'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?"

Comments

IF it's illegal...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:IF it's illegal...

[Anonymous Coward]

And who decides whether something "incites [people] to commit illegal acts" or not?

Many people argue that everything from violent video games to Harry Potter causes people/children to commit illegal acts. Where do we draw the line, exactly, if not at no censorship at all?

Re:IF it's illegal...

[dave420-2]

When something expressly incites people.

People who say things like "Harry Potter/GTA/Something incited my kid to kill our hamster" are clutching at straws - that's not the issue, and they know it. If, however, Harry Potter featured a scene where he addressed the camera and told people how to eat hamsters, why it's good fun to do so, and asked us to follow in his footsteps, that would be incitement. That's what needs addressing. It's one thing to claim something incites, but unless it expressly does, it's a matter of opinion.

Re:IF it's illegal...

[mangu]

If, however, Harry Potter featured a scene where he addressed the camera and told people how to eat hamsters, why it's good fun to do so, and asked us to follow in his footsteps, that would be incitement.

Yes, indeed, we always do anything we are told, don't we. At least, marketeers and politicians *wish* we behaved like that. Let's get real, folks. If someone is in his right mind, no matter how much "incitement" he gets, he will not perform such acts as cannibalism or necrophilia. OTOH, a deranged person needs no incitement to behave in a crazy way. There may be some correlation, of course. It's only natural that a person with cannibalistic or necrophiliac tendencies watch sites with those contents, but that's very far from proving a cause-and-effect relation.

Re:IF it's illegal...

[TyrranzzX]

When there's a widespread problem caused by that something; a relation between it's existance and certain acts.

For example, a pedophilia UBB. People will talk privatly about screwing kids, give eachother techniques, encouragement, images and art, etc. Even among this class of social scum, there's certain guidelines and problems (even common ones) that are discussed.

Necrophilia and Canniblism, on the other hand, are differnet subjects entirely, but the same rules apply.

The point here is, the goverment wants to discourage these acts because they are wrong, but in order to discourage them they must trample over civil rights and our right to screw ourselves up. They think the sick fucks who like jackin off to art (not pictures of, art) of little kids getting screwed will turn into them actually doing it. It's akin to thinking because millions of geeks jack off to porn, and because when you jack off to porn you're inherently violating the target without their permission, that geeks will rape people. Infact, most geeks use porn as an outlet for sexual tension, therefore relieving the very need for sex, and therefore, rape. All of these are preversions of sexuality, and are bad in some way or another; cannibalism is an antisocial practice as well as one that gets you to kill people(or get yourself killed by being eaten), necrophelia is a practice that gets you to go out and poison your body by screwing dead people, etc. As far as having effects on other unconsenting, this is where 2 groups of people emerge.

There's a difference between the sick fuck who jacks off to art of kids getting screwed, and the sick fuck who goes out and does it or encourages it(financially or otherwise). One is actually hurting someone, the other isn't. In addition, the one who jacks off to art only probably knows it's a bad thing, and some of them probably hate themselves for doing it. Yes, there is some interleave (the artist may be screwing kids for inspiration), but you simply don't persecute people for doing something with themselves that has no effect or a tolerable effect on you.

What's probably going on is someone somewhere decided they felt threatened by the very existance of non-violent necropheliacs or cannibals, and decided they wanted to get rid of it(the religious right, for example, is full of such people). To this, I say good luck. What'll happen is the hardcore people will get more hardcore, and the people who dabble here and there and know it's bad will either stop or be driven underground and you'll never catch them. Then, when your campaign has no effect on the rates or rape, cannibalism, or necrophelia, and costs billions you'll be laughed out of power.

As for videogames, those are a perversion of reality. I play a lot of videogames, but that doesn't mean I'm violent. Again, the same system is applyable. The kids who shoot at cars to see them go by real fast and are idiots, need to be taken care of. Hell, I have fun playing GTA and singing "This is how we speed up traffic, speed up traffic, speed up traffic. This is how we speed up traffic, all day looooooooooooooooooong", but I know going out and doing the same thing in real life is wrong and moreso, I hatemyself for thinking I'd enjoy it, and feel guilty for doing it in the game. The rest of us, the overwhelming majority, don't speed up traffic with an ak47 in real life. Infact it has very little effect on our society as a whole. Now, if we were all running around with guns trying to shoot eachother like in counterstrike, that's a different story entirely. If you want a good read on them, read "On killing". It was written by a former army corperal (I think) and details how videogames and television compliment help to overcome our natural impulse not to kill eachother. That is videogames' true effect besides acting as an escape from reality.

There is no "freedom of expression online"

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Obvious answer

[mkro]

What happened to freedom of expression online?

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).

Re:Obvious answer

[Atzanteol]

Yes. Because we all know that every nation that does bad things is probably only doing it beacuase the US probably did it first. So it's the United States' fault.

Wow, *all* of the worlds problems *can* be blamed on the US! Nevermind that you insult the British people by basically calling them lap-dogs of the United States.

But to keep on topic, I don't see why this is a terrible thing. To some extent I can see why 'just saying something' isn't illegal, but instigating others to break the law is dangerous. It's not like this is political speech, it's cannibalism!

Chicken Egg Problem

[RazzleFrog]

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.

Your taboos may vary...

[LostCluster]

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.

Re:Your taboos may vary...

[tcopeland]

> a fine (as called for by the regulations)
> would have sufficed

The reason it's a big deal is because it wasn't a violation of the regs on an 11 PM local channel, it was the Super Bowl halftime show.

> Someday I hope we will be free of this
> religous yoke that is holding us down and
> we can be free.

Hm. Do you think that there are any decency standards that, say, an atheist would/could support?

Re:Your taboos may vary...

[j-turkey]

If you want the regulations changed, fine, but enforcment of existing regulations shouldn't surprise anyone.

Not to bring up an old argument -- but what the hell. It's not just about enforcement -- it's about the level of enforcement. It's about spending tax dollars on a "full investigation" to enforce an obselete law. I mean, do you expect sodomy laws to be upheld? In some states, any sexual position other than missionary position between a married couple is illegal. Do you really want those laws to be enforced? How about a "full investigation"? Maybe we should start a special squad in police departments across the country to investigate all rumors of blowjobs. Another, less salacious example are public intoxication laws. Last year, in Fairfax County, VA -- the local cops went into bars, and breathilyzed the patrons. Anyone who blew over the legal DUI limit was arrested for public intoxication. A bar is considered a public place, and these people were blowing over the limit -- so they were arrested on a dumb technicality. Surprised? I sure am -- even though they're enforcing existing regulations. FWIW, these arrests were eventually thrown out, not because the arrests were specifically unlawful, but because the breathilyzer (specifically, the imposed limit) is only legit for testing imparement of a driver. Point is -- sure, it's a regulation, but do you think that police departments have any business enforcing the regulation like this?

The reason we still have bad laws on the books is because no politician wants to have their name on the bill to revoke said laws. It's the same reason we still have bule laws and other really, really dumb laws.

How are the FCC's "decency" regulations obselete? Well, I'll just use a quickie example. The federal decency broadcast regulations don't apply to cable TV networks -- only broadcast. Is there really a big difference in what's allowed to fly on provate cable networks? No. The industry polices itself. However, no politican wants to be known as the senator that removed decency laws. The best way to repeal these laws -- stop enforcing them. Eventually, they'll be repealed

This shuldn't surprise anyone? Frankly, I'm still surprised.

Re:Your taboos may vary...

[swb]

FCC regulations was just a red herring.

The fuss is about America's cultural inability to deal with sexuality in a constructive way. We use it to sell products, but ban its direct "consumption". We can't teach about birth control, but we don't like abortion or feeding indigent children. The list of contradictions is endless.

The whole matter is made further confused by the fact that millions of people get cable/satellite channels like HBO and see explicit nudity and sexual behavior all the time. You can't possibly tell me that the mere techical detail between broadcast and cable/satellite warrants public outrage.

The biggest problem, however, is that politicans love these issues -- they can be on the "right" side easily and they don't have to work/think/talk about real issues.

Re:Your taboos may vary...

[NineNine]

The reason it's a big deal is because it wasn't a violation of the regs on an 11 PM local channel, it was the Super Bowl halftime show.

And you're point? Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't literally every person on the planet seen, and/or eaten from a feamle breast at one time in their life? A "breast" is such an arbitrary body part, you may as well be talking about exposed elbows.

you think that there are any decency standards that, say, an atheist would/could support?


Yeah, we have the decency not to force our personal convictions on others, not to start wars based on fairy tales. Atheists are going to have much higher decency standards, than say, a Christian, who worships a story in which women are regularly tortured and killed for disobeying their husbands, and gay people are butchered.

Re:Your taboos may vary...

[NineNine]

Hm. Didn't Janet Jackson force her personal convictions on her viewers?


No, she would've forced her personal convictions on her viewers if she started spouting off about religion. As is she showed a boob. I fail to see how a boob (which more than half of the planet have a pair of) is a "personal conviction".

not to start wars based on fairy tales

Just the fact that almost every major war in the history of the planet has ultimately been because of religion.

Morals exist outside of religion. Every religion is a fairy tale, and to base ones morals on a fairy tale is pure stupidity. (for example: I would never steal magic beans because I may run into an angry giant) Of course, it's accepted in our society, that basing ones' morals on "The Bible" makes sense, but basing ones' morals on "Jack and the Beanstalk" is insane. I contend that basing ones morals on ANY fairy tale, including "The Bible" is insane and has no place in civilized soceity. Religion should be left where it belongs: in the Dark Ages.

Wait wait wait

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Wait wait wait

[saforrest]

I'm sure you extend the same liberal sensibilities to people wanting to swap information about weaknesses in airport security, the travel arrangements of heads of state etc?

Creating a law banning the public discussion of these things on the Internet would be entirely pointless.

We already have ways of ensuring this sort of information is not released to people wishing to do harm: we don't release it publicly.

For those people who are privy to this information (e.g. airport employees, people coordinating state visits, etc.), there are already mechanisms to keep them from further publicising it. If they do so with obvious collaboration with the would-be evildoers, they will be considered accessories to attempted murder (or whatever crime was planned). If not, they will be fired for breach of protocol.

One someone has decided to breach either of these rules, some vague prohibition on discussion of this matter will achieve nothing.

Re:Wait wait wait

[Abcd1234]

Ooooh, I get it! If something is "unacceptable to most persons", it should be outlawed! So, by that logic, in the US, Islam should probably outlawed, due to the overwhelming Christian majority, right? Hey, maybe homosexuality should be outlawed, too. Yeah, tyranny of the majority... it's a *great* idea!

Re:Wait wait wait

[Abcd1234]

OTOH, there is this thing called democracy...and if the majority says something should be legal or illegal, then so be it!

Wrong. The US is a democratic republic, not a pure democracy, specifically to *avoid* tyranny of the majority.

The fact is, if the US government attempted to outlaw Islam because the majority wanted it, the constitution wouldn't allow it. This is as it should be. Human rights are inalienable. And whether or not the majority disagrees with a particular belief should have no bearing on this. To believe otherwise is to disregard everything the US was founded on. Or did you forget that the US was founded by people who were trying to escape the exact sort of tyranny you just described?

Re:Wait wait wait

[stewby18]

OTOH, there is this thing called democracy...and if the majority says something should be legal or illegal, then so be it! If the majority wanted Islam outlawed, then let it be outlawed. That's not "tyranny", that's "most people want this, so that's what we get."

He didn't say "tyranny", he say "tyranny of the majority", which is something entirely different. It also goes by "mob rule" (or "majority rule" if you are feeling friendly toward it).

Your comments betray your lack of knowledge about our government and the way it was intended to work; all of the points you are belittling are essential components of how our government was designed. I'd recommend reading Madison's notes from the Constitutional Convention, or at the very least studying some of the problems that cropped up under the Articles of Confederation, which were a whole lot more like mob rule in many places.

The point is that while there is a thing called democracy, there is also a thing called a republic--and that's what we have. The reason we have a republic is precisely because the drafters of the constitution recognized the serious problems with mob rule (not just in an abstract way; again, their recent history had abundant examples).

I don't know where you get off saying the American people want Islam outlawed just because most are Christian. I don't see anything close to a majority here pushing to outlaw Islam.

Clearly, he was exaggerating to make a point about mob rule. Consider the situation this way (call it a thought experiment if you like, but recognize that not that different from how things have worked in many places, throughout history): Another terrorist attack happens, and people get all fired up against Islam. Someone says, "let's kill them all!" People are angry, many of them agree. In fact, enough people are angry and not thinking straight that on the day after the attack 51% of the US is in favor of, say, flattening a few middle-eastern countries. Should we do it? Is it right? Mob rule says yes. A saner form of government recognizes that that's really *not* what people want in that it's not at all in their best interests, and says no.

On one hand, it's still a somewhat exaggerated example; on the other hand it's exaclty how lynchings happen, but on a larger scale. Lynching is mob-rule justice--is that really a form of government you think the US should have?

What happened to freedom of expression online?

[JohnGrahamCumming]

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.

Most Abhorent Quote

[RevDobbs]

"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.

I cringed when I read that. Everyday the internet is becoming more of a corperate-controlled broadcast medium.

come on!

[bmac]

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

Re:come on!

[Frennzy]

Cool! It was only a matter of time before someone linked necro/cannibal fantasy websites with paedophilia and Terrorism!

The big bad terrorists are brainwashing folks via necrophilia sites! Doomed! We're all doomed!

This whole argument is ridiculous, telling me I can't express whatever the fuck I want on my own website. This isn't child porn. This is a *fantasy* fulfillment, for people with admittedly deviant tastes.

This issue is moot though...just because some 72 yo gramma in the UK wants someone to "crack down" on a "bad things" to "protect us" from "them", doesn't mean squat. If they want to force a webmaster's ISP to shut him down, he can be back up and running in minutes on a more business savvy and less intrusive host in another country.

Say it with me...there is not, and has never been, any conclusive proof that *viewing* fantasy material forces someone to *act* in mimicry of said material.

I don't see any links here, so how can you say what, exactly, anyone did or did not view? Did Ozzie make that kid kill himself? Do people really have sex with dead people after listening to The Beatles backwards?

Knee-jerk reactionism is not the answer to life's problems, people. Bad things happen, and frequently they happen to good people. This does not mean that you or anyone else has a right to tell me how to live, within a reasonable expectation. I leave you alone, I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

Now excuse me while I go watch an episode of the Sopranos, followed by Sex in the City. I then plan on going out and killing some people, gangland style, followed by some nice hot sex with wealthy, Urban-chic chicks.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because people should be free to do what they hell they like on-line, free from any kind of rules and regulations that are designed to protect our society.

Right....

Re:Duh

[nodwick]

Um, I know citing "freedom of expression" is a knee-jerk reflex here at Slashdot, but it applies only when you're not breaking any laws while doing so. The cliche'd example would be yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater.

From what I could gather from a quick Google, both necrophilia and cannibalism are illegal in the U.K. (someone correct me if I'm wrong), in which case posting web sites advertising that you're doing it would be pretty dumb. The parallel for Americans would be something like hosting child pornography on your server for public consumption -- not only would you be doing something illegal, but you'd be publicizing about it at the same time.

What are laws for?

[Serious Simon]

There may be limits to the freedom of expression, but they are, and must be, regulated by law.

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".

Freedom?

[back_pages]

This could very easily be unpopular, but I really don't understand why "freedom of speech" needs to protect obviously dangerous elements of society. Unpopular political comments - yes. Unpopular civil rights issues - yes. Unpopular labor or global commerce issues - yes. Taboo (sexual) medical conditions - yes. Necrophilia? No. Cannibalism? No. Sites that feature these as popular topics provide no real service to anyone yet they can easily be used as tools to commit a crime. There is a recent German case where two people hooked up through a cannibalism fantasy website - now one of them is poop and the other is in jail. Nice, real nice.

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.

Re:Freedom?

[g0_p]

but I really don't understand why "freedom of speech" needs to protect obviously dangerous elements of society.

Because whats obvious to some is not obvious to all and you cannot rely on the testimony of average Joe to decide what is obviously dangerous and what is not.

To demonstrate my argument, I am altering one of the sentences in your post and requoting it..

Homosexuality? For God's sake, this is, in my non-professional opinion, not a sexual preference but a symptom of some psychological problems.

And a few decades back, this may have been an obvious statement to many! (If you want to argue that homosexuality is simply a sexual preference and not a danger to society, further consider the correlation between AIDS and homosexuality, so as to classify it as dangerous.. In other words, consider the incorrect , but marginally palatable argument that homosexuality leads to AIDS and it is therefore dangerous).

Note that I am in no way trying to insinuate that 20 years from now necrophilia or paedophily will be seen as acceptable, but I am merely trying to say that censorship may, among other things, lead to wrongful persecution because the other person's point of view was stifled. Let people speak, for it helps us see the world as it is and not veiled by the opinions of the censor. If you want to prosecute a particular necrophile or paedophile fan, then first prove that their action did incite some crime or is liable to incite crime, rather than preemptively and blindly shutting their voice down because you think they are wrong.

Re:Duh

[RazzleFrog]

There is a big difference between committing an illegal act and talking about it. A site with pedophilia is committing an illegal act. A site that talks about Pedophilia is not. Same goes for necrophilia. If there are pictures of people having sex with indisputably dead people (and not made up actors) then it is illegal. If they only talk about it it is not illegal.

Re:Freedom of expression is still legislated.

[dmayle]

WTF? Where are you from? If you go to a building, and blow it up with a bomb, you will get your ass handed to you, both in court, and in jail. If, however, you write a book about bombs, you can go about your happy way, because there is nothing illegal about writing about an act that is illegal.

Writing a book that urges people to blow up buildings with bombs that you explain how to make, is a third issue entirely, and is, again, illegal.

Just wondering.

[ScottGant]

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..

Cannibalism and Necrophilia *aren't* abhorrent??

[Burb]

By putting the word "abhorrent" in speech marks the poster suggests that these practices are somehow merely borderline or even acceptable. This may well be the way that aliens on the planet zzzorg behave, but I think I'm on safe ground when I say that the vast majority of humanity thinks otherwise. Even the good ol US of A.

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.

Re:Just get to it...

[JaredOfEuropa]

The Internet is no place for people looking for 'perverse gratification', claims the police officer leading the UK's fight against e-crime.

In what Net-less cave has this guy been living for the past 15 years anyway? The Internet is the place for perverse gratification downloaded straight into the comfort and privacy of your own home, and without the need to offend anyone else I might add. Or perhaps he meant to say "should be" instead of "is". Well, good luck cleaning up the Internet... I hope you brought a sturdy broom.

With this statement, the man has proven himself to be eminently unfit to lead any sort of fight against e-whatever.

Re:Umm .. There is a World outside of the US

[Clemence]

"*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?"

Yes, that is PRECISELY what freedom of speech, as set out in the U.S. Constitution's first amendment was meant for.

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." --Voltaire

Re:Publishing

[back_pages]

I think the difference [and stress that this is an assumption] is that a book about cannibalism could at best be a documentary. The more you try to glorify eating people, the less credible you would appear.

While the same is true of a website, you can also have chatrooms, forums, and that sort of thing. Now your fans with a common interest can meet and communicate with each other. Your website is no longer just a documentary (of whatever quality) but has become a tool to build a community of people interested in cannibalism. Some of these people might have legitimate academic interests, but you have precious little ability to control that.

If you know a guy named FriendA who always talks about murdering blonde girls, and you set him up with FriendB who is a blonde girl, and she gets murdered, I'm pretty sure that your knowledge of FriendA and involvement in their meeting makes you criminally liable in the US and probably any industrialized nation. A website can do this but a book cannot, and I think that's the crux of the case against these extreme sites.

Re:Duh

[Mr. Slippery]

Yeah, because people should be free to do what they hell they like on-line, free from any kind of rules and regulations that are designed to protect our society. Right....

Yes. It's called "freedom". It applies to all forms of communication, spoken, written, or electronic.

Unless you can explain how my causing one computer to send bits to another computer is a credible threat to the basic rights and liberties of others, keep your laws off my computer.

If your society needs protection from free communication, then your society deserves no protection at all - it should be destroyed and replaced as soon as possible.

Re:Umm .. There is a World outside of the US

[Lafe]

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?

Just wanted to answer this from a US/Libertarianish point of view.

Freedom of Expression/Speech only works if people can really say what they want to say. We do have some practical limits on speech, primarily of the sort that says "Say what you want to say, but don't actually harm anyone by saying it." Common examples of what's not ok include yelling "Fire!" in a movie house (people get hurt), libel/slander (actually damage someone with a lie), and physical threats. Some would argue that even those things shouldn't be illegal, but I think the line is drawn at a pretty appropriate place.

With those limits defined, if we start allowing any censorship based on a political/religious/philosophical/scientific basis, then no speech is truly protected. We start down a slippery slope where someone can ban or suppress speech because it doesn't agree with whatever the current political/religious climate is. Pretty soon, you're not allowed to publish an article criticizing the government because it's tantamount to terrorism! You're not allowed to criticize the clergy because you're trying to corrupt morals! You're not allowed to criticize the police because you're inciting a riot!

So, to preserve the freedom of speech, we have to preserve the freedom of all speech. Even speech which we find personally distasteful, immoral, or downright putrid. My personal opinion is that what the KKK has to say indicates that the whole lot of 'em are prime candidates for natural selection. And yet, to misquote Voltaire, I would fight to the death to defend their right to say it. Because in so doing, I defend my own right to say what I wish.

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.

People have done so, and probably will again. They're likely to run up against some sort of local "obscenity" law, but if they fight it they will win. Larry Flynt was the perfect example of this when he fought to be allowed to publish his Hustler magazine. The Supreme Court came out with a ruling that even though the speech may be obscene by community standards, it is still protected speech.

Try to publish kiddie porn, though, and they'll haul you away. Because kiddie porn is causing harm to someone. The kids! (See paragraph about practical limits above.)

Re:Duh

[RazzleFrog]

I believe strictly in individual responsibility. If you go out and rape somebody because somebody else told you to do it then you have a greater sickness than any censoring can prevent.

Re:Duh

[plugger]

If you are transmitting images the production of which violated someone else's human rights, is that acceptable?

Free communication includes the transmission of state secrets, disclosure of state security vulnerabilities etc. All societies need protection against that. By your reasoning, all societies should be destroyed and replaced as soon as possible.

Re:Perhaps you don't understand

[goldspider]

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.

Re:Duh

[Boing]

Unless you can explain how my causing one computer to send bits to another computer is a credible threat to the basic rights and liberties of others, keep your laws off my computer.

A mob boss sends an email to an underling telling him to kill someone. That good enough for you? The murder itself is not the entirety of the crime, because that kind of thinking would make powerful people immune to the consequences of any abuse of their power, as long as they didn't execute it themselves. So there's obviously something inherent to the communication that must be made illegal.

That doesn't mean I'm in favor of any censorship that claims to prevent other illegal acts, but it's a valid example of something that counters your claim.

Re:... and in a related story...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please explain exactly what is wrong with cannibalism except for the sick feeling I get in my stomach thinking about it?

Sure there's possibility of disease probably, and if the body doesn't "belong" to you there may be property rights issues but there isn't anything aprior wrong with it. Maybe if your in some religion that sees the body as somehow sacred you might think it immoral but than your religion probably condems sodomy as well. Immoral is not than same thing as "wrong" as much as any given religion would like us to believe otherwise.

Re:Duh

[blane.bramble]

No, it's because we prefer a more flexible system of law that means that judges interpret the law. This means (in theory if not always in practise) that laws should reflect society more accurately rather than being bound by a possibly out of date statute interpretation. Sometimes it works out better than having more rigid laws, sometimes it works out worse. Law is in no way a precise science, it is the enforcement of the (changing) will of the people.

Not in some jurisdictions in the US

[The Tyro]

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.

Re:Duh

[Trolling4Dollars]

Oh yeah... like we chumps in the US have it any better. What with all the arguments over the definition of Marriage in the Gay Marriage debate. Yeah... nice "consistent interpretation highly resistant to the whims and prejudices of whoever happens to be making decisions" approach there. The current admin is using the outdated religious code that says homosexuality is wrong just to manipulate people who like to hold to outdated religious codes. Sounds like whims and predjudices to me.

Re:... and in a related story...

[yerfatma]

Best guess is that it's one of those built-in taboos that keeps you propogating successfully. Just like human culture tends to ban incest which turns out to cause all sorts of genetic ugliness down the road (c.f., purebred dogs and English royals), eating the flesh of other humans can cause some nasty diseases. I can't remember the name, but Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel mentioned a fatal disease common among cannibals in New Guinea (Kuru?) that was a result of eating human brain tissue.

Re:Duh

[sangreal66]

Judging from your text, I do not believe you have ever read the United States Constitution. The Constitution is not a document that describes what Americans can or can't do whatsoever. Rather, it is a document that limits the laws the government can create/enforce.

Get off it.

[i_r_sensitive]

I love you unlimited freedom clowns. Your type are part of the reason no-one has unlimited freedom. Freedoms (also known as rights) allways are attended by responsibilities, which is the part of the equation you folks allways seem to forget.

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.

Re:Basic Difference between British and US governm

[SpeedyRich]

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.

Re:... and in a related story...

[hey!]

That's really an interesting question.

I think because there is no way to engage in cannibalism without harming another person, and that if a person is willing to accept that harm his competence is in question.

An interesting parallel could be drawn with selling organs. If somebody is awaiting a kidney transplant, and wants to pay you $10,000, why shouldn't you be able to do a deal? This is in a sense a somewhat less extreme version of the same situation: person A "needs" part of person B's body, and person "B" is willing to give it to him in exchange for something (money in this case rather than sick gratification).

I think most people recoil from this beause they recognize that in most cases "B" will not be on equal footing with "A". In the case of organ donation, it's not going to be a fellow country club member, it's going to be some desperately poor or otherwise vulnerable person. I think if organ selling were going on between social peers, then people would by in large not object.

In the case of non-fatal cannibalism, most people would recognize that "B" is likely to be vulnerable, either economically or due to being psychologically disturbed.

Also, cannibalism in general is a behavior most people think best not to encourage, even if there might be marginally allowable cases (hey, were you planning to do anything with that appendix?) In order to overcome the strong taboo against it, a person must to some degree have a psychological compulsion to do it. Compulsions don't respect legal and socal limitats.

Re:Duh

[misterpies]

OK as a lawyer please let me put an end to all the crap on this thread.

The British and American legal systems are extremely similar to each other. Not surprising since the US legal system was inherited from the British, and the British hasn't changed much in 300 years (that's why we wear the same gowns and wigs we wore back in 1700).

BOTH are common law systems, meaning that while the legislature makes the laws, the judges interpret them and the judge's interpretation of the law is the law (until it's appealed). As a result both have a legislative tradition of writing very detailed laws. By contrast, the continental 'Roman law' system depends upon broad legal principles, with judges filling in the gaps according to circumstance.

BOTH have the presumption of innocence until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. (Both ignore this presumption if you're a foreign muslim.)

BOTH require, for guilty verdict in criminal law (and with very few exceptions), the accused to have the intention to commit a crime as well as actually performing the action. For example, if I took your new iPod, but in the honest belief that it was my new iPod, it would not be theft. The idea that it's an offence to carry a box of matches is ridiculous. It's an offence to carry a box of matches if it can be proved that you were on the way to burn down a house. A big difference.

The only real difference is that the US has a written constitution, while the UK relies upon evolved constitutional norms. Both these systems have their strengths and their failings. Up until a couple of years ago I'd have said the UK was doing better but now the current British government appears to have decided to flush our constitution down the toilet I'm not so sure. Then again Bush, Ashcroft et al. seem to get away with ignoring large chunks of the US constitution, so maybe it makes no difference anyway.

Controversy and dead people

[0x0d0a]

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

Two Words

[Cpt_Kirks]

Soylent Green.

Re:Of course, parent modded down...

[tgibbs]

"Can I get married to my mother/sister/brother/father/son/daughter? No? Why not?

Because of the increased risk of birth defects, which imposes costs on society, and because some of those unions (e.g. parent/child) involve potentially exploitive relationships in which freedom of choice is not clear. Neither is there a body of data indicating that such relationships are likely to be stable.

Can I get married to two women? Why not?

This is obviously a separate issue, and a case for it would have to be made separately. One obvious objection is it depletes the supply of heterosexual mates for other men. In addition, a three-way union is likely to be less stable than a two way union simply because the stability of a two way union requires maintaining the relationship between only one pair of people, whereas a three-way union depends upon three such relationships.

"Can we five men and six ladies all get married in an eleven-way arrangement? Why not?

Again, it is a separate issue, and you would have to make a separate case for it. You would need to document that such relationships are likely to be reasonably stable. This seems unlikely, considering that in an 11 way union requires maintaining 55 pair-wise relationships.

"What about my dog? Can I marry my dog? We love each other?"

No, because (a) your dog is in a subservient relationship to you and therefore cannot be said to have free choice, and (b) your dog does not have the intellectual capacity to understand and make contracts.

None of these, of course, have any relationship whatsoever between marriages between two people of the same sex. There is ample data to establish that such relationships can be comparably stable to heterosexual relationships, and issues of power or consanguinity do not arise.

Re:Duh [OT]

[tgibbs]

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.

UK != US

[ReadParse]

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

I love this quote:

[iamhassi]

" "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."

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?