Slashdot Mirror
UK Proposal To Restrict Internet Pornography Sparks Row
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC reports on the row over proposals by the UK Government to criminalize possession of 'extreme' porn. The bill, published last week, would include the prohibition of fictional depictions of violence and images of acts between consenting adults. The law would also apply to screenshots taken from a legal film, if the screenshot was made for erotic purposes. The goal is to prevent disturbed individuals from accessing content online that would trigger violent behavior. From the article: 'Labour MP Martin Salter, who has worked closely ... in pushing the legislation, rejected the BDSM community's claims their civil liberties were being undermined. He said: "No-one is stopping people doing weird stuff to each other but they would be strongly advised not to put it on the internet. At the end of the day it is all too easy for this stuff to trigger an unbalanced mind."' The bill follows from plans initially announced last August."
More information about this law is available on Backlash's homepage, a group opposing the law.
It's English for a useless object. A chocolate fireguard would melt.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
A fireguard prevents things / kids / pets from falling into a fire (think fireplace), it is placed in front of the fire to perform this action. A chocolate one, whilst it can fulfil 2/3 requirements of a fireguard ( 1) be ridiculous ornate 2) be an of brown colour after many years of use) has difficulty with the last requirement, arguably the most important requirement. It shouldn't melt when placed in front of a fire.
Thereby being as much use as a chocolate fireguard, is much the same as being as much use as a chocolate teapot, (or a more modern derivative) as much use as a screen-door on a submarine. i.e. its not useful.
But my main point was in fact correct. People that view BDSM are less likely to commit crimes, not more.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
According to the bill, it would count if it was produced for the purposes of sexual arousal. It's not clear how that's actually decided, but presumably a TV programme wouldn't count (as you say, we have this logic that TV is always okay, but on the Internet it must be evil pr0n).
Also, even if it did come under the law, it would be exempt if it's a classified work (i.e., the British Board of Film Censors, er, Classification says we are allowed to watch it).
However, the really bizarre bit is that if a UK citizen makes screenshots of this legal TV programme, for the purpose of sexual arousal - even privately and doesn't distribute them - it would be illegal. Three years in prison, and slapped on the Sex Offender Register.
The BBC can no longer cover the actions of Parliament or the PM?
Heh. You know, it's becoming less and less surprising that one of the UK's biggest objections to the EU charter has been the idea of signing up to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It's probably things like this and their anti-terror laws that they don't want to give up.
No wonder British SF is so obsessed with the idea of their country becoming a fascist state.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Interesting you should bring that up, as in 1994 a conservative MP died from auto-erotic asphyxiation, combined with self-bondage and cross-dressing.
Talking of rights, it's interesting to note that the bill states "these clauses constitute an interference" with the European Convention on Human Rights.
/ cmbills/130/en/07130x-n.htm#index_link_206 ):
But it's interesting, shall we say, to see what justifications it gives for doing so ( http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607
802. The Government believes that these clauses constitute an interference with Convention rights under Articles 8 and 10 but that for the reasons set out below this is justified as being in accordance with the law, and necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of crime, for the protection of morals and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
803. The material to be covered by this new offence is at the most extreme end of the spectrum of pornographic material which is likely to be thought abhorrent by most people. It is not possible at law to give consent to the type of activity covered by the offence, so it is therefore likely that a criminal offence is being committed where the activity which appears to be taking place is actually taking place. The House of Lords upheld convictions for offences of causing actual and grievous bodily harm in the case of Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 which involved a group of sado-masochists who had engaged in consensual torture. The threshold that the clauses have set is very high, so while those taking part might argue that they had consented to it, such consent is not valid at law.
804. In the case of images of staged activity , the Government believes that banning possession is justified in order to meet the legitimate aim of protecting the individuals involved from participating in degrading activities. This is also the case with images of bestiality, which while involving harm to animals can also involve the non-consensual participation of humans who are harmed in the process of making the images.
805. The Government considers that the new offence is a proportionate measure with the legitimate aim of breaking the demand and supply cycle of this material, which may be harmful to those who view it. Irrespective of how these images were made, banning their possession can be justified as sending a signal that such behaviour is not considered acceptable. Viewing such images voluntarily can desensitise the viewer to such degrading acts, and can reinforce the message that such behaviour is acceptable.
806. The Government considers that the restrictions on this material also achieve the aim of protecting others, particularly children and vulnerable adults, from inadvertently coming into possession of this material, which is widespread on the internet.
You don't "follow British politics closely enough" but you know enough to make a sweeping statement like "The UK is quite quickly becoming the creepiest democratic country in the world"?
Why? Because of a small part of one bill that has yet to even be debated in Parliament yet alone be voted on? Did you even RTFA and notice that before jerking your knee? You live in the US, where indefinite detention without trial is how you do things and yet you're lecturing the rest of the world on democracy?
As for the stupid assertion that this is based not upon "security concerns" but "out of boredom", well, if you RTFA then you would see that this change in the law is proposed on the back of a rather violent murder case where the murderer admitted to being addicted to violent rape websites, etc.
Sounds whimsical to you, does it? Really? If it was someone related to a Virgina Tech campus massacre victim campaigning for gun control would you accuse them of raising the issue "out of boredom"?
Personally, I couldn't be more opposed to this proposed legislation. As others have pointed out, it's an overreaction to a tragic but rare occurance. Emotive laws aren't often good ones - there's a reason why we don't let victims don't get to pick the sentences of those that have done them wrong.
As much as I can sympathise with the victim's family and friends, I find it hard to support their need for some sort of "Jane's Law" as part of their grieving process. Families of drink driving victims don't get alcohol bans being proposed on their behalf and I fail to see how this is any different.
Debate it? Yes. Look at measures that would be practical but not restrictive?. Yes. Legislate against something because of a single, deranged individual? No. Move on, and move on in a different, more positive manner.
But, hey, thanks for writing off our parliamentary democracy just for, you know, actually being prepared to talk about stuff. Instead of just brushing it under the carpet and then getting back to the important stuff like Paris Hilton's jail term and Britney's divorce case.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
....next I hear they are going to ban the showing of OLD Looney Tunes.
Some unbalanced person might be pushed over the edge, and start dropping anvils on people heads.
That would be funny, except they're editing Tom And Jerry episodes to stop them glamorising smoking...
Summation 2
On a similar note, another aspect is the way that the BDSM community is good in my experience at emphasising "safe, sane and consensual". If it's driven underground, then young people growing up with these fantasisies won't ever encounter such groups or learn that there are people out there wanting to enjoy it sensibly and consensually, and there's a greater risk they'll end up screwed up.
1.) Brits can't own guns
Only Americans view that as a fundamental right, even if other governments allow it. Your perspective is skewed here.
the right to forcibly overthrow your government is Freedom Zero
Nowhere on earth, certainly not the USA, protects this "right". If you think the second amendment is protecting this right, you need to read it again. The second amendment protects the states by arming the people. It doesn't say anything about insurrection. In fact, treason is the only crime defined in the constitution, and some constitutional scholars name the prevention of insurrection as one of the reasons to have the second amendment.
Brits can't even carry knives -- is that true?
The fact that you even need to ask that question shows how biased you are. Of course it's not illegal to carry knives. How would we butter our toast in the morning? No, it's illegal to carry particular types of knive, like croc dundee-style knives and switchblades, and it's illegal to sell to kids. But knives in general, no.
my Brit friends tell me it's true
You're condemning the country as being a totalitarian state based on hearsay? Have you ever even been to the UK?
Brits still tolerate (or even love!) their royal family
Again, totally out of touch. I don't know of anybody that loves the royal family. The strongest supporter of the monarchy I've ever met only supports them because they bring in the tourists. The attitude the British public has towards the monarchy is generally one of apathy. They are basically b-list celebs.
Brits can claim that the royals don't have any power, but if they didn't have any power, they wouldn't be royalty
Er, no. In theory, the monarchy can interfere in government affairs by doing things like refusing to assent to laws that parliament have passed. In practice, if they ever did that kind of thing, they'd be thrown out on their ears. Basically, the deal is that they get to live in a palace so long as they wave at the tourists and don't interfere in running the country. In fact, it's taboo for them to even express a political opinion, and they are forbidden from setting foot in the House of Commons. There are things that I, as an ordinary citizen*, can do (and have done), that the royal family cannot. The last king that tried to interfere with the government got his head chopped off for it. Does that sound like the head of a totalitarian state to you?
Is it also true that Brits can be searched for no reason at any time?
No. Somebody at the Home Office circulated a memo saying that it might be a good idea, the head of the police force said they didn't want that power, and a load of blogs misreported the story as being already law. They never even got around to writing a bill.
In America, that freedom is so important we put it right after free speech and free firearms
In America, that freedom is so important, it's routinely violated every day and nobody with those firearms that you claim are for protecting you against the government does anything about it. You claim that the right to overthrow your government is the most important freedom. I think the right to be free is the most important freedom. When you guys lost habeus corpus (a right you inherited from the British, and which the British still have), where were the riots? Where were the guns? Where was the insurrection?
Words on a piece of paper are useless. It's what people do in relation to those words that matters. You guys in the USA have made it clear through your actions that you are willing to tolerate your constitution being completely ignored. The constitution may as well not exist. Where are the riots when your constitution is ignored? Oh, that's right, you're too busy watching teevee and hearing about what Paris Hilton has been up to.
The relation the British have with their gover
I looked into that and found him stating this...., while pornography didn't cause him to commit his crimes, the consumption of violent pornography helped "shape and mold" his violence into "behavior too terrible to describe."
so the moral of the story the guy was already a nut and would of done it anyway.
Well, 2% if the US is roughly 6 million. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worl d-factbook/print/us.html)
n pop.htm) are in jail/prison for about 0.67%.
l d-factbook/geos/uk.html)
About 2 million (usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/aapriso
The UK population is around 60 million. 2% is 1.2 million.
(https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-wor
The UK prison population was around 70k. (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r188.pdf) This is about 0.12%.
So yeah, even for us thuggish Colonials, 2% is pretty high.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.