'Extreme' Web Sites Under Fire From UK Police

But... but... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-25 03:29 · Score: 5, Funny

When cannibalism is outlawed, only outlaws will be cannibals!

Re:But... but... by Tablizer · 2004-02-25 04:42 · Score: 5, Funny

When cannibalism is outlawed, only outlaws will be cannibals!

In Soviet Russia, only cannibals eat you, I mean only you eat cannibals, I mean cannibals eat Soviets.......damn, I am fricken confused here. Trolling with cliches used to be so easy.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:But... but... by niko9 · 2004-02-25 08:14 · Score: 3, Funny

Reminds me of a old joke:

Two cannibals eating the corpse of a clown.
One cannibal looks at the other and asks,
"Hey, this meat taste funny to you?"

--

... and in a related story... by cookiej · 2004-02-25 03:30 · Score: 5, Funny

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.

Re:... and in a related story... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-25 04:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

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:... and in a related story... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-25 04:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

What about Communion in church? "This is the Body of Christ, given for you. This is the Blood of Christ, shed for you."
Re:... and in a related story... by yerfatma · 2004-02-25 04:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

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:... and in a related story... by elohim · 2004-02-25 05:12 · Score: 4, Informative

That's the human-originating form of mad cow disease. Kuru is Crueztfeldt-Jacob disease.
Re:... and in a related story... by jandrese · 2004-02-25 05:15 · Score: 4, Informative

You're probably thinking of Prion based dieseases, which occur when you eat members of your own species. The most familiar prion diesease at the moment is Mad Cow diesease, which came around when farmers started adding ground up cow parts in the feed for their cows to increase their protein consumption.

--

I read the internet for the articles.
Re:... and in a related story... by hey! · 2004-02-25 05:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:... and in a related story... by hey! · 2004-02-25 05:33 · Score: 4, Informative

There's more to that than you might think. Cannibalism is a profoundly symbolic act. Warriors ate their enemies to gain the enemy's strength. The Wicked Witch wanted to eat Snow White's heart for the same reason.

Communion in the church is a vestigal remains of this archetypal human behavior; it is the symbolism cut loose from the act. Of course the RC church will say that the host and wine "truly are" the body and blood of Christ, but this doesn't mean they think that the communion wafer turns into meat or that the wine has plasma and red blood cells in it. Indeed they would find this idea revolting. Their position has to be understood in terms of the medieval philosophical doctrine of accidental and esstential properties, which in turn derives from platonic idealism. From a modern positivist standpoint these statements are meaningless. However from a psychological standpoint they are quite potent for the believer.

The act can also be cut loose from the symbolism: e.g. cannibalism in survival situations.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:... and in a related story... by ThePlague · 2004-02-25 06:27 · Score: 2, Funny

In high school, a priest once told the class that there were two, count them, two, miracles occuring to the eucharist: ordinary bread and wine were being transformed into the body and blood of christ, and that they still appeared to be still ordinary bread and wine.
I'm a recovering Catholic, too. There ought to be a support group.
Re:... and in a related story... by cotodoso · 2004-02-25 06:39 · Score: 5, Informative

Not just members of your own species, actually. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (aka mad cow disease) is thought to have been introduced via ground-up organs (including brains) from sheep infected with scrapie. Scrapie is a wasting disease in sheep that was first described several centuries ago but that has never been known to have been passed on to humans. Once the condition made the jump from sheep to cattle, it also became transmissible to people.

cotodoso
Re:... and in a related story... by jabberjaw · 2004-02-25 07:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
Actually, regarding the Mewies case there were four others who responded to his "ad" in addition to Brandes. To quote from the BBC article "But London-based hotel worker Dirk Moller testified that he had even got as far as being chained to the bed and marked out for butchery before changing his mind. He asked to be released and Meiwes complied."
Re:... and in a related story... by MacJedi · 2004-02-25 08:43 · Score: 3, Informative

Right: the bread and wine change to flesh and blood in essence but not in substance.
I've heard that there are obscure rules in cannon law to prevent, say, a priest getting really drunk and wandering in front of a bakery and yelling out "THIS IS MY BODY!!!!" and that being a valid transubstantiative event. (Because then you'd have to send in an army of priests to eat all the God in the bakery, you can't just throw it away or anything... :)

--
2^5
Re:... and in a related story... by G-funk · 2004-02-25 11:34 · Score: 2, Funny

Their position has to be understood in terms of the medieval philosophical doctrine of accidental and esstential properties, which in turn derives from platonic idealism. From a modern positivist standpoint these statements are meaningless.

AAAARGH! Art-student bullshitspeak overload!

* g-funk runs screeming into the hills*

--
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Re:... and in a related story... by stuffman64 · 2004-02-25 12:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

Say I get my leg traumatically amputated, but live through the event and heal. I keep the leg in the freezer, and decide later to pull it out and have a go on the rotisserie. Is there anything to stop me from doing that (well, besides freaking out just about everyone)? Just a thought, not like I'd do that or anything... or would I?

--
--- At my sig, unleash hell.
Re:... and in a related story... by dandelion_wine · 2004-02-25 16:12 · Score: 2, Funny

It's not always an aggressive act. Certain tribes used cannibalism as a means of familial respect. "You don't want to eat your uncle -- you're going to put him in the ground for the worms??? You must really have hated him."

Plus, what else are you going to eat at a funeral? Think of it as a theme dish.

Duh by TheRealMindChild · 2004-02-25 03:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Re:Duh by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2004-02-25 03:40 · Score: 5, Informative

"What happened to freedom of expression online?"
Remember, the story refers to the UK, not the USA. Things are different there, government and law struture wise.

--
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-25 03:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by nodwick · 2004-02-25 03:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:Duh by RazzleFrog · 2004-02-25 03:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

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:Duh by Wyatt+Earp · 2004-02-25 03:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well, there is no such thing as "Freedom of Expression" at least in the Constitution or US Code I've read, however there is Freedom of Speech. In some state constitutions there is a freedom of expression and thats why Oregon has tittie bars* everywhere, since that's "dancing" and that's protected.

There is Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition freedoms, and a bunch of legal protections, but no vauge "Freedom of Expression.

Now I don't know about British law, but in the US things like cannibalism and necrophilia are illegal at the state and local level so if some DA wanted to go after them, it'd be perfectly legal.

* - If you are going into a strip club and there is a Corvette or 911 with handicap plates, it's a rough strip club. Likewise if there is a bouncer in body armor with an MP-5, it's a rough place.
Re:Duh by p_millipede · 2004-02-25 03:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yeah, it's illegal in the UK, but the case that sparked this off was in Germany (I think) - where, technically, cannibalism is legal, but you get prosecuted under murder, since it was assumed that it would not be possible to get someone to be willing to be eaten.

I think - I may be wrong on the details of the germany case, and UK law, and just about anything for that matter!
Re:Duh by Frymaster · 2004-02-25 03:59 · Score: 4, Informative

Things are different there, government and law struture wise.
note also that the uk has the highest number of cctv (surveillance cameras) per capita of any country in in europe by a healthy margin.
add to that the fact that the british legal system seems to be based on the concept of writing broad, generalize laws and letting justice be sorted out by selective enforcement. there's a crime in the uk called "going equipped to commit arson" - carrying matches, basically. the theory is it will only be enforced against those who "deserve" p[ro\|er]securtion.
put 'em together and it looks like britain is dedicated less privacy, and broader criminilazation. not very happy.

--
2 1337 4 u!
Re:Duh by Mr.+Slippery · 2004-02-25 04:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:Duh by RazzleFrog · 2004-02-25 04:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by plugger · 2004-02-25 04:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

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:Duh by SpeedyRich · 2004-02-25 04:18 · Score: 5, Interesting

A 'punter' is someone who bets. You're a punter, because you gambled that your text above is accurate. Regrettably you lost. The British do not need a constitution, for example, precisely because we are not a nation who does what we're told. In other words we can do what we like unless there's a SPEFIIC law against it (in your case the 'arson' suggestion holds no water. The very word arson implies intent to commit crime, hence the law is not open to interpretation) rather than the US system wherein you can only do what the constitution AND your laws allow you to. Much like the ability of US soldiers. Regardless of the presence of large FOF boards on the side of allied armour the Yanks still managed to attack several columns of armour. Sigh.

--
## NB: Comment here
Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-25 04:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

All of which makes the UK a considerably safer place to live than somewhere like america.

The old defense - if you are not doing anything wrong why worry about the cameras - does have a point, yes you have concerns over corrupt use of the systems. But I don't understand the side of the privacy attitude when people think they have a right not to be caught commiting a crime.
Re:Duh by Boing · 2004-02-25 04:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

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:Duh by azzy · 2004-02-25 04:22 · Score: 2, Informative

Yes.. canniballism is illegal in the UK.. but there have been cases of it, even shown on tv (documentary) without criminal proceedings being brought forward.

Stop reading if squeamish.

After a woman gives birth, and passes the placenta, in some cultures it is considered reasonable to eat the placenta.. as it is full of nutrients. But technically UK law regards the placenta as part of the human body, and the eating of it is cannibalism. A few years ago I saw a tv documentary in which a woman had her placenta made into pate, and had friends around to eat it (not all the friends could bring themselves to do it).. the programme even specifically mentioned that it was illegal.. to my knowledge no one was arrested.

So if this aspect of cannibalism can be shown on tv, I am sure it can be depicted on websites, and discussed, without it really destroying society as we know it. just goes to show that nothing is black or white, and that extreme measures to tackle the internet are usually knee-jerk reactions.. stupid ones at that.
Re:Duh by Feyr · 2004-02-25 04:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

if you don't like it, don't look at it. enforcing your own moral limits upon others is limiting their freedom of speech

sure cannibalism and necrophilia are things i don't particularly find attractive. but let them start by outlawing that, then another little thing, and another, and another... that's how you lose all your privacy and freedoms
Re:Duh by proj_2501 · 2004-02-25 04:27 · Score: 4, Funny

"The law in the UK works the same way as it does in the UK as regards the burden of proof."

Of course it does, Cap'n Obvious!
Re:Duh by blane.bramble · 2004-02-25 04:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Duh by cozziewozzie · 2004-02-25 04:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

The 'fire in a crowded theatre' is a knee-jerk reaction by people who do not grasp the concept of freedom. If you are not free to say some things, then you not any more free than (to name another knee-jerk example) under the Taliban regime -- there people were also allowed to say SOME things, as long as they were deemed acceptable.

No, free speech is unlimited, and only makes sense as such. Yelling fire in a theatre is a ridiculous example, because its focus is not on the idea you are expressing, but on the action you are doing, which isn't allowed - yelling in a theatre. You are also not allowed to go up to the screen and piss all over the audience, yet this never gets cited as an example against free expression. It's illegal because you are breaking an implicit contract which you agreed to when you bought the ticket, not because you are expressing a dangerous idea.

Whisper 'fire' to your neighbour in a theatre. Or better yet, write it on a piece of paper and show it to the people behind you. See if that gets you arrested. Now whisper revolutionary poems to a policeman/soldier of an oppressive regime. See why it's different? One is the issue of free speech and the other is not. Yet people keep quoting the 'fire' example to support mind control and fight against freedom of speech.
Re:Duh by Trolling4Dollars · 2004-02-25 04:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Un-news
Re:Duh by MrMrBen · 2004-02-25 04:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

How about if you cause your computer to send bits to my computer which, when received and decoded by my computer happen to trick it into retransmitting those bits to other computers, which tricks other computers into sending out more bits, etc., etc. and there you have a credible threat to my basic right not to have you interfere with my personal property, in the form of my computer, and you're also interfering with my use of a service I've paid for, namely the Internet. Going a step further, how about if I figure out a way to brew a potent bioweapon, along the lines of the 99.99% effective Stephen King virus, using ingredients available at your local supermarket and off-the-shelf kitchen equipment? If I cause my computer to transmit the bits encoding my recipe to someone else's computer (say someone very angry, or bored), might that pose a credible thread to the basic rights and liberties of others?
Re:Duh by Perl-Pusher · 2004-02-25 04:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

I believe that when you have a sick addiction the more you cater to that addiction the more your likely to act out your fantasy. Is there a high incidence of pornography purchased by rapists? Of course there is, the person feeds his desire and that desire grows. Now I'm not advocating outlawing all porn. But by eliminate access to phedophilia related images, then you take away one element that is feeding those persons sickness. I have no problem with decency standards being set by the majority. Under constitional law the first amendment can be overturned by a 2/3 vote in congress. I don't advocate that either. I do advocate limits to free speech based on standards agreed to by the people via their represenatives. If you don't agree with the standard then there is a legal recourse to change it, vote for new represenatives. That way you don't have unlimited child porn anime broadcast 24 hours daily over the airwaves for all to view just because sex sells. If we allow one person a judge, not elected to office the ability to change laws via their own whims of what they think is "right", then we take away representation and replace it with litigation.
I may be flammed for this, but I think we have allowed judges way too much power. I believe congress has been quite unwilling to write laws that may upset some minority who's paying their bills instead of the majority. And I believe congress has not provided the proper checks and balances to the other branches of government. That's why we end up in undeclared wars because congress let's the executive branch make those desicions. That way they aren't responsible and they can complain come election time even though they are just as responsible. By not taking action, they give their tacit approval but are able to deny culpability. And the exact same is happening with the judicial branch.
Re:Duh by NickFitz · 2004-02-25 04:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

Although the German cannibalism case has been dragged into this, the UK is currently experiencing a moral panic because of the murder of Jane Longhurst, a teacher who was killed by a man who regularly visited extreme (rape/murder/snuff) sites. Some details here. There are more details accessible from this BBC News search.

--
Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
Re:Duh by sangreal66 · 2004-02-25 04:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re:Duh by RazzleFrog · 2004-02-25 04:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

There is no scientific evidence that what you say is true. There is no way of proving that providing child porn to a child molestor makes them anymore likely to rape children. Either way, I am not advocating allowing child porn sites to exist. Please don't misunderstand me on that point. I am saying that talking about pedophilia is not committing a crime.
Re:Duh by misterpies · 2004-02-25 05:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
Re:Duh by cozziewozzie · 2004-02-25 05:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

True. My point was that it was the action that was illegal, not the idea you are expressing, which is what free speech is all about. If you express it in a more civil way, it's not illegal.

Similarly, if you grab an old lady and scream cooking recipes at her for an hour, you'll likely get yourself arrested. Again, it's not the cooking recipes which are illegal, but the way you expressed your, ahem, affection for them. This is not an argument for censorship.

On the other hand, if you're in a totalitarian regime, and express certain ideas in any way, shape or form, you will get arrested. Here the issue is the freedom of speech, as your ideas are considered illegal, regardless of the way you choose to express them.
Re:Duh by hwapper · 2004-02-25 05:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

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".

Also, it sound's like you're engaging in the same kind of manipulation with the use of words like "outdated religious code". I don't care if you want to do it, just don't be a hypocrite by complaining about it.

And as a side note, this same outdated religious code tells us to love one another. Maybe we should replace that with something more up-to-date like don't offend one another.

Welcome to the human race, wear a cup.
Re:Duh by notque · 2004-02-25 05:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

The problem with the whole "legal union" thing is that there would still be a separation in everyone's mind about "legal union" vs. "marriage". The goal here is to take away any distinction at all levels between homosexual and heterosexual commited relationships. There is no difference and anyone who thinks otherwise is simply a stick in the mud. If you were to completely remove gender from the human race and just talk about our minds, this would not be an issue.

No. The problem is this.

Gay's say that people in marriages get benefits they cannot.

So, a legal union is created to thus make that arguement invalid. Okay, you can have the same benefits.

But Gay's do not want the benefits. They want to legitimize their lifestyle in whatever way possible.

It is a fixation that is held.

--
http://use.perl.org
Re:Duh by fenix+down · 2004-02-25 07:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is the very reason that there was such an opposition to the Bill of Rights component of the US constitution when it first was suggested. The architects of the main body of the constitution were concerned that the Bill of Rights would be misinterpreted just as you've done.

Thomas Jefferson and others argued that making a list of things the government especially couldn't do looked a lot like a list of things that the people could do, something which quite justifiably horrified them. Others argued that they didn't really know about any of this fancy "law" stuff but that they wanted someone to write down that they were allowed to go to church and shoot critters. And there you have the constitution.

Jefferson was obviously dead right, of course, since he was a fucking genius, so now we have to run around euthanizing people who pratter on about how there's no right to privacy and speech doesn't mean video games for the good of the Republic.

And we only blow up your tanks because we're all so fucking high man, really. I mean, shit, the clouds are fucking all over up here. They're cows, cows. Cows are gonna kill me. THE BISEXUALS ARE GONNA KILL ME!!!
Re:Duh by efflux · 2004-02-25 07:05 · Score: 3, Informative

this is a traditional Joint effect causal fallacy. Pedophiles watch/look at child pornography because they want to have sex with children. It tends to happen first because it is often easier and/or has less severe consequences.
Quoting someone as stating that their problem started with an obsession with pornography is equally fallacious--why should we trust their self diagnosis? Should we not recognize this simply as when the individual first became aware of their problem? If we take into account the subconscious, the reasoning should become immediately clear.

--
Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. -- Walt Whitman

uh... by borgdows · 2004-02-25 03:31 · Score: 5, Funny

I want to judge by myself...

Can you post the URL of the 'abhorrent' sites please? :p

IF it's illegal... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-25 03:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

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... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-25 03:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

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... by dave420-2 · 2004-02-25 03:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

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... by Wellspring · 2004-02-25 03:54 · Score: 4, Informative

Um, you are all aware that Britain doesn't have free speech?

By tradition, speech isn't regulated, but the Government can and does often quash news stories it finds offensive.
Re:IF it's illegal... by jabuzz · 2004-02-25 04:00 · Score: 5, Informative

Once upon a time that was true. However the Human Rights Act changed the ground rules and we now do. On the other hand a simple Act of Parliment can take it away again in an instance.
Re:IF it's illegal... by isopossu · 2004-02-25 04:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

Pictures of necrophilia are just strings of ones and zeroes. They cannot hurt anybody. Guns and axes can.
Maybe some people believe, that some binary digits are evil and others dont, but it sounds insane to me. Is 100001100110110 bad? If it is, why and if it isn't what exactly would make it evil?
Re:IF it's illegal... by mangu · 2004-02-25 04:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

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... by TyrranzzX · 2004-02-25 04:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--

Candy-Coated Knowledge
Re:IF it's illegal... by Tablizer · 2004-02-25 04:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

Harry Potter featured a scene where he addressed the camera and told people how to eat hamsters....

BTW, is eating hamsters actually illegal in UK? Anyone know?

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:IF it's illegal... by plugger · 2004-02-25 04:51 · Score: 4, Informative

The UK government's final sanction against publication of a story is called a 'D Notice'. This threatens closure of a publication if it publishes the offending article. Note that this cannot prevent the article being published, it just threatens punishment if the notice is ignored.

And the UK government, whilst being comprised of lying sacks of shit, does not "often quash news stories it finds offensive". Please cite some examples if you disagree.
Re:IF it's illegal... by pershino · 2004-02-25 05:04 · Score: 5, Informative

"Once upon a time that was true. However the Human Rights Act changed the ground rules and we now do. On the other hand a simple Act of Parliment can take it away again in an instance."
And if our dear Overlord... erm Home Secretary, has his way, then the government will have the right to suspend any law they choose, including the Human Rights Act. So it will only require an 'Act of the Home Secretary' to suspend freedom of speech.
See BBC News here, here, and here
I for one welcome our new Overlord, erm Home Secretary
Re:IF it's illegal... by djiin · 2004-02-25 07:27 · Score: 2, Informative

There are 5 standing D-Notices:
1. Military operations, plans and capabilities
2. Nuclear and Non-Nuclear Weapons and Equipment
3. Ciphers and secure communications
4. Sensitive Installations and Home Addresses
5. UK Security and Intelligence services and special forces

In addition, the government tried to bury stories relating to the northern Irish spy Stakeknife after it was discovered that the UK armed forces had been targetting irish nationals for assassinations. This was around 2000-2001 and I don't have urls to hand but cryptome files many of the stories.
More recently the army stopped a radio 4 interview from going ahead.
Re:IF it's illegal... by gammoth · 2004-02-26 08:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

I have to confess that when I have no definitive argument to make I tend to pick on bad arguments. I wasn't making a straw man argument for censureship. I do not advocate censureship any more than you advocate child porn.

The internet is special, but not so special that we can act with impunity. It does not exist in a vacuum and not everything on the internet is benign. Because the underlying technology fosters anonymity, it doesn't give license to behave illegally, or even merely irresponsibly.

Furthermore, the idea that our minds are blank slates and we are shaped by our environment is, of course, preposterous. But we are affected by the activities we engage in. The US army uses video games to desensitise recruits to killing. A higher ratio of soldiers pull the trigger in battle after going through the training. That's right. A significant portion of soldiers die in fire fights without firing a shot! The thought of killing or maiming is too abhorent. So, how does the army decrease the proportion? They use video games as part of a regime to affect recruit's behaviour.

Oh yeah, and remember that movie where the the football team bonded by lying in between lanes on a freeway? People actually went out and tried it! Some of them were run over. Hey, I'm not making this up.

On the other hand, in general, subliminal suggestion just doesn't work. Showing Coke in a single frame during a movie will not make us buy coke. If we do get up, we might get a drink from the drinking fountain or buy Dr Pepper.

No amount of brain-washing will make me think water runs up hill. The most it can do is get a conditioned response to certain stimuli and to break my will -- not control my thoughts.

More aptly, we can watch the Godfather without want to go out and whack somebody.

So where does that leave us? The great majority of us want to enjoy art and activities unconstrained by the sad behaviour of the marginally or temporarily irrational. (The truly insane we can do nothing about.) We don't want to hold artists and creative people responsible for crimes commited by fans.

I don't have an answer. I just know that black/white categorization doesn't help.

I had trouble with the line from the original post that reads, "Yes, indeed, we always do anything we are told, don't we." This comment trivializes the issue and the concerns of people. Does the poster truly believe that we are not somehow shaped by the behaviour we routinely engage in? I don't think the poster does. He needs to make a more convincing argument, such as 'these sites are really about Goth fashion more than sticking the digits of a corpse into one's orifices. It's all a storm in a tea cup.'

Let's look at it from the the cop's perspective for a second. He's getting heat from his superiors, who are getting heat from ministers (parliament ministers, not religious (not that the two are mutually exclusive)). The story gets a lot of press, people react because they've been hearing about bad content for years, molesters enticing kids in chat rooms, etc. Much like the Janet Jackson fiasco, which, on it's own, was no big deal. We saw her tit, big deal.That night, my kids watched an episode of Arrested Development revolving around a character's lust for his cousin, and the shame associated with it. I didn't have to explain the tit, they've seen plenty!

Cops and prosecuters routinely see stuff that would curl our hair.

Sorry, I rambled a bit but I don't have time to clean it up. And you're right, the burden of proof belongs with the censor.

Just get to it... by Lord_Frederick · 2004-02-25 03:32 · Score: 5, Funny

"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!

Re:Just get to it... by JaredOfEuropa · 2004-02-25 03:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Re:Just get to it... by Hentai · 2004-02-25 05:28 · Score: 2, Funny

"The Internet is no place for people looking for 'perverse gratification'"

What internet is HE using, and how do I avoid it?

--
-Hentai [in vita non pacem est]

Whew! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-25 03:32 · Score: 2, Funny

Good thing I only visit those "Extreme Linux" sites..!

Oh well by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-25 03:32 · Score: 5, Funny

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.

Freedom of expression is still legislated. by karmaflux · 2004-02-25 03:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Re:Freedom of expression is still legislated. by dmayle · 2004-02-25 03:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re:Freedom of expression is still legislated. by BigBadBri · 2004-02-25 04:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

You might want to draw the line there, but what if I, a Soviet leader (for example) decided that religion, being unscientific and against Marxist principles, was also no longer protected?
See the problem yet?

--
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!

Heh by Bishop,+Martin · 2004-02-25 03:33 · Score: 2, Funny

"What happened to freedom of expression online?" I think Microsoft patented it

--
Setec Astronomy

Why is this a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-25 03:33 · Score: 3, Funny

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?

There is no "freedom of expression online" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-25 03:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

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...

Re:There is no "freedom of expression online" by squiggleslash · 2004-02-25 03:38 · Score: 5, Informative

There is no "Freedom of expression" law in the UK - it's not a right like in the US.
Erm, the European Convention on Human Rights was written into British law in 1998.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:There is no "freedom of expression online" by Jeremy+Erwin · 2004-02-25 04:02 · Score: 2, Informative

English Bill Of Rights, 1689

Note that Freedom of Expression was only guaranteed to members of parliament, although there was a general right to petition.

What happened? Thats easy. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-25 03:33 · Score: 5, Interesting

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!

Re:No right to free speech/press by gibbsjoh · 2004-02-25 03:34 · Score: 5, Informative

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

Perhaps you don't understand by asdfasdfasdfasdf · 2004-02-25 03:34 · Score: 3, Informative

The First Ammendment to the US Constitution doesn't apply internationally..

Re:Perhaps you don't understand by sketerpot · 2004-02-25 03:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

However, the UN Declaration of Human Rights does---even 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.
Stop bashing people for American Provincialism until you know the score.
Re:Perhaps you don't understand by md358 · 2004-02-25 03:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

The First Ammendment to the US Constitution doesn't apply internationally..

...or locally!

Oh sorry, got my ammendments confused..
Re:Perhaps you don't understand by goldspider · 2004-02-25 04:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy

dry by tverbeek · 2004-02-25 03:34 · Score: 2, Funny

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.

Ah, that British penchant for understatement.

--
http://alternatives.rzero.com/

Obvious answer by mkro · 2004-02-25 03:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

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).

--
I shall go and tell the indestructible man that someone plans to murder him.

Re:Obvious answer by Atzanteol · 2004-02-25 03:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

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!

--
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

- Charles Darwin
Re:Obvious answer by BigBadBri · 2004-02-25 04:08 · Score: 2, Informative

No - it's perfectly normal for UK police chiefs to take an authoritarian line, the same line taken by UK politicians, UK newspapers, and UK public opinion as expressed by retired colonels in the shires who write letters to the Times.
The fact that there isn't a great deal that anyone can do to stop these sites won't inhibit the chettering classes from thinking 'something ought to be done', and generally shouting about it.
Personally, I don't care if people want to have websites with extreme material on them - but what I do care about is that these extreme sites, and the hysteria that can be caused by clever manipulators of public opinion, could lead to a repression of free expression by the back door.
However disgusting they are, if they are not disrupting the Internet in general, then anyone that cares about freedom of expression needs to affirm their right to exist, unpalatable as that might seem.
The alternative is state control and censorship of the Internet, which is the hidden agenda behind statements such as that made by the police officer.

--
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!

Chicken Egg Problem by RazzleFrog · 2004-02-25 03:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:Chicken Egg Problem by Mysticalfruit · 2004-02-25 03:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

It brings up all kinds of confusing questions. If I create a site that explains in detail how to commit suicide and someone reads the site and follows through and it works, am I to be held liable by the relatives of the person? Even though you could argue that the person had suicidal tendencies (otherwise why would they be looking at suicide instructions). Could it be argued in the courts that I was the enabler?

What is someone puts up a site about paramilitary tactics and then a group of loonies use the website as a guide and storm a school and kill a bunch of people. Is the author of the webpage responsible? What about all those sites out there that have bomb/drug/gun instructions?

I know they'll be those people who will argue that for the "good" of everybody those type of subjects shouldn't be on the internet. The danger is that this is slippery slope.

--
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Re:Chicken Egg Problem by Arathrael · 2004-02-25 04:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

I don't think it's quite as black and white as that. You might visit a website because you're intrigued by something, not necessarily because you're already into it.

In this specific case, the guy told the court that 'he had been obsessed by women's necks from his early twenties but stopped being ashamed when he found other people on the internet who shared his perversion.' So there's an argument there that, without the websites in question, his obsession would never have developed the way it did.

Leave them alone by Brad+Mace · 2004-02-25 03:36 · Score: 5, Funny

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.'

Your taboos may vary... by LostCluster · 2004-02-25 03:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

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... by RazzleFrog · 2004-02-25 03:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

If only it were that simple. If that were the case then a fine (as called for by the regulations) would have sufficed. Now we have Senate hearings, a crackdown on all forms of "indecency" on TV and on the radio, and an all around panic in the entertainment industry. Someday I hope we will be free of this religous yoke that is holding us down and we can be free.
Re:Your taboos may vary... by tcopeland · 2004-02-25 04:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

> 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?

--
The Army reading list
Re:Your taboos may vary... by j-turkey · 2004-02-25 04:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--

-Turkey
Re:Your taboos may vary... by RazzleFrog · 2004-02-25 04:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

Who said I was an atheist? And atheists typically have higher moral standards because they believe in them without having the fear of eternal punishment hanging over them. I don't care who you are, though, I cannot understand how a female breast is indecent. You can put a big, fat, disgusting guy on TV and have him show his man-tits all night long and there is no problem but a female tit for two seconds is a disaster. Explain that to me and I will go quietly. If you are Christian then show me were in the bible it says that baring a breast is wrong.
Re:Your taboos may vary... by dillon_rinker · 2004-02-25 04:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

I suspect they oppose the presentation of illegal material; child pornography comes to mind. Considering that decency standards exist to protect children, I suspect that they would oppose any material they believed potentially harmful to children. It's hard to generalize about what that would be; there is no core system of beliefs and values in atheism, merely a denial of the divine.
Re:Your taboos may vary... by swb · 2004-02-25 04:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

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... by BenBenBen · 2004-02-25 04:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
The very same paper that GWB gave one of his rare interviews to, strangely.
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.
In Germany it's a (frequently prosecuted) criminal act to deny the holocaust took place. Regional considerations play a huge part in our lives, and the net is challenging this. Can a German deny the holocaust on a Brazilian website on a Australian server?
On an entirely unrelated note, why is a union of 2 commited lovers, whatever their sex, a threat to "the oldest and most sacred institution in America", whereas a 2 minute drive-thru ceremony in Las Vegas isn't?

--
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
Re:Your taboos may vary... by NineNine · 2004-02-25 04:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

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... by winwar · 2004-02-25 04:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

"Hm. I'm not sure. How would an atheist arrive at a moral standard? And when he arrived at one, wouldn't it be a bit arbitrary?"

No more arbitrary than basing morals on a book...

"Sure, 1st Timothy 2:9 - "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel..."."

Doesn't say that baring a breast is wrong. What is modest apparel anyway?
Re:Your taboos may vary... by NineNine · 2004-02-25 04:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:Your taboos may vary... by themusicgod1 · 2004-02-25 05:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

"Hm. I'm not sure. How would an atheist arrive at a moral standard? And when he arrived at one, wouldn't it be a bit arbitrary? " as opposed to believing what you are told without question? that sounds like a more arbitrary way to chose personal value-sets. now applying your own personal logic and power of deduction/induction to the best extent one can, and trying at all times to 'do the right thing' and to look for the 'truth' in all things on the other hand...that looks more like the 'best solution' granted i have transcended atheism, but when i was an atheist, this is what i would have countered you with.

"do not kill. do not rape. these are laws that every man can abide by."-boondock saints?

--
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Re:Your taboos may vary... by Scudsucker · 2004-02-25 06:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

On an entirely unrelated note, why is a union of 2 committed lovers, whatever their sex, a threat to "the oldest and most sacred institution in America", whereas a 2 minute drive-thru ceremony in Las Vegas isn't?

Because people are retarded luddites. 1) marriage "the sacred institution" was let out of the bag decades ago, by no-fault divorces and Hollywood two week marriages (which have been reduced to 40 some hours thanks to Britney Spears). 2) How the hell is the quality of someone else's marriage going to affect your own? 3) Marriage is mostly a religious institution, and so the government doesn't have any god damn business defining it. 4) I'm these arguments against gay marriage are the exact same ones used against inter-racial marriages 50 years ago.
Re:Your taboos may vary... by Scudsucker · 2004-02-25 06:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

So I take it your an atheist? Or an agnostic? Anyway, I always thought it was funny, growing up and learning about the greek myths in schools. Some students would laugh at those idiot Greeks for believing that gods lived on top of a stupid mountain and pulled the sun around the earth in a chariot, but believed in the story of Noah's ark or Moses parting the Red Sea.
Re:Your taboos may vary... by Tackhead · 2004-02-25 06:42 · Score: 2, Funny

> Intrinsically, it's not. In some contexts, it is. If a lady went to a funeral and whipped off her shirt, that would be indecent.
Note to self: Add line to last will and testament instructing the executor to hire strippers.
Re:Your taboos may vary... by Omnifarious · 2004-02-25 07:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

The only Dogma that science really has is that there are some laws or principles that can be discovered that govern the universe in a way that's the same for everybody. Every other idea in science is completely up for grabs. If you can convincingly disprove something, people stop believing it.

Even the first bit of dogma is actually something you would be allowed to disprove in science, though then most of the whole point and goal of science would be destroyed.

This is very unlike religion, where a little technological change like reliable and effective birth control creates decades of turmoil and upset within the ranks of the faithful and the church hierarchy.

While I believe there is a definite need for spirituality, dogmatic religions like Christianity largely just create vast and intractable social problems that wouldn't have to exist without them.

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Re:Your taboos may vary... by Alsee · 2004-02-25 11:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

Hm. I think it's difficult, though, to establish law without some moral background. Laws established in a vacuum seem to be, well, arbitrary.

I don't think you need to appeal to God to come to the conclusion "don't intentionally or recklessly hurt people". You don't need to appeal to God to come to the conclusion that some things yeild a "common benefit", such as taxes to pay for fire/police/military protections or public works like street and highways, or currency, or legal backing for some sorts of agreements (contracts). I think ultimately all valid law traces back to one of those two foundations, but feel free to point out anything I overlooked.

If an American-Indian and an Atheist and a Buddhist and a Christian and a Jew and a Muslim and a Pagan and a Satanist and a Shaolin monk and a Taoist don't get 90% agreement on something then it has no business being a law - at least not in a country where the Constitution forbids the Congress to pass any law favoring one religious belief over another.

Everyone listed above (yes, including the Satanist) would agree that you should be thrown in prison for breaking into someone's home and stealing/destroying their stuff. You don't need some "devine document" to justify such a law. On the other hand almost HALF of the people listed above would object to changing the pledge of allegiance to add the phrase "under God", as was done about 30 years ago. Some do not believe there is a god, some believe in more than one god, and some believe in a sort of god were it is nonsensical to use the phrase in that manner.

which is why a "legal partnership" or some such could be established.

By which I assume you mean that a "legal partnership" would not actually be called a "marrige"? The only function of calling it something else is to disciminate between them. You may as well suggest an interracial partnership be a "legal partnership" rather than a "marrige".

Whether or not these new legal partnerships would be given tax exemptions is another matter altogether.

Right, just like tax exemptions for an interracial parnership is another matter altogether. Tax law must grant or deny exemptions without refference to skin-color or gender. Discriminating between partnerships based on genders would be just as unconstitutional as discriminating based on skin colors. Either they all get exemptions or none of them do.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

Wait wait wait by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-25 03:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Vega043 · 2004-02-25 03:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

No there is no difference between a description how to cook a human beeing for eating and in encouraging someone to go kill someone to eat. Both thing are unacceptable to most persons and in my opinion both should be outlawed.
Publishing a human cookbook has nothing to do with freedom of speach. Freedom of speech is the right to have your own opinion about canibalism and discuss it, not practice it.
Re:Wait wait wait by saforrest · 2004-02-25 04:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by Abcd1234 · 2004-02-25 04:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by Abcd1234 · 2004-02-25 05:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by stewby18 · 2004-02-25 05:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

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?
Re:Wait wait wait by BlueStrat · 2004-02-25 05:40 · Score: 2, Informative

"The fact is, if the US government attempted to outlaw Islam because the majority wanted it, the constitution wouldn't allow it."

You are correct, however, the supreme court *could* interpret the constitution differently. That has been a major bone of contention in the US..the appointment of justices to the supreme court, which affects *how* the constitution is interpreted. Also, if enough people *did* want a change in the constitution, it *can* be amended.

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Re:Wait wait wait by myowntrueself · 2004-02-25 07:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

"specifically to *avoid* tyranny of the majority."

So instead you get the tyrrany of the very wealthy.

Great bargain, dude.

--
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.

better hope by musikit · 2004-02-25 03:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

UK != US by DaHat · 2004-02-25 03:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

What happened to freedom of expression online? by JohnGrahamCumming · 2004-02-25 03:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Better block www.amazon.com.uk by LittleGuy · 2004-02-25 03:37 · Score: 3, Funny

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.

Umm..... by Scrab · 2004-02-25 03:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Most Abhorent Quote by RevDobbs · 2004-02-25 03:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

"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.

You got it wrong by imsabbel · 2004-02-25 03:39 · Score: 5, Funny

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?

Freedom of expression... by BassettHound · 2004-02-25 03:39 · Score: 2, Informative

...is not a guaranteed right in the UK, like in the US.

What happened to freedom of expression online? by Belisarivs · 2004-02-25 03:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

Publishing by millahtime · 2004-02-25 03:40 · Score: 4, Interesting

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?

Re:Publishing by back_pages · 2004-02-25 03:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

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:Publishing by kenthorvath · 2004-02-25 06:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Of course this is no different than a library consisting of only papers on cannibilism that people have written, and are submitted in real time for publication. Again, not illegal.

come on! by bmac · 2004-02-25 03:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

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! by Peyna · 2004-02-25 03:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

Restricting speech promoting pedophilia and terrorism doesn't get rid of the problems that cause pedophilia and terrorism.

--
What?
Re:come on! by Frennzy · 2004-02-25 04:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Umm .. There is a World outside of the US by OzPeter · 2004-02-25 03:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

IANALANAUC (I am not a lawyer and not a US Citizen) but isn't the concept of "Freedom Of Expression" a US law only?

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 .. take China or North Korea for instance.

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 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.

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?

Re:Umm .. There is a World outside of the US by Clemence · 2004-02-25 03:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

"*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:Umm .. There is a World outside of the US by lxs · 2004-02-25 03:58 · Score: 3, Informative

Well, if a country is a member of the UN then they should in theory subscribe to the

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights

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.

Which sounds to me like an endorsement of an internet free of censorship.

In practice, most countries violate at least one of these articles.
Re:Umm .. There is a World outside of the US by Lafe · 2004-02-25 04:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

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:Umm .. There is a World outside of the US by Trurl's+Machine · 2004-02-25 04:06 · Score: 2, Informative

IANALANAUC (I am not a lawyer and not a US Citizen) but isn't the concept of "Freedom Of Expression" a US law only?

No. In 1789, French National Assembly adopted the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Its 10th and 11th articles read:

10. No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.
11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.
Re:Umm .. There is a World outside of the US by TnkMkr · 2004-02-25 04:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Block Quoteth:
"*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?"

Actually, yes that is exactly what freedom of speech is for. Of all the rights in America, you are not guaranteed the freedom from being offended. The freedom of speech ideal is not only to allow citizens to openly criticize the government, but also to allow all opinions on all subjects to be openly expressed. Once in the public arena these ideas often are reveled for the hogwash they are. If they are kept in the secret and not publicly debated often they gain the mystique of a secret group and counter culture that will artificially bolster their ranks.

I say let the light of open debate and expression shine on these horrors and reveal their true nature. It makes it easier for a person to become informed and discard the bad ideas.
Re:Umm .. There is a World outside of the US by Clemence · 2004-02-25 04:58 · Score: 2, Funny

I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to mis-attribute this quote to Voltaire.
-- Avram Grumer, rec.arts.sf.written, May 2000

Re:Human rights by RazzleFrog · 2004-02-25 03:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

People will do this whether there are sites or not. You are among the same deluded crowd that thinks violent movies creates killers, that Janet Jackson's breast will create rapists, and that using Linux makes you a communist.

Re:What happened to freedom of expression online? by Lord+Graga · 2004-02-25 03:44 · Score: 3, Funny

In France it's acceptable for a TV ad for shower gel to show a naked woman soaping her breasts.

URL???

What are laws for? by Serious+Simon · 2004-02-25 03:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

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".

All hype and no play by t_allardyce · 2004-02-25 03:47 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Re:Freedome of expression my ass by slartibart · 2004-02-25 03:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Who gets to decide which subjects are "degraded"? You? The Christian Right? Suddenly sites that have anything to do with sex, drugs, or rock and roll are destroyed in the name of "decency". And then it will just continue to erode from there. It's better to allow stuff that's distasteful to almost everyone, than it is to allow the slippery slope of censorship to get a foothold.

Freedom? by back_pages · 2004-02-25 03:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

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? by g0_p · 2004-02-25 06:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

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:Freedom? by back_pages · 2004-02-25 06:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

Point taken.
Homosexuality has been a controversial topic for a long time -- even though it was muted in 20th century America, it was alive and well during the classical civilizations. The same type of requoting you performed could be used for nose picking, procreating, punctuating sentences, or anything you like.
Necrophilia and cannibalism are often textbook cases of relativism in Philosophy or Ethics 101. Aside from the moral issues, there are plenty of health issues. I'm confident there is a substantial correlation between psychological problems and these unusual practices. Even more than that, both of these activities involve dead people, and for understandable reasons modern society has pretty clear rules on what to do with dead people. A coroner is not the type of job where you get 3 days of training with the shift supervisor and a personalized name tag.
So a person who adheres to Relativism can make any claim he likes - but the belief system isn't even self consistent. Punch a Relativist in the teeth - if he wants to file a police report, he has proven that his belief system is a fraud. Yeah, maybe necrophilia and cannibalism aren't obviously harmful, but declaring them as harmful isn't exactly controversial.
If I post detailed instructions on how to make a powerful bomb in your kitchen, must the government wait for someone to blow up a building and kill people before my site is taken down? I don't think so. To borrow a cliche, there is a clear and present danger in posting bomb instructions on the internet. I believe the same can be said for a cannibal dating service or a necrophiliac community network. I'm not suggesting that we persecute these people personally, but rather we do not protect their right to organize and further their interests specifically because these interests are widely believed to be harmful. It's not a perfect system, but it's a hell of a lot better than letting every last idiot run rampant without bounds.

This is completely understandable... by somethingwicked · 2004-02-25 03:50 · Score: 5, Funny

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?'"---

Just wondering. by ScottGant · 2004-02-25 03:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:Just wondering. by dasmegabyte · 2004-02-25 04:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

Um, the line for "child porn," at least in The States, is drawn thusly:

You can talk about it all you like. You just can't do it. You can draw it or make 3d art of it. But you can't take real pictures.

Basically, you can't perform sex acts with children, because there's a very good chance you'll harm them. And you can't display pictures of real children engaged in such acts because it could cause shame and further damage to the victim and it encourages others to do the same.

Personally, I'm okay with this. I think there needs to be an outlet for people to talk about illegal things, even if they're reprehensible.

However, this also means that if people want to ban images of necrophilia and cannibalism for the same reasons, I guess I'm okay with that as well. As long as the censorship allows you to TALK about the subject without sanction, I'd be okay with it.

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:Just wondering. by lambadomy · 2004-02-25 04:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

You're missing a few things.

Liable is illegal because...
Slander is illegal because...
yelling fire in a crowded theater is illegal because...

As far as freedom of speech is concerned, we do draw the line. I won't argue that the reason is simple.
Re:Just wondering. by FurryFeet · 2004-02-25 05:11 · Score: 5, Informative

Libel and Slander are civil torts in most cases. Criminal libel exists in less than half of the states, and is extremely rarely used: Reference . Just remember libel or slander cases and you'll always see "million dollar suits", but never "3 to 5 years".
Yelling in a crowded theater: That is not an actual law, but a Supreme Court decision. Read it, and you'll see that the Justices were extremely reluctant to apply any limits to freedom of speech. The only reason that one stands is because it can cause actual physical damage to someone (that also stands behind the "hate speech" exception).
I don't see how "gross" speech can physically harm someone. And you will agree that this can be the beginning of a slippery slope (remember the "bonsai kittens" thing. There are lots of people who will try and silence all kinds of speeck "for the children").
Re:Just wondering. by Alsee · 2004-02-25 18:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Liable is illegal because...

because of intent to cause harm.

Slander is illegal because...

because of intent to cause harm.

yelling fire in a crowded theater is illegal because...

because of intent to cause harm, or recklessly risking causing harm. It's perfectly legal if for whatever reason you know people aren't going to react to it.

As far as freedom of speech is concerned, we do draw the line.

Speech itself is not a crime, it can merely be used in the course of commiting a non-speech crime. The words "I'll pay you $10,000 to kill my wife" is not a crime, but using those words with intent of actually cause harm to occur is a crime.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

Cannibalism and Necrophilia *aren't* abhorrent?? by Burb · 2004-02-25 03:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

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:UKers don't have freedom of speech by dave420-2 · 2004-02-25 03:54 · Score: 5, Informative

What crack are you smoking? Britain defined freedom as everyone knows it. Starting back in 1215, with the Magna Carta. Read up on it. That's right, nearly 600 years before the US constitution, the original document was formed.

Plus, the UK is protected by EU human rights laws, which expressly protect freedom of speech.

I guess the US media was too busy shouting "USA! USA! USA!" to broadcast that particular nugget.

It's just discussion by HarveyBirdman · 2004-02-25 03:55 · Score: 2, Funny

I am sure it is only a legal concept in the US.

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.

Come on... by demonboylard · 2004-02-25 03:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Frontline. "American Porn". Watch it. by KE1LR · 2004-02-25 03:58 · Score: 2, Informative

Through the magic of Tivo, I watched the PBS Frontline documentary called "American Porn" last night. It's at the same time fascinating and more than a little disturbing.

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.

Re:cannibalism and necrophilia? by Mark+Round · 2004-02-25 03:59 · Score: 5, Funny

It's what's known as "eating your cake and having it too"....

Re:What happened to freedom of expression online? by radish · 2004-02-25 04:01 · Score: 2, Funny

Try this

--

---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

Re:Where do you draw the line? by Yartrebo · 2004-02-25 04:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

At least in the US, you can be pro-genocide (such as KKK and neo-Nazis) and the police will keep the angry mob of counter-protesters off of your back.

So if the KKK is considered protected speech, how much harm can a bit of talk about cannibalism cause?

Not in some jurisdictions in the US by The+Tyro · 2004-02-25 04:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Fight Memes with Memes by 0x0d0a · 2004-02-25 04:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

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

Sadly, I feel by bob670 · 2004-02-25 04:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

the need to repsond to this.

"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.

Get off it. by i_r_sensitive · 2004-02-25 04:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals /." -

Re:Get off it. by PenguiN42 · 2004-02-25 05:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

What if those bits are a collection of child pronography? I would say someone's rights and liberties were violated to create that content.

Yes, someone's rights were violated in creating that content. But we're talking about *distributing* it. Lots of people's rights were violated to create pictures of 9-11 occuring, but it's legal to distribute those pictures.

Distribution of that content is continued abrogation of that person's rights.

The only rights I can see that are violated by the *distribution* of child pornography are privacy rights, unless the children's faces are obscured. The violation of rights that led to the taking of the picture only happened once, and doesn't continue as the picture is distributed. So I don't see how it's "continued abrogation ["abolishment, or annulment, especially by authority"], of that person's rights."

Besides, current law doesn't only make it a crime to distribute pictures, but to simply *posess* them.

Now I could see criminalizing *selling* the pictures -- making money from a violation of someone's rights should be a crime, imho. But that's a whole 'nother bag of worms.

I agree with you about libel and "free speech" in general, though.

--
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
Re:Get off it. by fenix+down · 2004-02-25 07:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

cannibalism and necrophilia were sort of ILLEGAL

No. In California necrophilia is, under "Robyn's Law", which only passed May of last year, but in most states it isn't, except as a public health violation, same as a mortuary dumping bodies in the dumpster or something, which can get you prison time of a couple years anyway, and probably will if the violation is fucking bodies. Same thing with cannibalism, though I can't find any specific laws outlawing it.

What is illegal in the US is assisted suicide, and endangering the public health. So the German guy who ate his buddy is a murderer and a public health risk here, but if he just stuck with hacking off bits and eating them, leaving the guy still alive at the end, he would only be a public health risk, and get maybe 3 years. They might also be able to get him on practicing medicine without a liscence if they were creative.

Re:Basic Difference between British and US governm by SpeedyRich · 2004-02-25 05:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

You Cooked My Date!!! by Dareth · 2004-02-25 05:16 · Score: 3, Funny

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

Re:You Cooked My Date!!! by Tackhead · 2004-02-25 05:54 · Score: 4, Funny

> You Cooked My Date!!!
>
>Least we don't have to worry about these two groups banding together to make this legal.
Never underestimate the power of a FOX executive in search of a new reality TV show.

Controversy and dead people by 0x0d0a · 2004-02-25 05:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Laziness. Pure and simple by Asakura_Joe · 2004-02-25 05:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

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"

Two Words by Cpt_Kirks · 2004-02-25 05:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

Soylent Green.

Re:Freedom to be the crap out of you by Doppleganger · 2004-02-25 05:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

If I was to beat the crap out of you, can I be protected using the freedom of speech?

If I were to write a very in-depth web page on the mechanics of kicking someone's ass, and the best ways to do it, should it not be protected under freedom of speech?

Kicking someone's ass is a physical thing that infringes on someone else's rights. Same for bank robbing and killing people. Writing about such things, however, harms nobody.

Do you think your post should be removed because you talked about beating people up, robbing banks, and blowing up buildings?

Re:Of course, parent modded down... by tgibbs · 2004-02-25 05:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

"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] by tgibbs · 2004-02-25 05:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re:Run that by me again, please? by Trolling4Dollars · 2004-02-25 06:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

Marriage has nothing to do with procreation. While procreation is certainly important to the survival of humanity, it has no bearing on the validitiy of the love between two people.

--
Un-news

Re:Run that by me again, please? by Effexor · 2004-02-25 06:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

So, you are also against marriage of people past childbearing age? What about infertile couples. Shall we ensure that they cannot marry? If I get a vasectomy is it the same as a divorce? Does a marriage licensce require a note on reproductive health from your doctor and a guarantee that you won't choose to remain childless?

Oh, and you might be surprised to learn that procreation is actually possible without marriage (I learned that one the hard way.)

So it does basically come down to not wanting to extend rights to faggots. For anyone that says why should they call it marriage, it doesn't matter as long as they have the same legal rights as a married couple, well, you can't have it both ways. Either the semantics does make a difference or it doesn't. If it doesn't then why make such a big deal about it yourself?

--

As the air to a bird or the sea to a fish, so is contempt to the contemptible -W.B.

Cannibalism and Your Teen by future+assassin · 2004-02-25 06:10 · Score: 2, Funny

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*

Re:Run that by me again, please? by notque · 2004-02-25 06:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

Marriage has nothing to do with procreation. While procreation is certainly important to the survival of humanity, it has no bearing on the validitiy of the love between two people.

Marriage does have to do with procreation.

Love is nothing if not about procreation.

Validity of love is an interesting term. So it is an attempt is to make love as valid as love between a man and a woman.

That's the arguement. No need to continue on about anything else.

Let's just talk about it, and finish it. It has NOTHING to do with marriage, and EVERYTHING to do about if the love between a Man and a Man is as VALID as the love between a man and a woman.

If it's the same thing. If it means the same thing. If it feels the same. etc.

--
http://use.perl.org

Abhorrent sites by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-25 06:18 · Score: 2, Funny

www.microsoft.com
www.sco.com

Well, I think they're abhorrent...

Eating placenta by gonzocanuck2 · 2004-02-25 06:21 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Re:Eating placenta by lendude · 2004-02-25 14:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

Apart from the nutritional value of consuming the placenta; iirc the act also had some preservation basis - various species eat it in the wild to prevent it being an attractant to predators. Wasn't there also a fad awhile ago in which human birth parents kept the placenta to eat later (or is that an urban legend?)

--
"Get off the cross - we need the wood" - Tori Amos

Hi, Mr Strawman! by Scudsucker · 2004-02-25 06:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:Run that by me again, please? by amplt1337 · 2004-02-25 06:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

You want for everyone in the world to say, Yes.. Mr Gay Person.. Your love with Chuck is just like My love with Sarah.

That is the goal of the Gay movement. I think that is wrong. That is what I have a problem with.

Buddy, that's pretty clueless. Rich has no idea if his love for Jane is exactly the same as Chuck's love for Betty. I have no idea if my love for Yvette is different from Bob's love for Joe. Why? Because they are all personal feelings which can't be translated across the boundary of a human skull. Besides which, I don't really care if my emotion is identical to anybody else's; it doesn't need to match other people's feelings exactly in order for it to be legitimate (and I'm saying that about straight relationships, queer relationships, polyamorous relationships, whatever kind of relationships you want).

The goal of the gay movement is not to be convinced that its love feels just the same as any other love. It is for that love to be accepted by society in the same way as straight love is. If you really have, as you say, no problem with gay sex, then why should you have a problem admitting that gay people can love each other? Do you have to insist that no, their love is inferior to yours/impossible, because they happen to be of the same gender? There simply is no way to testify what that love "feels" like compared to any other love, because that's an individual question, but if a couple tells you they're in love, can't you just believe them and have done with it?

--
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.

I don't buy it by 0x0d0a · 2004-02-25 06:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

Re:The Law, as it is in the UK: the facts by Alan+Cox · 2004-02-25 07:11 · Score: 3, Informative

Different culture different values. We have a very recent and narrow definition of freedom of expression - although historically UK law has tried to protect newspapers and the like from most things, and the BBC has generally been protected from government meddling by other bits of law (and mostly by culture and tradition)

OTOH we don't dump several hundred foreigners on offshore islands and deny them rights to trial (we only do it to a few of them and we let them "leave" back to their original country whenever they wish - which is magnanimous of us given some of them will probably be shot if they do that..)

Except in narrow ways the US doesn't have free speech either - "To copy this CD hold down the... " oops , DMCA can't tell you that.

When it comes to porn and violence on websites thats where they UK really does have its head up its (sorry we can't show that ...). Its very common for there to be films which are rated "12" in france and 18 in the UK, because they involve people with no clothes on. And unlike the USA there is no real change at the age 18, the state never says "fine you are an adult, nobody committed a crime making this movie, everyone is an adult, *you* decide if you want to watch it". The state always allegedly knows best.

Since the UK state a) believes it knows best and b) believes that extreme porn and violence sites cause real world problems to occur (which may or may not be true - I've not had occasion to read the literature), its then logical that they believe they should be banning/blocking such material just as they take it off people at customs or stop it in the post if they discover it.

Some people argue that the real test of free speech is your practical ability to say something extremely unpopular without retribution - I don't think the US or UK neccessarily score highly here.

above post is factually incorrect for English Law by rapiddescent · 2004-02-25 07:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

This post is factually incorrect. There is no such thing as a British legal system. There is an English evolved traditional legal system and Scotland has a (superior) legal system that is derived from Roman Law (even today proceedings are in Latin). Scotland has fully adopted the EU Human Rights Act whilst England is lagging behind.

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

Ethical issues by danila · 2004-02-25 07:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

What's wrong by fm6 · 2004-02-25 07:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

A reasonable question. What this is actually about is porn. The sites under debate distribute pictures and stories of people killing and eating other people. Usually the victim is a pretty female. It's a simple sexual fantasy, though I can't explain how eating somebody could have a sexual element. The weird sexual fetishes you can find on the net boggle the mind!

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.

Ditto by joggle · 2004-02-25 07:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

The Constitution defines all of the powers of government, deliniating as clearly as possible the limits of these powers. In addition, it clearly defines certain "inaliable" rights that must not be infringed upon. It doesn't limit the freedom of the people, simply defines some very important freedoms that explicitly can not be intruded upon (at the time, several if not all of these explicit rights were continuously stepped on by the British government). The only limit explicitly placed on people by the Constitution that I'm aware of is that they can't commit treason. But even here it makes it difficult for there must be two witnesses and a difficult trial. If you look at the history of the US, this limit has been enforced very rarely.

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.

No Special Rules For The Web by reallocate · 2004-02-25 07:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

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"

UK != US by ReadParse · 2004-02-25 07:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Re:Cannibalism and Necrophilia *aren't* abhorrent? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-25 08:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?

I love this quote: by iamhassi · 2004-02-25 08:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

" "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?

--
my karma will be here long after I'm gone

Re:I'll say it again... by Alidar · 2004-02-25 08:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

The fact actually is that someone like Bill Gates has exactly the amount of control that his employees and consumers give him.

At any point they are allowed to get another job or use other software.

I know it isn't a popular opinion on Slashdot, but business is good. Businesses employee people and employed people can do more of the things that they want. People who run successful business should be taxed the same as everyone else; taxing them more discourages them from being more successful.

--
HTTP Status 418

Re:Run that by me again, please? by WIAKywbfatw · 2004-02-25 09:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

What's wrong with legitimising the homosexual lifestyle? Does it threaten you in some way? Are you scared of it?

A perversion of nature? There was a time when accepting anyone of any faith other than your own was "a perversion of nature". There was a time when putting a black man in a suit rather than chains was "a perversion of nature". There was a time when educating women was "a perversion of nature". There was a time when women working was "a perversion of nature". There was a time when an interracial relationship was "a perversion of nature".

Guess what, buddy? Nature evolves. Humanity does too, socially as well as genetically.

As for your comments about other species, well I put it to you if other animals engage in homosexual behaviour, or are born with too many or two few appendages, all without any intervention from man then, be definition that is natural. How you can say that something that occurs naturally isn't natural is beyond me.

Homosexuality is a fact of life. Trying to ban it isn't going to work. It might not be desirable from a "propagation of the species" point of view but it's here so laarn to live with it. You can either hate people for being gay and treat them as second class citizens for something that's none of your business or you can accept them for what they are and move on to more important matters.

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg

Re:Cannibalism and Necrophilia *aren't* abhorrent? by BillyBlaze · 2004-02-25 12:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

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. ... Aren't those statements contradictory? You can talk about something, but you can't put up a website about it? What's the difference?

Re:above post is factually incorrect for English L by misterpies · 2004-02-25 12:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

*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.

Re:Cannibalism and Necrophilia *aren't* abhorrent? by taustin · 2004-02-25 12:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?

Re:Duh [OT] by Kazoo+the+Clown · 2004-02-25 13:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

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...

Re:I Concur: Necrophilia and Cannibalism are Not B by TyrranzzX · 2004-02-27 03:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

Slashdot Mirror

'Extreme' Web Sites Under Fire From UK Police

200 of 1,154 comments (clear)