Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Media Movies The Internet

UK Proposal To Restrict Internet Pornography Sparks Row 561

Posted by Zonk
from the i've-got-that-song-stuck-in-my-head-now dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Proposal To Restrict Internet Pornography Sparks Row

Comments Filter:
  • Prehaps instead.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tainek (912325) * on Thursday July 05, 2007 @05:04PM (#19758859)
    Prehaps it would be smarter to spend resources finding and providing care for unbalanced people, rather than banning anything (which means pretty much everything) that sets them off, No?

    slippery slope here, very slippery
    • by Qzukk (229616) on Thursday July 05, 2007 @05:10PM (#19758917) Journal

      smarter to spend resources finding and providing care for unbalanced people
      But, but, if we had gotten speech therapy for Cho Seung-Hui when he was a kid so he wouldn't spend the rest of his life being laughed at every time he opened his mouth, how could we ever assign blame for him shooting up a school to guns/games/doctors/teachers/etc?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05, 2007 @05:13PM (#19758951)
      I agree.

      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 how politicians raise unsupported theories of criminal etiology to the level of fact simply because they sound reasonable to them or support their pre-existing misconceptions. From what I've seen on this subject, it is the lack of a socially acceptable form of release that often leads to the acting out of such fantasies. But then, the law has never been about preventing crime. It is about control freaks who enjoy telling people what to do and their sadistic pleasure from enforcing draconian punishmen
      • by Ticklemonster (736987) on Thursday July 05, 2007 @11:06PM (#19762927) Journal
        Only in America.

        ...no wait... wtf?

    • by JordanL (886154) <jordan.ledouxNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday July 05, 2007 @05:14PM (#19758973) Homepage
      It's very easy to pick on the BDSM community... they aren't what you would call the most upstanding citizenry in most people's minds... but isn't that kinda the point?

      A real free society cares about the rights of the people they don't like too.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05, 2007 @05:38PM (#19759325)
        It's very easy to pick on the BDSM community

        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)

          by SamSim (630795)
          Hah! I get it! Denying people access to their BDSM pornography is just another form of chastity discipline, being applied to the WHOLE BDSM community at once. That's extreme, UK government! I didn't know you were into that stuff.
      • Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:4, Informative)

        by Stormx2 (1003260) on Thursday July 05, 2007 @05:51PM (#19759491)
        Interesting you should bring that up, as in 1994 a conservative MP [wikipedia.org] died from auto-erotic asphyxiation, combined with self-bondage and cross-dressing.
      • Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:5, Informative)

        by mdwh2 (535323) on Thursday July 05, 2007 @06:01PM (#19759613) Journal
        Talking of rights, it's interesting to note that the bill states "these clauses constitute an interference" with the European Convention on Human Rights.

        But it's interesting, shall we say, to see what justifications it gives for doing so ( http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/ cmbills/130/en/07130x-n.htm#index_link_206 [parliament.uk] ):

        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.
      • by jythie (914043) on Thursday July 05, 2007 @06:12PM (#19759759)
        or more importantly, picking on the bdsm community doesn't inconvenience anyone who wants to admit it.
      • by Paulrothrock (685079) on Thursday July 05, 2007 @06:22PM (#19759881) Homepage Journal
        If you ask any dominatrix she'll tell you that most of her clientele are "upstanding citizenry." Business always spikes during a political party's convention, and doubly so for conservative parties.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Dunbal (464142)
      Prehaps it would be smarter to spend resources finding and providing care for unbalanced people, rather than banning anything

      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
    • Yes, it's a _very_ slippery slope to have the Goverment start defining who is and who is not "unbalanced". You really, really don't want to go there.
    • by fm6 (162816) on Thursday July 05, 2007 @05:55PM (#19759539) Homepage Journal
      It would certainly be smarter, but it would also be very bad politics. Voters don't like "treatment". They want bad people restricted, or punished, or removed from society. Look at our own "three strikes" laws: they're no substitute for a decently-funded rehabilitation and probation system (which would certainly be more effective in actually preventing crime), but they cost a lot less and make the voters feel good.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Sperbels (1008585)
      I would like to remind you that not too long ago having sex for pleasure was considered "unbalanced".
    • by smitty_one_each (243267) * on Thursday July 05, 2007 @07:29PM (#19760739) Homepage Journal
      Indeed.
      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.
    • by dinther (738910)
      Every time government proposes a new law we seem to take it for gospel that something must happen one way or the other. Politicians play this game successfully over and over. They raise a non issue, get a discussion started by proposing some crazy "solution" and then people happily discus and offer alternate "solutions" and thus accepting the "fact" there is a problem that needs legislating.

      Why not a third option....Do nothing!
    • by Trogre (513942) on Thursday July 05, 2007 @09:14PM (#19762031) Homepage
      Well you see they used to provide places that cared for such people. They were call asylums. But we're not allowed such barbaric places these days. Instead it's much better to have them out in the community hanging around parks and schools. But that's okay since you drive your kids everywhere now anyway and never let them out of your sight.

  • Next.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by cayenne8 (626475) on Thursday July 05, 2007 @05:04PM (#19758863) Homepage Journal
    ....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.

    • You have to admit that it is tempting at times to drop an anvil on people. I think the limiting factors for me are how bloody heavy and expensive they are (unless you can find a dead one somewhere). Besides, my inner blacksmith doesn't like the idea of abusing a perfectly good tool.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Rik Sweeney (471717)
      ....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...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05, 2007 @05:06PM (#19758879)

    The goal is to prevent disturbed individuals from accessing content online that would trigger violent behavior.
    The BBC can no longer cover the actions of Parliament or the PM?
    • Re:Parliament News? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Valdrax (32670) on Thursday July 05, 2007 @05:37PM (#19759315)
      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. [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)

        by richie2000 (159732) <rickard.olsson@gmail.com> on Thursday July 05, 2007 @05:42PM (#19759371) Homepage Journal

        No wonder British SF is so obsessed with the idea of their country becoming a fascist state.
        At this point, it's not so much British SF being obsessed with the idea, but the government and Parliament...
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by CmdrGravy (645153)

        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.

        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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05, 2007 @05:07PM (#19758887)
    ok...so that means they also have to ban aggressive chase scenes in movies since that could trigger road rage. They have to ban smoking, drug use, alcohol use etc since that could trigger addicts to relapse. They have to ban religious scenes since that could trigger extremists to taking action against atheists...or vice versa. What a bunch of idiots. If you ban it...it'll just get distributed around all the stupid bans anyway. Some things just simply can't be governed.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05, 2007 @05:08PM (#19758899)
    "At the end of the day it is all too easy for this stuff to trigger an unbalanced mind."

    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.)
    • by cayenne8 (626475) on Thursday July 05, 2007 @05:12PM (#19758939) Homepage Journal
      "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.)"

      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.

  • by sehlat (180760) on Thursday July 05, 2007 @05:09PM (#19758903)

    At the end of the day it is all too easy for this stuff to trigger an unbalanced mind.
    Is the gentleman speaking from personal experience?
  • From the article:

    "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)

      by bcmm (768152)
      It's English for a useless object. A chocolate fireguard would melt.
    • Because a chocolate fireguard would MELT in a fire.

      It's just a figure of speech. Although I prefer "chocolate kettle".
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Ajehals (947354)
      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 us
  • Row? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Noodles (39504)
    What the hell is a row?
    • Re:Row? (Score:5, Funny)

      by SomeJoel (1061138) on Thursday July 05, 2007 @05:13PM (#19758959)
      It's a British word for "fight". They couldn't use the word fight because it has violent undertones which could send an unbalanced mind over the edge.
    • From Wordnet [princeton.edu]:
      # 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.
    • by SEMW (967629)
      A row is an altercation; it involves bickering, it can be a brawl, it is undoubtedly a dispute; it can be described as a fracas, a quarrel, a scrap, or a squabble; it is a wrangle.
  • Uhhh, yeah (Score:5, Funny)

    by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Thursday July 05, 2007 @05:10PM (#19758921)

    "At the end of the day it is all too easy for this stuff to trigger an unbalanced mind."
    Labour MP Martin Salter, for one, springs to mind.
  • ...the UK has announced bans on:

    • Spitting in the ocean
    • Shipping coal to Newcastle
    • Lying about your age
    • Thinking unapproved thoughts
    • Surfing Slashdot from work

    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)

    by MBCook (132727) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Thursday July 05, 2007 @05:12PM (#19758937) Homepage

    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.

    • by mdwh2 (535323) on Thursday July 05, 2007 @05:33PM (#19759249) Journal
      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.
  • You're free to make full use of your civil liberties... You're just not allowed to talk about it.

    How comforting that today's politicians don't even understand what freedom is.
  • Backlash (Score:5, Informative)

    by mdwh2 (535323) on Thursday July 05, 2007 @05:12PM (#19758947) Journal
    More information about this law is available on Backlash's homepage [backlash-uk.org.uk], a group opposing the law.
  • The honest truth is that images NOT ONCE ever "for this stuff to trigger an unbalanced mind."

    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.

  • Geez, hasn't anyone in the UK heard of "going postal"?
  • Ahem. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Khaed (544779) on Thursday July 05, 2007 @05:16PM (#19759007)
    I'm going to get moderated to all hell for this, but I don't care: After arguing in three or four threads in the last few weeks about how "it's not just the US" doing things like this, I'd just like to say a few words:

    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?
  • to avoid repercussions from crazy people:

    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
  • criminal, what of the potentially 'sick and unbalanced' consenting adults, that are actually acting out these (dirtydirty) fantasies?

    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

  • Reciprocal extradition treaties

    Ho ho ho isn't the world becoming an interesting place to live.
     
  • by mdwh2 (535323) on Thursday July 05, 2007 @05:22PM (#19759095) Journal
    "No-one is stopping people doing weird stuff to each other but they would be strongly advised not to put it on the internet." ...which is a silly thing to say, since the law says it applies to possession, not publication. Even if you kept it on your hard disk private, surely it would be illegal under this law?

    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...

  • It never ceases to amaze me how well politicians manage to sell a broad and generalized law on the basis of coincidence in a handful of specific cases. A murderer confesses to having viewed violent porn, thus we need a law to criminalize possession of violent porn for everyone? This kind of flawed logic is coming up more and more these days, especially in anything to do with politics or law.

    General law shouldn't be based on extraordinary cases.

  • Do they realize how they are making a movie come to life?
  • Great Idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ObiWanStevobi (1030352) on Thursday July 05, 2007 @05:28PM (#19759163) Journal
    I can't think of any better approach to a percieved problem than banning any depiction of that problem. Banning pictures of pot leafs on shirts in school sure cleared up all the drug problems, right? I heard everone quit smoking and drinking once advertisements for them were pulled. It's an excellent solution, I think...only this could really go much further:
    • 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)

    by DreamingReal (216288) <dreamingreal@yCO ... m minus language> on Thursday July 05, 2007 @05:31PM (#19759207) Homepage
    At the end of the day it is all too easy for this stuff to trigger an unbalanced mind.

    I guess that means the Bible, Torah, and Koran are next.

  • what (Score:5, Funny)

    by Desullen (1124361) on Thursday July 05, 2007 @05:32PM (#19759239)
    There goes 4chan
  • by Odiumjunkie (926074) on Thursday July 05, 2007 @05:33PM (#19759257) Journal

    (7) In this section "image" means-- (a) a moving or still image (produced by any means); or 25 (b) data (stored by any means) which is capable of conversion into an image within paragraph (a).


    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?
  • Thought Police (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cc_pirate (82470) on Thursday July 05, 2007 @05:34PM (#19759259)
    I knew it would only be a matter of time before the Brits, conditioned to a life of surveillance by their ever present CCTVs began fully implementing Big Brother.

    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...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05, 2007 @05:36PM (#19759295)
    I am quite delusional, and a bit insane, but despite my BDSM porn habbits, I've never had the slightest urge to go out and act any of it out on unwilling women. Not even fantasy. Some of the tamer stuff has creeped it's way in to the bedroom, but that is fairly normal anyway.

    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.
  • by MythMoth (73648) on Thursday July 05, 2007 @05:40PM (#19759345) Homepage
    I used to know a masochist who liked to have a cold shower every morning.

    So he had a hot one instead.
  • Cripes. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ScrewMaster (602015) on Thursday July 05, 2007 @06:00PM (#19759595)
    At the end of the day it is all too easy for this stuff to trigger an unbalanced mind.

    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.
  • by necro2607 (771790) on Thursday July 05, 2007 @06:25PM (#19759911)
    Come on, they`re seriously going to make that stuff illegal just because it might trigger some unstable minds? The violent crimes these people supposedly might commit due to being "triggered" are already illegal. Not to mention, people likely to commit violent crimes as a result of "triggers" are liable to be affected by a far wider range of stuff than just hardcore porn. What about blockbuster Hollywood movies that have excessively violent scenes all throughout (Saw, Hostel etc.)??

    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.
  • by QCompson (675963) on Thursday July 05, 2007 @06:35PM (#19760015)
    As if criminalizing "virtual" child pornography wasn't absurd enough, now there's this:

    The law would also apply to screenshots taken from a legal film, if the screenshot was made for erotic purposes.
    Somebody pinch me, because that's some freaking insane thoughtcrime BS. So it's ok if the content is in a film, but if someone makes a screenshot while having prurient thoughts, then the possession of that screenshot is illegal?!? Exactly what mind-reading technology will they be using to determine the possessor's intent?
  • by synthespian (563437) on Thursday July 05, 2007 @08:38PM (#19761679)
    Strange how the Internet is being used to do weird stuff to one another: the systematic and widespread use of it as a scapegoat for the restriction of civil liberties (in the UK, USA, Germany, Brazil, Thailand, China, etc.).

    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)?
  • by hoggoth (414195) on Thursday July 05, 2007 @09:10PM (#19761979) Journal
    WTF? This doesn't make any sense at all.

    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.

Wasn't there something about a PASCAL programmer knowing the value of everything and the Wirth of nothing?

Working...