Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/24/extreme_pron_law_live/

Ahem, it's time!

First they came for the Beastophiles, but I was not a Beastophile so I did nothing.

When they came for the necrophiliacs, I was not a necro so I did nothing.

Then they came for the BSDM fetishists, but I was not into BDSM so I did nothing.

They came for the nudists, I was not a nudist so I did nothing.

Then they came for me, and there was no-one left to speak out.

I'm worried about this trend of Ill defined laws which seem to exist for no reason other than to criminalise thousands of innocent consenting adults. This ridiculous knee-jerk legislation will do virtually nothing to prevent a single murder/rape but will turn many people, who are no threat to anyone, into criminals.

The slow march towards a Police state gathers pace!

The Register and BOFH ! I'd forgotten about him! That's my afternoon taken up now

Ah knickers to it.

I'll get my kicks how I want, when I want. And since I don't fancy anything illegal, I'll be fine.

Well it could be harmful to your psyche. Under the new standard thats all the fgovernemnt needs.

I for one welcome our new overlords, who know better than I. I salute my new comrades, insuring I am protected at all times.

(probably should read the article).

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Ah knickers to it.

I'll get my kicks how I want, when I want. And since I don't fancy anything illegal, I'll be fine.

But violent/extreme porn has been shown to have a negative psychological impact. How can you say it's ok for the government to limit salt because it is for everyone's health then turn around and say think it is silly to limit harmful psychological influences?

Well, there's a huge difference between asking companies to limit salt in food and banning entirely certain content. The government isn't criminalizing possession of salty foods, just trying to make it easier to get food that's not entirely salt. This British law bans media based entirely on content, and actually makes it a criminal offense to possess it.

Let's hope the first court cases define the law well. And don't feth over consenting adults who just want to get their kicks.

P.s LuciusAR I love your avatar.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Ah knickers to it.

I'll get my kicks how I want, when I want. And since I don't fancy anything illegal, I'll be fine.

Me neither but that’s not the point.

Currently this law doesn’t affect me, I don’t get my kicks off strangulation or images of people being kicked in the nads. My point is that, if I did enjoy that and all the people involved in the photos were taking part of their own free will then its no one else's business and its most certainly no concern of the state! Obviously there is a case for state involvement where no consent is given (hence no issue with rape vids or kiddy pron) but other than that it's an entirely private matter.

Now this whole thing is based on the ridiculous assumption that someone interested in 'extreme' pron is more likely to commit an act of violence against another person. This in particular stems from one case were a man who did enjoy a kinky pron was convicted of murdering a girl. This led to a bit of high profile busybodying from the girls mother and the "oh wont someone think of the children" right wing tabloids and hey presto, the nanny state strikes again!

Aside from the fact that there is no evidence to confirm a link between kinky pron and homicidal behaviour, all this law will achieve is turn the 99.9% of people who do like kinky stuff and wouldn’t dream of hurting anyone into criminals. Effectively this will cost the tax payer a fortune to enforce and lives may be ruined over nothing.

Besides how long before the same arguments are made against hardcore pron? or pron involving more than 2 people? How long before enjoying anything stronger than playboy could lead to you being forced to sign the register?

It’s the start of a very slippery slope.

Ahtman wrote:

But violent/extreme porn has been shown to have a negative psychological impact.

So can listening to Girls Aloud (It makes me want to go on a murderous rampage anyway) but I wouldnt suggest that somthing be banned because I personally find it distastleful.

Besides what was the depth of these studies? How many people showed a negative effect? 1%, 5%, 10%?

Do we really want to be a position were we would ban somthing because it 'may' have a negative effect on a very small minority of the poulation? Charles Manson was inspired to kill by listening to Helter Skelter, Peter Sutcliffe was convinced Jesus told him to kill women, would you suggest a ban on the Beatles or the Bible?

Apone wrote:

P.s LuciusAR I love your avatar.

Thanks, its based on the severe amount of casualties that my beloved Imperial Guard and various Flames of War armies have suffered over the years. Sometimes I feel a bit like Gen Melchett. BAAAHHHH!

Polonius wrote:Well, there's a huge difference between asking companies to limit salt in food and banning entirely certain content. The government isn't criminalizing possession of salty foods, just trying to make it easier to get food that's not entirely salt. This British law bans media based entirely on content, and actually makes it a criminal offense to possess it.

Correct translation: government is asking for voluntary reductions now or they will require mandatory reductions later. Thats criminalizing salty foods.
One just gets enforced at the consumer level, the other at the producer level.

But again, I for one welcome our new comrades. I'm so tired of self control, and that free speech thing is just so annoying.

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:Well, there's a huge difference between asking companies to limit salt in food and banning entirely certain content. The government isn't criminalizing possession of salty foods, just trying to make it easier to get food that's not entirely salt. This British law bans media based entirely on content, and actually makes it a criminal offense to possess it.

Correct translation: government is asking for voluntary reductions now or they will require mandatory reductions later. Thats criminalizing salty foods.
One just gets enforced at the consumer level, the other at the producer level.

But again, I for one welcome our new comrades. I'm so tired of self control, and that free speech thing is just so annoying.

Again, there is a difference between regulations that can bring at most a fine to a corporation and a felony that can send a person to prison. I'm not the guy to argue with about free speech issues, I am literally a card carrying member of the ACLU. Economic freedoms enjoyed their day in the sun in this country during the so called "Lochner era," in which the absolute right of contract was considered beyond governmental regulation. This was eventually overturned by the switch that saved nine during FDR's court packing threat. What's interesting is that no real steam has gathered to pass an amendment making those rights as fundamental as say, speech and religion.

Interesting side note: Lochner was decided under the idea that the right to contract between an employer and employee was greater than any power of government to interfere with. That was the same line of reasoning used in Dred Scot, only it was the right to own property that was seen as inviolate. One of the more interesting critiques on Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood is that the court is reverting to that same argument, holding that a person's right to personal autonomy is beyond any governmental regulation. It's probably the most creative attack on the decision, as it's able to show other times the courts have eventually overturned earlier precedent protecting an un-enumerated right over regulations protecting a third party. If you ever want to annoy a pro-lifer, it's a good one to bring up.

I don't live in Britain, but this does anger me a little.

LuciusAR wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Ah knickers to it.

I'll get my kicks how I want, when I want. And since I don't fancy anything illegal, I'll be fine.

Me neither but that’s not the point.

Currently this law doesn’t affect me, I don’t get my kicks off strangulation or images of people being kicked in the nads.

You are quite right and it is far worse than it looks.

This is another vague New Labour law. However there is no such thing as a vague law. Law is the most extreme form of RAW. The Mental Health Act passed a year ago can lock up just about anyone, its only a matter of time before it is abused. Before the Lords toned it dowen it was far worse, now at least there is a form of appeal and it cannot be perpetuated indefinately! The original white paper was a frightening read. The Counter Terrorism Act gives as RAW powers to the government to do far more than it claims.

Q. How did Gordon Brown deal with the Icelandic banks during the crash?
A. Assets seized under the Prevention of terrorism Act.

Excuse me, Icelands banks and government are not terrorists. Doesnt matter, its the RAW that matters.

New anti-porn legislation is vague and the goal posts can shift. Unless very clearly defined the government can use this to shut down any porn they feel like. If the government weants to label you extreme they can do so as they are in charge of the definitions.

LuciusAR wrote:
Now this whole thing is based on the ridiculous assumption that someone interested in 'extreme' pron is more likely to commit an act of violence against another person. This in particular stems from one case were a man who did enjoy a kinky pron was convicted of murdering a girl. This led to a bit of high profile busybodying from the girls mother and the "oh wont someone think of the children" right wing tabloids and hey presto, the nanny state strikes again!

Frightening to those who understand how this government thinks. The law is being fuels by dogma infested definitions of right and wrong. A topical example of this labelling is that Social Services remove children from families reported to the RSPCA for neglect of an animal. The reasoning being that if someone abuses a dog they will abuse their kids. Not only is this blatantly not true but the definitions of animal abuse vary including loving neglect where a person doesnt know how to handle an animal through to out and out cruelty. The RSPCa actas on slimmer evidence than social services, though sometimes this is not a bad thing.
Both however seem now to obey the New PC dogma bs infecting our nation, which ironically for a dogma espousing equality also sets up clear social labels. Porn watching = violent, cant keep a dog = cruel to children.

LuciusAR wrote:
It’s the start of a very slippery slope.

You seem to ber awake sir. Look around more you will find we are already well down this slippery slope. This new law is just the latest stage of an erosion of values and liberties and the enforcement of new thinking that is to the detrement of the nation.

Englands a hole that forgot the concept of freedom in favor of the concept of "niceties".

But violent/extreme porn has been shown to have a negative psychological impact. How can you say it's ok for the government to limit salt because it is for everyone's health then turn around and say think it is silly to limit harmful psychological influences?

Boxing works the same way. So do violent films. I would rather see horror films banned first. At least "most" extreme porn isn't just snuff.

England's a hole? Eff off.

Greebynog wrote:England's a hole? Eff off.

Stop voting for more cameras and jail time for vore. You're getting to be like little china.

Modquisition on:
Lets play nice people, and remember Dakka rule #1
Modquisition off:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Greebynog wrote:England's a hole? Eff off.

Stop voting for more cameras and jail time for vore. You're getting to be like little china.

I vote Liberal Democrat, and have done so at every election since I have been able to vote. The system in the UK runs a huge democratic defecit, however, and despite claiming ~20% of the vote each election, they recieve nowhere near that percentage of seats. So what am I to do? Vote for the 'left wing' party that loves ID cards and George Dubya, or the toff party of unsympathetic, selfish oafs? No thanks. The best I hope for is a hung parliament, and a coalition Lib/Lab government as a result. And surprisingly, security cameras are hardly a top voting issue, rightly or wrongly, we're more concerned with, y'know, wars, crime and the collapsing world economy.

As for the little China analogy, I would accept that cheap swipe against this fair isle, where it not for the rank hypocrasy of being accused by an American of being similar to a country with such a poor human rights track record. Last time I checked, we hadn't opened up a prison camp within the jurisdiction of another nation, whose central beliefs and tennets run in diometric opposition with that of the governments' in order to circumnavigate our own laws with the intention of imprisoning without trial, torturing and the flagrant denial of basic human rights. Really, you should check yourself before you go making such crass statements about other people's homes, it tends to upset them rather, especially if what you say is ludicrous and reactionary.

Greebynog wrote:

As for the little China analogy, I would accept that cheap swipe against this fair isle, where it not for the rank hypocrasy of being accused by an American of being similar to a country with such a poor human rights track record. Last time I checked, we hadn't opened up a prison camp within the jurisdiction of another nation, whose central beliefs and tennets run in diometric opposition with that of the governments' in order to circumnavigate our own laws with the intention of imprisoning without trial, torturing and the flagrant denial of basic human rights. Really, you should check yourself before you go making such crass statements about other people's homes, it tends to upset them rather, especially if what you say is ludicrous and reactionary.

Can't resist...must go there...
You mean, other than Australia right?
Didn't you start a war to force a country to take opium?
How many people in India were killed by British troops again before India gained her independence?
I guess we pulled that declaration of independence thing out of our butts because we were bored?

Haha, fine Fraz, I'm not gonna kick this one off (although all those examples are from rather a long time ago, and I was discussing modern issues... ), I <3 (x2) America, I just felt the need to defend this beatific country from the bullying forces of the US once more.

thats cool greeby.

Last time I checked, we hadn't opened up a prison camp within the jurisdiction of another nation, whose central beliefs and tennets run in diometric opposition with that of the governments' in order to circumnavigate our own laws with the intention of imprisoning without trial, torturing and the flagrant denial of basic human rights.

No, but technically you send POWs your military captures there.

And hey, we're closing those camps. You're just starting up the lolicon holocaust over in your section of the pond .

Frazzled wrote:
Can't resist...must go there...
You mean, other than Australia right?
Didn't you start a war to force a country to take opium?
How many people in India were killed by British troops again before India gained her independence?
I guess we pulled that declaration of independence thing out of our butts because we were bored?

Actually you offer a backhanded complement to us.

Which other country in the world is judged by its standards in centuries old endeavours by modern moral standards.

Its a metaphorical question.

The UK in general and England in specific are being criticised for policies which were acceptable at the time to anyone. Late 20th century to present morals dont have their place in honest history. This doesn't make old wrongs right but for comparison noone accuses the US of 'Naziism' over its genocide of native Americans yet there are parallels to the Final Solution in the policy.
As for the Opium wars, that was arguably the most shameful thing our nation has done, but the Chinese have no bad blood about it, such acts of evil were commonplace far more recently.

No dig at the US, because I know better than this, but I remember my father reporting of his trip to America and his visit to portobello House home of Thomas Jefferson. Where we wrote his treaties on human rights and libertyy, and where he kept his black slaves.
Jefferson - Libertarian or screaming racist? To claim the latter would be unfair, you have to place peoples in their time.

I see this type of critique a lot online, ancient wrongs pointed at with modern hands. Almost uniquely it is the English who are targetted, and ironically often less offenders than most. You do know that the White Mans Burden refers to mismanagement of US colonies. please remember Ted Roosevelt went adventuiring in africa too. The main reasion for US distain for the Empire is that they wanted the pie slice we had, not any moral issue of the time.

ShumaGorath wrote:Englands a hole that forgot the concept of freedom in favor of the concept of "niceties".

I am not going to get upset over this comment bec ause sadly I agree with it.

This is what the curent regime has made of our nation, most people are not aware how far things have gone. The political will in the Uk is very lowbrow now and most people are too easily hoodwinked by a little spin.

cant wait to move to aus
had enough with everything in life here being restricted or banned XD
i started smoking when i was 13 (bad choice) as soon as i was 16 and able to buy my own, they moved the law up to 18, and theres now talk of 21.
everything is being restricted, even the bloody food we eat.
all in all, life is a piss take in england, lets all move

JD21290 wrote:cant wait to move to aus
had enough with everything in life here being restricted or banned XD
i started smoking when i was 13 (bad choice) as soon as i was 16 and able to buy my own, they moved the law up to 18, and theres now talk of 21.
everything is being restricted, even the bloody food we eat.
all in all, life is a piss take in england, lets all move

Erm I hope you being Ironic. If you thing the British are control freaks when it comes to on-line content we thankfully have nothing on the Australians.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/08/simpsons_supreme_court/

Here we see a man who was labelled a paedophile for have a humorous (albeit in very bad taste) cartoon on his computer. This judgement was the very definition of paranoia and stupidity.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/13/internet_regulation/

Here is another story about Australian plans to filter and censor internet content. This is the kind of this thing I expect from China not a 'free' western country.

Personally I weep for Australia and I hope they have the courage to kick out these control freaks.

Also feel free to look at the comments section for both these stories, they sum up the farcical nature of these stries better then I ever could.

LuciusAR wrote:
Erm I hope you being Ironic. If you thing the British are control freaks when it comes to on-line content we thankfully have nothing on the Australians.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/08/simpsons_supreme_court/

Here we see a man who was labelled a paedophile for have a humorous (albeit in very bad taste) cartoon on his computer. This judgement was the very definition of paranoia and stupidity.

I know someone who has questionable Simpsons pictures, to him it was part of his joke image files, he didnt even rate it as pr0n. I must admit I didnt like it much but 'paedo' is the last thing I would think of.

However in our labelling society there is no worse label. So I say that I know of at least one innocent person who would have his life completely ruined if this extreme expression of such legislation was enforced in the UK.

Yes Oz does have some quite Draconian social laws, but the nation is on the other hand more laid back in general.

post deleted by me.

Gentlemen, lets move the subject off of attacks on US/GB or this thread will be shut down.

So if the wife is tied to the bed before a ravishing, and it's on video, they're breaking the law as a married couple of consenting adults?!?

Orlanth wrote:

I know someone who has questionable Simpsons pictures, to him it was part of his joke image files, he didnt even rate it as pr0n. I must admit I didnt like it much but 'paedo' is the last thing I would think of.

However in our labelling society there is no worse label. So I say that I know of at least one innocent person who would have his life completely ruined if this extreme expression of such legislation was enforced in the UK.

Indeed I've seen these images before, infect I've had loads e-mailed to me back when I was at uni. Not just the Simpsons but loads of Disney characters and Cartoon characters. I laughed and then never gave it a second thought.

Now according to this judgement, were I Australian, I could be dragged away in the middle of the night, hauled into a court and labeled a sexual deviant and a danger to children. This is not only incorrect but a totally scandalous suggestion. This Judgement is a prime example of where the UK could be heading as a result these farcical draconian laws.

In Australia an innocent man has had his life destroyed so Australia can appear to be tough on paedophiles. In fact im willing to bet thousands of actual dangerous individuals went about their business undected because the Australian police and legal system was busy destroying an innocent mans life instead of actually going after real paedophiles.

:soapbox

LuciusAR wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

I know someone who has questionable Simpsons pictures, to him it was part of his joke image files, he didnt even rate it as pr0n. I must admit I didnt like it much but 'paedo' is the last thing I would think of.

However in our labelling society there is no worse label. So I say that I know of at least one innocent person who would have his life completely ruined if this extreme expression of such legislation was enforced in the UK.

Indeed I've seen these images before, infect I've had loads e-mailed to me back when I was at uni. Not just the Simpsons but loads of Disney characters and Cartoon characters. I laughed and then never gave it a second thought.

Now according to this judgement, were I Australian, I could be dragged away in the middle of the night, hauled into a court and labeled a sexual deviant and a danger to children. This is not only incorrect but a totally scandalous suggestion. This Judgement is a prime example of where the UK could be heading as a result these farcical draconian laws.

In Australia an innocent man has had his life destroyed so Australia can appear to be tough on paedophiles. In fact im willing to bet thousands of actual dangerous individuals went about their business undected because the Australian police and legal system was busy destroying an innocent mans life instead of actually going after real paedophiles.