UK Proposal To Restrict Internet Pornography Sparks Row 561
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."
Prehaps instead.. (Score:5, Insightful)
slippery slope here, very slippery
Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:4, Insightful)
But the problem is over THERE (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is not that an imbalanced mind sees extreme porn. The problem is that the mind in question is imbalanced. Denying all minds access to extreme porn will not solve the problem...the mind in question will still be imbalanced.
And the mind in question will still be likely to cause harm.
All this law will do is create another subjective standard by which some people can be arbitrarily criminalized.
I love these unsupported theories.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But the problem is over THERE (Score:4, Funny)
...no wait... wtf?
Re:ok answer this question. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right, we should form that point just ban any form of stimulus from the world. problem solved.
How about we identify these individuals and offer treatment and therapy? That way we can help someone and not have to punish the 98% of the population that won't murder women and molest dogs.
Re:ok answer this question. (Score:4, Funny)
I'd try googling for statistics, but for some reason I'm reluctant to search for "dog molestation."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
About 2 million (usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/aaprison pop.htm) are in jail/prison for about 0.67%.
The UK population is around 60 million. 2% is 1.2 million.
(https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worl d-factbook/geos/uk.html)
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 Colonia
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not-to-mention mothers-- the mere sight of a mother anywhere could be the stimulus that triggers him to go bananas.
Don't you think we ought to ban mothers, as well? Or at least, perhaps, you know... A shawl or two? That ought to supress any feelings he might have.
So
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
- Emo Philips
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not much for us, they might enjoy it though.
Re:ok answer this question. (Score:5, Insightful)
> he rapes and kills the dog and tries to mulest mom
> they let him go hoping for the best knowing full well with a few years he will act on said impulse and end up in prison in the psych ward
> how do you propose to fix this problem
Certainly you aren't suggesting that outlawing photos of B&D sex will fix this problem?!
Re:ok answer this question. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, we can just continue to ban everything in a "free" society because of a few bad apples.
Another thought, when will people realize that banning anything does not work! Ban on guns... people still get guns. Ban on drugs... people still get drugs. Ban on XYZ... people still get XYZ.
Re:But the problem is over THERE (Score:5, Insightful)
You could say the same thing about any other form of entertainment. In a free society, we're supposed to be able to decide how to spend our free time, so long as we aren't harming anyone while doing so.
I agree completely. It sounds like this politician is unbalanced and needs a reality check. Porn doesn't encourage any stable person to go out and rape any more than Die Hard makes stable people go out and shoot people.
Re:But the problem is over THERE (Score:5, Insightful)
And some people's chosen form of entertainment is pornography. You've somehow convinced yourself that only "unbalanced" people enjoy pornography, but I know of no scientific study that indicates it is anything more than just another form of entertainment that many perfectly healthy adults enjoy watching. Most surveys since the VHS days indicate that the majority of the population in western countries has viewed pornography at one point or another, and a significant fraction of the population views it on a regular basis.
There's no indication that those huge numbers of people have become molesters or otherwise scarred by their exposure. Indeed, sex crimes in the US have declined greatly as the internet became more available, which brought pornography into many homes on a dramatically more frequent and extreme basis. If pornography led to criminal behavior in healthy individuals, we should be in the middle of the most horrific crime spree of sexual assaults in the history of mankind.
The main "damage" that psychologists have found with some pornography viewers is that pornography can set up unrealistic expectations, both for what sex "should" be like and what physical ideals and -- a criticism that is similarly offered for most forms of recorded entertainment, where actors and actresses are unrealistically attractive and their lives generally are much more interesting and exciting than the average viewers'.
You sounds bit like a headmaster circa 1900, when masturbation was considered to be a horrible act children should be beaten for experimenting with. It was widely "known" at the time that masturbation led to criminal behavior, insanity, and sexual deviancy. Of course the same charges were leveled against homosexuality and every other form of sex that is outside "missionary position in marriage for procreation under the covers with the lights out". Of course there's no evidence whatsoever for such claims other than mere belief by those who espouse them.
Re:To drag it back on topic, though (Score:4, Funny)
Yes... yes. I agree completely. But remember, we do have to impeach the man first.
Re:To drag it back on topic, though (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that is what those who propose this law *want* you to believe.
Some facts:
1) SNUFF MOVIES ARE A MYTH!
Excuse me shouting, but in 30 years of searching by police agencies worldwide there has never been a *single* "snuff movie" found (someone being murdered for sexual gratification and then the film being sold or distributed), let alone anyone being prosecuted for it!
2) He looked at sites like "Necrobabes" and "Hanging Bitches" which are *staged* porn sites with actors posing for photos. Nobody is killed in these any more than people are killed in films like Saw or Hostel or Captivity!
3) Martin Salter MP, the guy who is pushing this law, has a clear anti-porn agenda. He has just been quoted as saying "No-one is stopping people doing weird stuff to each other but they would be strongly advised not to put it on the internet" he has also repeated the myth about Snuff Movies and claimed that "it is all too easy for this stuff to trigger an unbalanced mind" even though the original Government Consultation admitted that there was *NO* evidence that images such as this caused harm!
> I fail to see what good it does to provide movies for _that_ deranged minority.
You have this argument backwards. What you fail to see is that *NO* good will come from attempting to block imagery like this *in the hope* that it will somehow stop a "deranged minority" hurting others.
Peter Sutcliffe, the "Yorkshire Ripper" murdered prostitutes and justified it by his reading of the Bible. Should the Bible therefore be banned because it stimulates a "deranged minority" to murder??
> I'll say they're messed up in the head as it is. With or without movies, that's a disturbingly unbalanced person who gets an erection at the thought of taking a life.
Exactly, see above. These people will find justifications by one means or another. Criminalising the rest of us is not going to make a difference.
Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:5, Insightful)
A real free society cares about the rights of the people they don't like too.
Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:5, Funny)
How true. They are always getting beaten, whipped and slapped around.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So you all know the old joke, right?
Masochist: "Hit me! Hit me!"
Sadist: "Noooo!"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But that means WORK! Whereas banning means REVENUE! Violated the ban? 30 days in jail (which amounts to nothing because of your "get out of jail free if not a violent offender" card) and a fine of XXX pounds.
But you propose actually training people to help others with their problems? And what happens when those people STILL have problems (after al
Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:5, Funny)
How cool is it that in Britain, pornography related offenses have a fine of XXX (30) pounds?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:5, Insightful)
As with "hate crime" laws, things quickly move into "cure worse than the disease" territory.
Legislation is an unnatural ecosystem, and could use some sort of predator as a feedback loop.
Why is it a choice? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not a third option....Do nothing!
Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, this is a good point. In some sense, the issues are very much related anyway - the question would be how do you define an "unbalanced person", and the idea behind these laws is presumably that anyone who views "extreme" porn must be "unbalanced", who needs dealing with in some way.
Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:5, Insightful)
YOU don't get a say over what consenting adults do and wish to share with other consenting adults WHO CHOOSE to view or participate in it.
I don't care whether it is art, for fun, to explore the darker side of their eroticism, or simply because they get off on it.
Any law to restrict production or possession of amateur porn, art films, extreme porn, whatever you want to call it infringes upon my rights; and actually it infringes upon your rights as well. If you don't see how then think of it this way:
You have a person or group of people deciding what behaviors or images are "not normal" or "too extreme."
How, at what level, and by whom this is decided is likely to change over time - therefore, even though at present a censorship law like this may not affect anything you believe in or participate in, (or may even find personally objectionable), it very well could in the future....
Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:5, Insightful)
No body is making you click on those bondage/rape links.. but i'm sure you have to "see what filth other people are capable of doing" or some other justification.
Just some thoughts.
Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you have the Playboy Channel? I sure don't, but it was an option when I signed up for cable. I didn't want to see it, so I didn't GET it added. I'm not sure who's forcing you to browse hard-core XXX sites, but I'd take this issue up with them. If, in fact, you do NOT have someone forcing you to view this material, then why do you keep looking for it? I don't care for racism, so I don't troll racist message boards. I don't believe I'd care for dead-puppy-humping. Go figure, I never visit dead-puppy-humping sites.
Let me ask you this: What qualifications or basis do you have to make the "best" moral judgements for everyone else? I'm rather curious.I think the last two words of that quote sum it up wonderfully. You don't understand it, so it MUST be bad for everyone ELSE. I don't understand it either. Doesn't mean I have the right to make that moral call for everyone around me....{side note, if you'd read my post, you'd see that neither my fiance nor I have engaged in this particular play style.}
This one was rich... While I've not had any partners ask for the "rape" scenario, I've had quite a few girlfriends get quite creative as far as fantasies go. I'm familiar with the material. As I've also had around 10 years experience in the psychiatric field, I'm quite content in keeping the analogy. You believe it's the wrong analogy? Fine. Show you're less "ignorant" than I am on the source material. Give us a more relevant analogy.
Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:5, Funny)
Next.. (Score:5, Funny)
Some unbalanced person might be pushed over the edge, and start dropping anvils on people heads.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Next.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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...
Parliament News? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Parliament News? (Score:5, Informative)
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. [bbc.co.uk] 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.
Re:Parliament News? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I find this really amusing given the opposition from the Conservatives to signing that in the first place. "It will be a great thing for Britain, as a modern country it would be backwards and wrong of us not to sign up to this charter and the conservatives are stupid and wrong to say it would interfere with us making laws" Labour said
everything else (Score:4, Insightful)
At the end of the day... (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Can I see some peer-reviewed research papers showing such a link? (Seriously, I don't know either way - let's see what scientists say, not politicians.)
Re:At the end of the day... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the trouble, we have politicians making imporant decisions that can affect many peoples' lives and lifestyles without any solid research to back it up.
Same goes for important tech related legislation by completely unqualified people.
Labour MP Martin Salter (Score:5, Funny)
Any clue as to what the hell THIS means? (Score:2)
"It simply plugs a hole in the law because the Obscene Publications Act is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard as far as the internet is concerned. This new law is designed to meet the challenge of the internet."
What the hell is a chocolate fireguard and what does it have to do with the internet?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It means "useless". (Score:2)
It's just a figure of speech. Although I prefer "chocolate kettle".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Thereby being as much use as a chocolate fireguard, is much the same as being as much us
Row? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Row? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
# S: (n) quarrel, wrangle, row, words, run-in, dustup (an angry dispute) "they had a quarrel"; "they had words"
They use it constantly on the BBC website.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhhh, yeah (Score:5, Funny)
In other news... (Score:2, Insightful)
Each is going to be every bit as likely to have any effect on the world at large as this ban.
Crow T. Trollbot
CSI, Criminal Minds (Score:5, Interesting)
OK. I won't go through my views on what I think of violent pornography, or the idea that it will set mentally unbalanced people off if seen on the internet. I won't comment on the censorship aspect of this. I just have one honest question:
There have been various episodes of CSI (Vegas) that dealt with BDSM and such, especially those featuring Mistress Heather. There was a recent episode of Criminal Minds where the villain captured homeless people and put them in a torture maze to be sadistic.
Are those legal on TV? How about putting those episodes on the internet (say CBS did it), would that be legal under this law? Seems to me those two answers might be different.
It's OK to show a mentally unbalanced individual this on TV a show (which won't mess with their head), but if you show the exact same thing from the internet, they'll go NUTS.
Sure. If the answers to the hypothetical questions above are the same, where is the line and how long until television crosses it? Then what will the answers to my questions be.
TV is OK, but the Internet is evil. Even if they show the same exact content.
Re:CSI, Criminal Minds (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Sure. (Score:2)
How comforting that today's politicians don't even understand what freedom is.
Backlash (Score:5, Informative)
The guy should be arrested for libel (Score:2, Interesting)
One of the main problems that prudes have is that any fair study of this disgusting filth shows that people that view it are LESS likely to commit crimes, whether violent or not.
This is in dinstinct difference from peopel that view kiddie porn, who are in fact more likely to commit crimes.
Apparently it seems that smart people like getting hit, not hitting on children.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But my main point was in fact correct. People that view BDSM are less likely to commit crimes, not more.
A Normal Workday Triggers an Unbalanced Mind (Score:2)
Ahem. (Score:5, Interesting)
I TOLD YOU SO.
Politicians the world over love this do-nothing regulation of the things that "offend" their poor widdle voters and their sensibilities. "Violent porn? How dare they!" What's next, scat? Then what, facials, because they're degrading and might encourage men to treat women like objects? Yes, this is a slippery slope argument, but the reason cited was that these sorts of things trigger unbalanced minds. I could care less about violent porn, it's not my bag. I've been hearing for decades that porn causes rape: Apply the argument against violent porn to regular porn, and it won't be long before some bright MP suggests banning all internet porn because it might trigger someone to rape.
Which is a load of bollocks, because if everyone who looked at porn committed a rape, well... all of slashdot's readers would be making license plates right now and desperately clinging to the soap.
If someone is bent enough that seeing images is going to cause them to act on their fantasies, why is it only violent porn that will trigger them? What about violent media in general? Whose to say they won't catch an episode of the BBC's Spooks and act on the Plot of the Week? There are always going to be loons out there and we can't really effectively ban everything that might set them off without turning the world into a very damn boring place. They also make up a small percent of the population, so why are we going to let them ruin things for everyone else?
the fallacy of modifying your behavior (Score:4, Insightful)
crazy people will do crazy things. very little will set them off, and if it isn't bdsm images on the internet (really?) then it will be something else. so basically, you can't alter your behavior in such a way that prevents crazy people from doing crazy things. all you do is limit the activities of noncrazy people, and the crazy people still do crazy things. it's just something you have no control over that sets them off instead
likewise, you can't alter your behavior to prevent terrorist attacks. if the west acceded to every demand from violent jihadists, would violent jihadist become pastoral sheep farmers? no, they would go right on with their bloody agenda, they would just find some other lame excuse, because the root of their motivation is not the behavior of the west
it's a common fallacy, actually, that has parallels in childhood psychology: when parents divorce, children often blame themselves for their parents getting divorced. of course, it's crazy to blame the child, and no one does, except the child himself. but it is a common human psychological response to violence: when violence is committed against them, or their society, the first thing people do in their pain is blame themselves, or their society. then they think they can do something differently, and they won't be victimized anymore. no: you have to blame the perpetrators, not yourselves
the biggest believers of the blame the victim mindset is often the victims
a society or individual will always wonder why they are victims of violence when they did nothing wrong. it is trying to rationalize that which can't be rationalized
you can't change the behavior of crazy people, you can only identify them and limit their actions. that works far more than altering society itself to fit the needs of crazy people, when all you really do in such a situation is inconvenience noncrazy people
If the images lead to unbalanced minds becoming (Score:2)
Are they put under surveillance?
Following this (well meant yet broken) logic, it would be only a small step...
/ Visit the UK: a CCTV at every corner and on every bedpost
You think this only applies to the UK? (Score:2)
Ho ho ho isn't the world becoming an interesting place to live.
Martin Salter's comments... (Score:3, Interesting)
He insisted the law did not ban anything which was not already illegal under the Obscene Publications Act. "It simply plugs a hole in the law because the Obscene Publications Act is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard as far as the internet is concerned. This new law is designed to meet the challenge of the internet."
Well, I give him some points for using the term "chocolate fireguard", but otherwise, this doesn't make sense - after all, if the law criminalises an image extracted from a legal film, we have the situation that the image is illegal even though it was clearly legal to publish in the original film. (Plus, I thought the OPA requires the jury to believe that the image would "deprave and corrupt" those who viewed it, while the new law just bans categories of images based on their content.)
Another point - if it doesn't cover already illegal material, why does the bill need an exemption for "classified works"?
"These snuff movies are other stuff are seriously disturbing. Many police officers who have to view it as part of their job have to undergo psychological counselling."
Heh, OMG Please Won't Somebody Think Of The Police Officers!!!
Really though - snuff movies? Have they actually discovered some snuff movies, after all these years of it being an urban myth? Strange how they never seem to show evidence for these snuff movies...
Three cheers for correlation! (Score:2, Insightful)
General law shouldn't be based on extraordinary cases.
Has V for Vendetta been release in the UK? (Score:2)
Do they realize how they are making a movie come to life?
Great Idea (Score:4, Insightful)
- Ban all pictures of food, then no one will be triggered to over-eat.
- Ban all pictures of children under 18, who knows what sicko needed just that picture to set them off.
- Ban all pictures of senior citizens, their appearance might make them appear like easy targets and trigger a robbery.
- Ban all pictures of women, best not take any chances of triggering any sexual thoughts in a rapists head.
- Ban all pictures of men, these days, you never know what could happen, maybe a gay or even a female rapist may be triggered.
Imagine all the problems that could be solved by banning pictures. It's these darn pictures that cause this behavior. No rape or violence used to happen before cameras and the internet came around. If there was, it was certainly the fault of painters and those scantily clad stick figures on the cave wall.Oh really? (Score:5, Funny)
I guess that means the Bible, Torah, and Koran are next.
what (Score:5, Funny)
Did anyone else read the bill? (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe this is just one of those WTFs brough about because IANAL, but seriously - any data which is capable of conversion into an extreme image?
Who wants to be the first to convert the text of the bill into an ASCII goatse?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Thought Police (Score:5, Insightful)
Government censorship is evil, whatever the reasoning given for its implementation. Since this idiotic law would not apply outside of the "daddy knows best" government of the UK, the next step would be for the UK to implement filtering nationwide to stop these "unbalanced minds" from getting access to these images from other, less "enlightened" countries with more freedom[^H^H^H]access to filth...
Speaking as one of the disturbed minds in question (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, the thought of acting any of it out on an unwilling participant is physically repulsive to me. BDSM is all about instinctive sexual dominance relationships, and sadistic violent acts are completely unrelated.
On the rare occaisions vindictive people might immitate BDSM during their crimes, it is hardly because their repressed lust overcame them and they just couldn't hold in their urges to tie unwilling women up and rape them any longer.
Politicians who resort to shit like this should be dragged behind trains. It's no different than discriminatory legislation against any other misunderstood or demonized minority.
Guess what people? Everyone is one such minority in one way or another, and the more they deny that fact, the more issues they really have.
Light relief (ooer) (Score:5, Funny)
So he had a hot one instead.
Cripes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Man, the bullshit is really flowing now. If I may be serious for a moment, the reality is that the only unbalanced minds worth concerning ourselves about receive government paychecks.
Here's the thing. Why don't the British and United States governments just come out and admit it: they really like the way the Chinese do things, and would like to be just like them. Freedom of speech? Screw that. The Internet? Dangerous toy. Popularity Ratings? Phooey. We don't care what you think. The Rule of Law? An inconvenience.
I have some advice for the lawmakers in both countries: stop sprinkling this shit with sugar in a vain effort to make it more palatable: it's always been shit, it's still shit, and it will always be shit, and trying to convince us that your shit don't stink just insults our collective intelligence.
I gotta tell ya: in spite of all the efforts the Federal Government has made to rationalize this same kind of shit, even the really stupid, complacent "it'll never happen here" people I know are beginning to notice the stench. It's getting that bad.
Slippery-as-hell slope (Score:5, Insightful)
What happens when we find that some of these easily-triggered violent people are also determined to have outbursts of violence when they see fairly innocuous material, for example a children's cartoon that happens to show some spooky-looking villain for a moment? Who says that's not going to trigger a psychotic episode in some potentially violent unstable person? How long until your favorite action/adventure movies become illegal to buy without some kind of "license" or approval stamp?
Also, what business is it of the government to decide what we are legally permitted to peruse for entertainment/"private" purposes? As long as it's not media of actual illegal violent acts being enacted (as opposed to acting, well-simulated, or consensual violence), why is it any of their concern? This has rights-violation written all over it. Frankly, in the privacy of your own home, as long as it's not child porn or photos of someone literally being murdered or tortured, I can see NO sound objection to restricting what people can legally observe.
And I thought the U.S. had some whacky politicians (Score:3, Insightful)
Doing weird stuff to each other (Score:3, Insightful)
In all these countries people are pushing legislation that furthers agendas that have nothing or very little to do with the "war on terrorism."
Germany has been the most extreme case, outlawing TOR, etc.
I wonder what effect this will have on the long run...Perhaps it will push the very people they want to outlaw to a "new techie underground" (SciFi/Cyberpunk/Cypherpunk galore)?
Erotic photos from LEGAL films outlawed?! (Score:3, Insightful)
They pass a movie like Hostel II. They declare the movie is legal. Watching the movie is legal. Advertising the movie is legal. To be very specific, watching a girl being bound and hung upside down naked while someone bathes in her dripping blood is legal.
But saving a clip from the movie and putting it on the Internet would be illegal.
Politicians are brain damaged.
Re: (Score:2)
But they ARE working on the Muslim problem. Perhaps if the UK bans everything and adopts the Sharia, the Muslim problem will go away. Allah u ackba
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a question that I hope someone in the UK can answer.
There are speed cameras on the roads. OK. There are ones on main road to monitor traffic. Fine. There are ones in city centers to catch criminals. No problem. But what are those blue cameras with antennas on top you see on roads everywhere?
You can be going down a minor country road, and at a T-Junction there will be a camera. What are they for? They're not for traffic violation
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't need cameras to do that. A simpler and cheaper mechanism is to run a pressure sensitive cable/whatever across the road.
They may officially be to "just count cars" but I think there is more to it than that.
Sure, I'll educate you... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Two things: A. this is Slashdot, where such things are commonplace and expected, so deal with it, and B. as an American I've been on the receiving end of quite a number of such sweeping generalities from Europeans of all stripes, so I have little sympathy for you. What you're saying is that you resent a foreigner presumin
Re:Evidence? (Score:4, Insightful)
A better question is: Is there any actual evidence that any form of media triggers violent behavior?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)