The way people have been exploiting British libel law in order to prosecute authors whose books are published and sold in America but might make their way over here, makes me wonder whether anything's possible!
But since this law only goes after possession, you'd be okay as long as you weren't going to try to bring the film to the UK. However, if you sent me a copy and I kept it, I'd be liable for prosecution. Though don't let that stop you in any way...
Your analogy isn't quite right - looking at someone in real life is like looking at a woman in a picture online. Having cybersex or an online relationship is a lot more active than simply appreciating how someone else looks.
But regardless, this is why it isn't a good idea to let religion interfere with lawmaking - many religions have codes which would criminalise a whole lot of actions which are about people's rights to make free choices - adultery, homosexuality, and immodest clothing amongst them.
You should tell that to British judges - their sentences for rape are often completely derisory. One judge ordered the rapist to pay the victim a hundred pounds (or so) so that she could have a holiday to get over the ordeal.
IANAL, but I would avoid that site if the law comes into force, at least until you get some proper legal advice. If you want to see the law's specific provisions, they're here.
Sadly, they thought of this. The law does not apply if "the personâ" (i)was sent the image concerned without any prior request having been made by or on behalf of the person, and (ii) did not keep it for an unreasonable time."
There is also the problem that, if she wants to be taken seriously, a woman can't admit to any kind of submissive tendencies. Wanting to tie a man up and whip him is cool - "You go, girl!". Wanting to be tied up and whipped makes her an enabler of patriarchal oppression.
Well, the terms of the law suggest that the intent behind the possession of the image is important. Taking a scene of a violent rape from a gritty and realistic movie and saving it as a separate file would be illegal if you did it for sexual gratification. How can they tell? From "context", perhaps? Or the fact that you labelled the file "jackoffscene.avi"? The wording is "if it appears to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal." The word "appears" asks that a conviction should rely on someone else's judgement of your motivations and reactions.
Wait, now. Mosley liked to whip and be whipped, therefore violent pornography is wrong? In other news - Hitler was a vegetarian, so let's make it illegal to possess tofu.
Damn right. We all process pain differently in different situations. People who enjoy receiving pain sexually usually do so in a very controlled way and are just as upset by accidental harm to themselves as anyone else would be. A person who cries when they hit their head on the car door could still be happy to be spanked or whipped by a partner. Pain is not a simple sensation, but has an intricate network of emotional and mental associations. To enjoy it in very specific and safe situations is not uncommon, and in no way suggests that one is being coerced or threatened.
Not so - images will be banned where "any such act, person or animal depicted in the image is or appears to be real." Cartoons could not be taken as real by any rational person (which is the test required by British law) and so they will not fall under the provisions of this law. Which doesn't make the law any less awful, of course!
"protecting the citizenry from potentially dangerous people"
Anecdotal "evidence" and public perception (which is all that's available to link violent porn to real-life violent acts) would suggest that "it's the quiet ones you have to watch" and that "having shifty eyes" is a clear sign of a murderer/rapist/child abuser. Should we mount a watch on quiet people with strange eyes?
My point is that until you can prove that a certain behaviour corresponds in a significant way to a certain type of illegal action, keeping a watch on people who behave that way is a gross violation of their civil liberties, as well as an indulgence of prejudice and ignorance.
Well, I'll add myself to the A/C's pledge. Okay, it's still kinda anonymous what with the username and all, but no doubt the British police know where to find me.
You're so right - misunderstanding of "unusual" or "kinky" sexual practices is absolutely endemic in British culture. It means that this kind of law has little opposition, because most people see it as only relevant to perverts who shouldn't have rights in the first place.
IIRC requires an act to be depicted that would be likely to result in death or severe disablement
Not quite. The bill specifies "an act which threatens or appears to threaten a personâ(TM)s life," and "an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in serious injury to a personâ(TM)s anus, breasts or genitals". There is no requirement that the injury to these areas be disabling.
The material will only be considered illegal if it is considered to have been created for sexual gratification. So, watching a movie containing a violent sex-scene (say Monster with Charlize Theron) is fine, as long as it has been passed by the BBFC. However, extracting the rape scene for sexual gratification would be illegal.
The interesting question is how they will tell whether something was extracted for sexual gratification - thought crime, anyone?
The images which will be banned are those which are real or which might be taken by a rational person to be real. CGI would only fall under this law once it becomes a lot more advanced.
I'm not agreeing with the law, btw, just pointing out its scope.
Completely agree with you. After nearly a year of waiting for someone to install Linux as a dual-boot on my laptop, I finally had the guts to do it myself only after getting an Eee and seeing how Linux worked. Getting Ubuntu up and running was no cake-walk (largely thanks to Broadcom), but I already knew what I was doing thanks to a week spent playing with the Eee, so a while of tinkering sorted it all out.
I heard Ted Nelson say once that modern computer users have been deprived of the right to program. I think that's a big part of the problem with Linux. It asks people to do stuff that, as far as they're concerned, is only do-able by IT professionals. They fear "breaking" their computer whilst trying to fix something, because they have no idea how their computer works. No-one ever taught them how to manipulate this amazing machine with which they've been blessed, so they're anxious and impatient if everything isn't set up by someone else (whether it's Microsoft, or their IT department, or the tech guys at the PC store.)
Kids should learn how to talk to computers (using a terminal, coding, programming) as urgently as they learn how to write, and they should be exposed to a selection of the major OSs and their features. That way, they can not only make an informed choice, but also deal with problems as they arise without being beholden to companies with ridiculous service charges and unacceptable waits for repairs.
Hmmm... Okay, maybe you're right. Still, the "US film industry" is, to all intents and purposes, the dominant international film industry too, so it means more for an "outsider" to break into it than for a US director to break into another nation's film industry, doesn't it?
When I was a kid, I used to play "fantasy LOTR casting" with my parents. We'd choose our ideal actors for each part if it were ever to be made into a film. So, in homage to my seven-year-old self, I vote for a remake with Brian Blessed as Boromir, Rowan Atkinson as Gollum, and Stephen Fry as Elrond. (I was in a Blackadder phase at the time...)
Mods, this is not flamebait just because you disagree with it.
Much as I enjoyed the films on their own merits, I agree that they did some terrible things to the original concept. Arwen is a case in point - modern audiences are surely sophisticated enough not to need an injection of hot totty into any plot that is originally centered around male characters? And yet we saw the same things happen with Beowulf - expanding the roles of female characters out of all recognition just to get some sex into the story and not to piss off the feminists!
Actually, though, my major problem with the Jackson version was the casting of the hobbits. Frodo is meant to be pretty much middle-aged and a bit fat. This makes his transition into a crazed, withered creature as the ring takes its hold all the more poignant. Making the hobbits buffoonish adolescents spoils the original dynamic of comfortable, well-off, relatively upper-class individuals finding themselves in this horrendous situation where they suddenly have to adapt to a kind of living which has been completely foreign to them.
Are you claiming that it's racist to be pleased that a particular industry is becoming more diverse? The film industry is difficult to break into, and that difficulty is heightened if you're not from the US. That may be no-one's fault, but it's not racism to be pleased if that situation opens out a bit. Saying - "hey, it's great that some Mexican directors are finding success" is not saying "I hate Americans for monopolising the industry".
You're talking as though Tolkien's guiding principle should have been rationality. The introduction of magic at all seems to militate against such an interpretation. Why do you assume that magic has a ruleset?
As the parent said, Tolkien doesn't rely on magic constantly, but dips into it occasionally, revealing different aspects of his world's magical content. In order to be consistent, he would have to use magic a lot more often so that we can see what it can do, or have a character discuss the exact properties of magic, which would be a pretty clunky device. These things work in Harry Potter, but would have completely changed the character of LOTR, making it mainly a novel about magic and wizards rather than about the tensions between different peoples and their relationship to magical realms.
I have three degrees in English, and sometimes I still misspell Tolkien's name if I'm not thinking about it. It's not an intuitive spelling. Judging someone's ideas on their spelling of a difficult word is perhaps not the best way to proceed.
That said, I would agree with you that Tolkien is not second rate. I read LOTR first when I was five, so I would challenge anyone who calls it difficult to read! And the more you learn about Tolkien's academic interests (medieval literature in particular) the more you realise how incredibly clever and consistent his world-building is. LOTR is not only epic in scale and theme, but in the scope and consistency of its peoples, languages, and thought-systems. I believe it should be judged at least partly by the standards of ancient literature - realistic psychology is not at the fore, rather it concentrates on characters as embodiments of ideas and ideals.
Slashdot Mirror
The way people have been exploiting British libel law in order to prosecute authors whose books are published and sold in America but might make their way over here, makes me wonder whether anything's possible!
But since this law only goes after possession, you'd be okay as long as you weren't going to try to bring the film to the UK. However, if you sent me a copy and I kept it, I'd be liable for prosecution. Though don't let that stop you in any way...
Your analogy isn't quite right - looking at someone in real life is like looking at a woman in a picture online. Having cybersex or an online relationship is a lot more active than simply appreciating how someone else looks.
But regardless, this is why it isn't a good idea to let religion interfere with lawmaking - many religions have codes which would criminalise a whole lot of actions which are about people's rights to make free choices - adultery, homosexuality, and immodest clothing amongst them.
You should tell that to British judges - their sentences for rape are often completely derisory. One judge ordered the rapist to pay the victim a hundred pounds (or so) so that she could have a holiday to get over the ordeal.
IANAL, but I would avoid that site if the law comes into force, at least until you get some proper legal advice. If you want to see the law's specific provisions, they're here.
Sadly, they thought of this. The law does not apply if "the personâ" (i)was sent the image concerned without any prior request having been made by or on behalf of the person, and (ii) did not keep it for an unreasonable time."
There is also the problem that, if she wants to be taken seriously, a woman can't admit to any kind of submissive tendencies. Wanting to tie a man up and whip him is cool - "You go, girl!". Wanting to be tied up and whipped makes her an enabler of patriarchal oppression.
Well, the terms of the law suggest that the intent behind the possession of the image is important. Taking a scene of a violent rape from a gritty and realistic movie and saving it as a separate file would be illegal if you did it for sexual gratification. How can they tell? From "context", perhaps? Or the fact that you labelled the file "jackoffscene.avi"? The wording is "if it appears to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal." The word "appears" asks that a conviction should rely on someone else's judgement of your motivations and reactions.
Wait, now. Mosley liked to whip and be whipped, therefore violent pornography is wrong? In other news - Hitler was a vegetarian, so let's make it illegal to possess tofu.
Damn right. We all process pain differently in different situations. People who enjoy receiving pain sexually usually do so in a very controlled way and are just as upset by accidental harm to themselves as anyone else would be. A person who cries when they hit their head on the car door could still be happy to be spanked or whipped by a partner. Pain is not a simple sensation, but has an intricate network of emotional and mental associations. To enjoy it in very specific and safe situations is not uncommon, and in no way suggests that one is being coerced or threatened.
Not so - images will be banned where "any such act, person or animal depicted in the image is or appears to be real." Cartoons could not be taken as real by any rational person (which is the test required by British law) and so they will not fall under the provisions of this law. Which doesn't make the law any less awful, of course!
"protecting the citizenry from potentially dangerous people"
Anecdotal "evidence" and public perception (which is all that's available to link violent porn to real-life violent acts) would suggest that "it's the quiet ones you have to watch" and that "having shifty eyes" is a clear sign of a murderer/rapist/child abuser. Should we mount a watch on quiet people with strange eyes?
My point is that until you can prove that a certain behaviour corresponds in a significant way to a certain type of illegal action, keeping a watch on people who behave that way is a gross violation of their civil liberties, as well as an indulgence of prejudice and ignorance.
There's a .pdf linked to here which apparently supports the parent's statement.
Well, I'll add myself to the A/C's pledge. Okay, it's still kinda anonymous what with the username and all, but no doubt the British police know where to find me.
You're so right - misunderstanding of "unusual" or "kinky" sexual practices is absolutely endemic in British culture. It means that this kind of law has little opposition, because most people see it as only relevant to perverts who shouldn't have rights in the first place.
Not quite. The bill specifies "an act which threatens or appears to threaten a personâ(TM)s life," and "an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in serious injury to a personâ(TM)s anus, breasts or genitals". There is no requirement that the injury to these areas be disabling.
The material will only be considered illegal if it is considered to have been created for sexual gratification. So, watching a movie containing a violent sex-scene (say Monster with Charlize Theron) is fine, as long as it has been passed by the BBFC. However, extracting the rape scene for sexual gratification would be illegal.
The interesting question is how they will tell whether something was extracted for sexual gratification - thought crime, anyone?
The images which will be banned are those which are real or which might be taken by a rational person to be real. CGI would only fall under this law once it becomes a lot more advanced.
I'm not agreeing with the law, btw, just pointing out its scope.
Not really. It's possession of this material which will be criminalised, so if she takes the videos, she's the one who's in trouble.
Completely agree with you. After nearly a year of waiting for someone to install Linux as a dual-boot on my laptop, I finally had the guts to do it myself only after getting an Eee and seeing how Linux worked. Getting Ubuntu up and running was no cake-walk (largely thanks to Broadcom), but I already knew what I was doing thanks to a week spent playing with the Eee, so a while of tinkering sorted it all out.
I heard Ted Nelson say once that modern computer users have been deprived of the right to program. I think that's a big part of the problem with Linux. It asks people to do stuff that, as far as they're concerned, is only do-able by IT professionals. They fear "breaking" their computer whilst trying to fix something, because they have no idea how their computer works. No-one ever taught them how to manipulate this amazing machine with which they've been blessed, so they're anxious and impatient if everything isn't set up by someone else (whether it's Microsoft, or their IT department, or the tech guys at the PC store.)
Kids should learn how to talk to computers (using a terminal, coding, programming) as urgently as they learn how to write, and they should be exposed to a selection of the major OSs and their features. That way, they can not only make an informed choice, but also deal with problems as they arise without being beholden to companies with ridiculous service charges and unacceptable waits for repairs.
Hmmm... Okay, maybe you're right. Still, the "US film industry" is, to all intents and purposes, the dominant international film industry too, so it means more for an "outsider" to break into it than for a US director to break into another nation's film industry, doesn't it?
When I was a kid, I used to play "fantasy LOTR casting" with my parents. We'd choose our ideal actors for each part if it were ever to be made into a film. So, in homage to my seven-year-old self, I vote for a remake with Brian Blessed as Boromir, Rowan Atkinson as Gollum, and Stephen Fry as Elrond. (I was in a Blackadder phase at the time...)
Mods, this is not flamebait just because you disagree with it.
Much as I enjoyed the films on their own merits, I agree that they did some terrible things to the original concept. Arwen is a case in point - modern audiences are surely sophisticated enough not to need an injection of hot totty into any plot that is originally centered around male characters? And yet we saw the same things happen with Beowulf - expanding the roles of female characters out of all recognition just to get some sex into the story and not to piss off the feminists!
Actually, though, my major problem with the Jackson version was the casting of the hobbits. Frodo is meant to be pretty much middle-aged and a bit fat. This makes his transition into a crazed, withered creature as the ring takes its hold all the more poignant. Making the hobbits buffoonish adolescents spoils the original dynamic of comfortable, well-off, relatively upper-class individuals finding themselves in this horrendous situation where they suddenly have to adapt to a kind of living which has been completely foreign to them.
Sorry. I could probably talk about this forever.
Are you claiming that it's racist to be pleased that a particular industry is becoming more diverse? The film industry is difficult to break into, and that difficulty is heightened if you're not from the US. That may be no-one's fault, but it's not racism to be pleased if that situation opens out a bit. Saying - "hey, it's great that some Mexican directors are finding success" is not saying "I hate Americans for monopolising the industry".
You're talking as though Tolkien's guiding principle should have been rationality. The introduction of magic at all seems to militate against such an interpretation. Why do you assume that magic has a ruleset?
As the parent said, Tolkien doesn't rely on magic constantly, but dips into it occasionally, revealing different aspects of his world's magical content. In order to be consistent, he would have to use magic a lot more often so that we can see what it can do, or have a character discuss the exact properties of magic, which would be a pretty clunky device. These things work in Harry Potter, but would have completely changed the character of LOTR, making it mainly a novel about magic and wizards rather than about the tensions between different peoples and their relationship to magical realms.
I have three degrees in English, and sometimes I still misspell Tolkien's name if I'm not thinking about it. It's not an intuitive spelling. Judging someone's ideas on their spelling of a difficult word is perhaps not the best way to proceed.
That said, I would agree with you that Tolkien is not second rate. I read LOTR first when I was five, so I would challenge anyone who calls it difficult to read! And the more you learn about Tolkien's academic interests (medieval literature in particular) the more you realise how incredibly clever and consistent his world-building is. LOTR is not only epic in scale and theme, but in the scope and consistency of its peoples, languages, and thought-systems. I believe it should be judged at least partly by the standards of ancient literature - realistic psychology is not at the fore, rather it concentrates on characters as embodiments of ideas and ideals.