British Porn-Censoring MP Has Website Defaced With Porn

twoheadedboy writes "Claire Perry MP, who has been the main driver of the UK government's plans for default blocking of pornography, has had her website plastered in porn by hackers. But the story only just begins there. Notable blogger Guido Fawkes, otherwise known as Paul Staines, posted on the matter, only to later be accused of sponsoring the hacking himself. During some back and forth over Twitter, it appeared Perry was 'confused,' as she said Fawkes had posted a link to the defaced page, when he had only shown a screenshot of the site. Given the backlash against the government's plans to censor porn and its technical fallacies, the event could be particularly embarrassing for Perry. She is not commenting on the matter, whilst Staines has threatened to sue unless Perry offers a retraction of her claim he had anything to do with the hack." The tweet: 'Apologies to anyone affected by the hacking of my website sponsored by @GuidoFawkes – proves so clearly what we are dealing with.' Someone needs a lesson about hypertext.

Comments

Further proof that the people pushing this agenda

[Anonymous Coward]

...haven't a fucking clue.

Technical illiteracy among politicians

[intermodal]

I was just commenting to a Scottish friend of mine who is a firm supporter of anti-pornography pushes that no matter how good the intentions may be of the politicians who back this kind of thing, inevitably they show their technological incompetence by believing such efforts will not either fall so short as to be worthless or overreach to the point where they have to be disabled to perform even day-to-day tasks.

Ms. Perry has just demonstrated this same technical illiteracy to an extent I couldn't have hoped yesterday to be able to argue as a point without being accused of hyperbole.

Oh Guido.

[shadowknot]

It is clear that Guido Fawkes sponsored the construction of a new, illicit series of tubes to connect the hackers to Claire's tubes. Remember, it's not a big truck we're dealing with here.

What problem is this solving?

[sylivin]

Soooo..

What exactly is the problem this legislation is trying to solve? I have seen all sorts of weird stuff on the internet in my years (plus had a few friends that *loved* to send me really wacky things) and yet, somehow, I ended up not being some sort of crazy deviant. But wait - One in a hundred thousand million will be! We must protect the children by censoring half of the internet for the entire nation's population!

Hacking is bad. Censoring the internet for the entire population of your country? Much, much, MUCH worse.

Re:What problem is this solving?

[TWiTfan]

What exactly is the problem this legislation is trying to solve?

Claire Perry is having a problem getting votes in her upcoming reelection.

Re:What problem is this solving?

[gstoddart]

I have seen all sorts of weird stuff on the internet in my years

And, just to play devil's advocate, at what age did you start using the internet? Were you already old enough to have some context, or still quite young?

The argument seems to hinge on the fact that quite young kids are accessing this, and growing up with a very distorted view of sexuality -- google for "Rainbow Parties" as an example. I believe one of the things often cited is that younger boys don't get the boundaries on what defines rape and consent.

But if 11 year olds are growing up thinking bukkake, gang bangs and fisting are just part of 'normal'(*) sexuality and what's expected from them, they might be somewhat at risk for risky behavior or never learning how to date and hang out.

I don't agree that the censorship is a good idea, but I can see how people growing up on the weird stuff you see on the internet can lead to a very messed up outlook and set of expectations about later in life.

(*) You decide on your own normal, what two or more consenting adults do is their own damned business. But the argument that young kids are growing up with a very skewed version of sexuality isn't entirely without merit.

Re:What problem is this solving?

[SuricouRaven]

Ah, the famous Rainbow Parties. The things that everyone knows off, but you just try finding someone who actually went to one. It's one of the modern urban legends - a story that spread wildly because it inspired outrage, like the previous fear about secret satanist cults abducting children. That the story had no basis in reality was no impediment to the spread.

Re:What problem is this solving?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The argument seems to hinge on the fact that quite young kids are accessing this, and growing up with a very distorted view of sexuality -- google for "Rainbow Parties" as an example.

"Rainbow Parties" are the invention of neurotic adults with awful sex lives, not the internet. They are the sex-obsessed housewife's version of a teenagers "cleveland steamer" -- a ludicrously absurd sexual practice which says more about the mind that considers it than it does about reality.

I don't buy the idea that children are growing up with a skewed idea of sexuality. You show me studies revealing higher incidences of sexual dysfunctions, neuroses, or crimes in present day youth compared to past decades, I might think differently. But if your arguments center around "Rainbow parties" and 11 year olds thinking "bukkake" is normal, then I think the problem is You.

Libellous?

[maroberts]

Claire Perrys comments may be libellous, as the UK has a more extensive libel law than the US. Fun, games and large legal fees may be forthcoming.....

A recent example can be found on Twitter remarks by Sally Bercow, which cost her lots of legal fees and a substantial settlement. The irony of Claire Perry getting whipped in court over a freedom of speech issue would cause a massive outbreak of schadenfreude across the UK.....

Re:Lawmaker doesn't grasp technology ....

[oobayly]

Yup, Guido Fawkes has already run a poll on whether he should sue Claire Perry. 86% of people say yes. He's already asked her to remove the tweet, but it's still up there.

Re:Lawmaker doesn't grasp technology ....

[SuricouRaven]

America is generally better at insane laws, because they have a multi-level government with different parts often trying to push different agendas - you end up with states trying to subvert federal law, the feds trying to overrule state law, commitees staffed with people opposed to the laws they are supposed to be enforcing and every politician trying to find some loophole to work around court rulings they disagree with.

But brits do have a few. The libel law is a good example.

We also have a law that bans the posesssion or distribution of 'extreme porn' - a term which is supposed to be used only against the worst-of-the-worst. A problem came up in writing though: Any definition that could include all that would also have to include at least a few mainstream hollywood movies. The solution was simple enough: Any content that gets rated by the BBFC, regardless of rating given, is exempt from the law.

Re:Further proof that the people pushing this agen

[Anonymous Coward]

This a thousand times this!

I can say sadly from experience within my own family if X is in the papers Y must be true because Z says so.

Example 1, "Oh that bitty coin thing, paypal is that bittycoin thing I refuse to use it" - Aunt who happily responded to a 419 email.
Example 2, "Well you used my computer last Christmas (this was last week) so that Virus must have been caused by you..." - 2nd Aunt who downloads and installs each an every tool bar attachment on the net, incandescently this was a attachment send by her Son who is a Maths PHD who remains blameless.

Re:Further proof that the people pushing this agen

[GameboyRMH]

Cameron gets to go to his shrill and reactionary base and go "see, now the kiddies can't see the titties!"

Wait until he learns about breast feeding 8-(

Re:Lawmaker doesn't grasp technology ....

[oneandoneis2]

No it doesn't, because it removes "Innocent until proven guilty" - the US system means you can accuse me of any crime, and the burden of proof is on *me* to prove I'm innocent, instead of on *you* to justify your claim.