for...
Those who yearn for a black and white world can try to ignore these difficult issues, but even the passing of a constitutional amendment isn't going to make them disappear...
Does this mean I won't be able to read any more Edgar Allen Poe online?
Anybody seen pictures of a beaten and bloodied man nailed to a big cross? I'd say somebody's rights were seriously violated in doing that, yet, the explicit re-creation and adoration of said event is in no way banned or illegal. Sick and perverted as it may be. Those "freaks" who possess such "illegal" and "abhorrent" material should be thrown in jail. (By your own reasoning)
Personally I agree that such material should not exist, (as in the article) but please examine yourselves honestly before you accuse others of the terrible crime hanging around your neck.
Line up all the "Christians" against the wall and shoot them.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
This is a simple concept. I do not want my child to be gay. Ask every person in the U.S. if they want their child to be gay.
More than 80% will say no (yes I'm guessing).
We do not want to legitimize something we do not want.
Hmm. This is an interesting, concise argument that I haven't heard before.
Okay, let's see. The problem I have is that there are two assumptions in your post that I'm not sure are well-founded. The first is that legitimizing gay behavior is likely to produce more gays. I'm not sure that this is the case. Do people "decide to become gay" or are they simply gay, and forced out of fear of overwhelming social repercussions to act as if they aren't?
Suppose your daughter is a lesbian and finds other women sexually attractive. Is it socially healthier to attempt to drive such behavior out of her from fear, by ensuring that she marries a man and has sex with him, or to not attempt to inflict fear on her (and thus increase the likelihood that she engages in sex with other women, rather than just lusting after them)?
The second assumption is that it's a good idea to keep things that we don't want to have happen illegitimate. For example, I suspect that many parents would prefer that their children become doctors or lawyers rather than (generally much poorer) artists. Is a good solution to that problem to ridicule artists, to make them always feel uncomfortable in society, in the hopes that your own child will be ashamed to become an artist? If she does, would you consider ridiculing artists as stupid, poverty-stricken incompetents, or would you stop? Would you be angry if *other* people ridiculed your daughter or son and made them live in shame for their career choice?
I think that this is what many people are grappling with. There are a lot of people out there who have been treated very badly because of their sexual attractions. It's possible to force their behavior underground, at a cost of some suicides, depression, and whatnot, but are the benefits really worth it?
Reserving the word "marriage" for heterosexual unions seems to be primarily useful as a tool to segregate, to attack people, to make them feel badly ("you aren't *married*").
I think that the optimal solution is probably to have states stop issuing marriage certificates, only issue civil union certificates (which, for Chrissake, is what they're *really* doing) and let religious institutions define marriages as whatever they want. If someone wants to be married in a Catholic church, great, and if two lesbians want to be married in some other church that accepts it, great. I don't think this will happen, though, because it would be so much more difficult to reduce marriage to a subset of its current meaning than to increase it to a superset.
May we never see th
Well, IAAAL (I am almost a lawyer -- I get called in July), and we're talking about what the law should be, not what it is.
Lawyers use dictionaries all the time -- usually Black's legal or the like -- but only when the common usage of a term needs to be referenced, or the legal meaning is unclear.
Here, the legal meaning could be clear, but who cares?? We're going to base human rights on what a dictionary says? We make the definitions. Dictionaries print them.
The human form of the disease was first observed among the natives of New Guinea in the early 1900's. The tribal custom was to consume the bodies of decedents, and the consumption the brain was a special honor reserved for immediate family. It was in this way that a minor epidemic began.
-- thinkyhead software and media
You are misquoting the Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, from the Supreme Court case Schenck vs. United States that outlawed mailing anti-draft literature to draft-aged men during World War I. In it, Holmes famously compared such speech to falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.
I've been told that later in life, Holmes said that that decision was his biggest mistake on the Supreme Court, although I've yet to see an authorative reference to it.
Censorship advocates can label just about anything controversial as "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre." I, for one, would be happy to pay the price of allowing publication of things I don't like in exchange for being able to publish whatever I want.
Excellent and informative series of posts. Thanks.
May we never see th
You are misquoting the Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, from the Supreme Court case Schenck vs. United States that outlawed mailing anti-draft literature to draft-aged men during World War I. In it, Holmes famously compared such speech to falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.
I've been told that later in life, Holmes said that that decision was his biggest mistake on the Supreme Court, although I've yet to see an authorative reference to it.
So what you're saying is that we should ignore the definition of a word, simply because it will change in the future. Generalizing that, the meaning of any word is indeterminate, because future usage will change the meaning.
English students of the world rejoice! All literature has now become meaningless!
Anything that is to be precise needs solid definitions. The law needs to be precise. Ergo, the law needs solid definitions. To say that the law cannot rely on definitions because definitions change is to totally distort the law. The word "piracy" now commonly refers to copyright infringement. How would you like it if the courts laid out penalties for "software piracy" in accordance to the penalty for piracy on the high seas?
If you want to change the laws regarding marriage, you need to chanage the official meaning of marriage. I don't mean going round scribbling errata in dictionaries; I mean simply redefining the term marriage in official legal parlance.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Just search Google. The Scrooge article is particularly exhaustive.
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
...entitled, "To Serve Man" !!
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
...that I disagree with must be banned from the Internet immediately. I am an important government official and I say so.
Sigh. You people really are blind.
______________
OTTERS RULE.
But they are. Really. (Yes, I've lived and worked there. Twice.)
______________
OTTERS RULE.
Period.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Lolita is one of the greatest works of fiction in English language. If we would accept your view of the world we would be poorer.
Anything should be expressed, otherwise there is no way to dissect and understand things, what you are suggesting is a dictatorship in which a selected few decide what the populace can and can't think. Well, it has been tried, it does not work. Learn from history and get down to earth from that cloud of purity you think you can live in.
You are confussing expresssion and action, which are completely different things.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
"But thinking that they still argue in Latin?"
Kind of easy to be confused if you hear the Scots speak though. Could be Latin. Could be Martian. No way would it pass for English.
So, where is an obligatory necrofile cannibalist overlords salutation joke?
There you are, staring at me again.
Did he have an interest in necrophilia, and started seeking out material about it but wasn't satisfied so he did out and kill? Or did he indeed happen to come upon sites about necrophilia and get interested and go out and kill? Did the sites actually make him more interested in killing, or did they reduce a desire to kill he already had, whether by partly satisfying him or by turning him off the subject?
This applies to ANY discussions of an action related to material regarding the type of action - without knowing more about the specific material he was reading and his psychological profile, and more research into how material like this affect people, it is completely unjustifiable to simply assume that the internet or any particular material is to blame.
You don't have to go that far back to find the great debates about how comic books supposedly was a major driver for violence, and a bit further to find debates about how TV and before that radio supposedly does the same thing.
Now it's moved on to the internet.
From the song "Assimilation" recorded by Jezzer Blaque:
"They say Freedom's a word that you allow
Careful not to speak it to loud"
That is the state of the so-called "free world" today. Kinda sad.
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
"My Coffee was too hot"
"I'm too fat"
"You watch my kids for me..."
These are just three stories, and yes, all extreme cases of what we're talking about here. Finding a scapegoat. It's a disease that is rampant, and further perpetuated by the media's constant abuse of their power of exposure.
I agree with you, it's senseless to look no further than the assumed 'influence' when it comes to cases like this, but unfortunately that is the surface stance that most individuals seem to jump on whenever things like this arise. Our actions somehow are no longer products of our decisions, but of our stated influences?
Relax.
First: I'm not the one who imprisoned him... though he is a previous child sex offender, and I have my own feelings about what should happen to those folks... but I digress.
Second: he wasn't charged with thinking about molesting a child... he was charged with possession of child pornography for the lurid and vivid accounts he wrote about in his journal. I don't think I made that clear in my initial post... The sticking point should be whether words can be considered pornography (in addition to pictures).
BTW, the law can prosecute for planning to commit crimes, even if you haven't done them yet.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Seriously, I rather agree with both sides: Most human beings have limits to what they can stand, and deserve some protection against being exposed to things beyond them - Maybe that's why we clean up the carnage of accidents and homicide bombings; Some human beings don't have the ability or desire to limit what they say or do or see, so we preserve "freedom of expression" for them.
Answer: One more domain type (like ".sex", ".org", etc.), such as ".sick". At least you'd know. Build on that a "parental" (or "self" control that, just as we can filter ".sex" from our browser, we can filter ".sick" as well. Caveat: Sicko's (and poenos and smut peddlers) protect and honor their freedom by respecting mine: don't cheat and peddle porn or cannibalism outside the zone. No porn on ".com" etc.
Alcaide's Cafe,
So what you're saying is that we should ignore the definition of a word, simply because it will change in the future. Generalizing that, the meaning of any word is indeterminate, because future usage will change the meaning.
I am suggesting that a dictionary definition does not and should not have the force of law. Especially since there are lots of different dictionaries and they don't necessarily all agree. For example, it is quite easy to find dictionary definitions of "marriage" that do not specify "a man and a woman."
Now it's moved on to the internet.
Coincidentally I just saw Shallit's Three Laws of New Media this morning:
1. Every new medium of expression will be used for sex.
2. Every new medium will come under attack, usually because of the first law.
3. Protection afforded for democratic rights and freedoms in traditional media will rarely be understood to apply to new media.
(Jeffrey Shallit, "Public Networks and Censorship", in Peter Ludlow, ed., High Noon on the Electronic Frontier, MIT, 1996)
Yeah, I love PoE for that reason :-) You can't make this stuff up!
Please explain exactly what is wrong with cannibalism...
Cannibalism finally became eradicated about 50 years ago (as a localized cultural norm). Most cultures stopped doing it thousands (or just hundreds) of years ago. The last culture that practiced cannibalism fed the meat of those who died to the women and children, as the hunted animals were saved for the men who did the harder labor. Most of the time, cannibalism is safe; but when a disease comes along that is passed by consuming the victim, the results are devastating to the population. Eventually, they discover the cause and add cannibalism to the list of things to never do again.
All laws are limits to personal freedom. Those limits are set arbitrialy by the government. This is how every society works. It sucks on many levels but the only alternative is anarchy.
Um, you lost the point. It isn't right to DO these things or support other people DOING them. It is ok to fantisize about doing it. If you actually do it, that's completly different than fantisizing about it.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
No, my argument is that it is okay to do them (and therefore to support people doing them), because, at least in some circumstances, there is no cost to society. Pederasty, of course, does have a significant cost and therefore is different in kind.
you are apparently correct
DNA just wants to be free...
Um...no. If you're a necropheliac, pedophile, and/or cannible and you get off to those things, fine. It's ok to fantisize; people fantisize all the time and it's a freedom that everyone values. If you begin to have urges to do those things, you should seek professional help because they are bad.
The very moment you actually do those things, is the moment you step over the line, and I get out the shotgun and begin huntin' for the sorry scum that did it. Violating a graveyard to get fresh corpses? no. You can argue that it doesn't cost anything to society all you want but would you like to be told by the cemitary your mothers body was removed, most likely by necropheliacs? Or how would you like to lose a friend to their fetish because they decided one day they wanted ot get killed and eaten by their buddy is some crazy sex ritual? As for pedophilia, that leaves real scars on young people, both from the rape part (from which comes a mistrust of society and the oppisite sex) and the confusion part (which completly screws up any chance of them having a healthy view of sex). IANAP, but if you want more info, look into the research.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=387266&qu ery=crusades&ct=gen1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade
There, religion plastered all around the place to hopefully satiate your obvious need of deeper knowledge.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.