Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

UK Proposal To Restrict Internet Pornography Sparks Row

Posted by Zonk on Thu Jul 05, 2007 05:03 PM
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."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Possession of Violent Pornography Outlawed in UK 779 comments
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC is reporting that possession of violent pornography is now punishable by three years in prison. This decision was handed down in response to a campaign waged by a grieving mother who lost her daughter to someone obsessed with violent pornography." From the article: "Shaun Gabb, director of the anti-censorship organization the Libertarian Alliance, said: 'If you are criminalizing possession then you are giving police inquisitorial powers to come into your house and see what you've got, now we didn't have this in the past.'"
[+] UK Government Can Demand You Hand Over Encryption Keys 426 comments
iminplaya writes "The UK government can now demand that citizens hand over their data encryption keys - or face jailtime for obstructing justice. The law only applies to data on UK shores, and doesn't cover information transmitted via UK servers across the internet. 'The law also allows authorities to compel individuals targeted in such investigation to keep silent about their role in decrypting data ... The Home Office has steadfastly proclaimed that the law is aimed at catching terrorists, pedophiles, and hardened criminals--all parties which the UK government contends are rather adept at using encryption to cover up their activities.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • 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 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.

    • by JordanL (886154) <jordan.ledoux@NoSpAm.gmail.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.
  • 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.

  • 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.
  • 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?
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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?
  • 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)

    (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 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.
    • 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.