See also Religious Watch Forum

emark    [27154.   Posted 23-Aug-2010 Mon 15:45] View Near Messages
Another "extreme porn" case that seems to involve only humans, with no other charges: http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8346808.Dorset_Dentist_spared_prison_over_pain_porn/

This may also be the first case where the defendant admits having an interest in BDSM (as opposed to looking at "shock" images for curiosity, etc).

emark    [27148.   Posted 20-Aug-2010 Fri 18:47] View Near Messages
Nice to see the Guardian turning into the Daily Mail.

emark    [27115.   Posted 10-Aug-2010 Tue 04:29] View Near Messages
Didn`t a similar thing happen with the OPA case last year - the case collapsed because of expert witnesses who would argue that the image wouldn`t be likely to deprave and corrupt? I don`t know if that`s something that is seen to require an expert witness.

emark    [27112.   Posted 9-Aug-2010 Mon 15:03] View Near Messages
According to http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/06/tiger_freed/ , it says:

"He was expected to call several expert witnesses who would have challenged the characterisation of the clip as "pornographic", arguing instead that the content was intended to be a form of extremely bad taste joke and not sexual in nature."

emark    [27108.   Posted 9-Aug-2010 Mon 04:35] View Near Messages
"he hung himself once he admitted that he could have deleted the video from his phone, but didn`t. (Which is why he was asked that question, of course) Then the advice would almost certainly have been that he`d pissed on his one possible defence"

I agree that he was given crap advice, though one can still reasonably plead not guilty, questioning whether such an image counts as illegal - on that note, I`m not sure what the planned defence for Holland case was, was it that he hadn`t seen the image, or that it was hoped not to count as "extreme porn"? But yes, I agree with your comments.

emark    [27103.   Posted 7-Aug-2010 Sat 06:04] View Near Messages
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/24-CrimJustLc/b24s3-introd.pdf

Note that the law amends the previous law on obscenity in Scotland - it starts:

"In section 51 of the 1982 Act (obscene material)—"

So I would hope that "obscene" is as defined in that Act. Whilst this law is far more broad and worrying than England (due to covering any images of sex appearing to be "non-consensual" even if they are consensual), they did at least tie it to their legal concept of obscenity. Although, I`ve no idea how the Scotland obscenity law compares to the OPA?

emark    [27101.   Posted 6-Aug-2010 Fri 17:39] View Near Messages
Good news on the "extreme porn" case - though at the same time, it looks like we also have the first conviction only involving humans, with no other charges:

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/Porn-found-on-phone-.6433888.jp

Here he plead guilty, and was presumably given crap advice (much like the tiger porn guy, before Backlash were able to help). I guess the rule here seems to be that if you challenge them with a competent defence, the CPS will back down, but they`ll still gladly arrest and charge people for any old image they don`t like, in the hopes of scaring you into pleading guilty.

emark    [27095.   Posted 5-Aug-2010 Thu 04:04] View Near Messages
Yes indeed, a label is far preferable to banning, and on commercial advertising only it`s comparable to other such disclaimers. However, I do think there`s a problem in that large numbers of images are manipulated these days - whilst there`s conceivably a difference between say, adjusting the brightness, and making someone look thinner, there`s a lot of grey areas in between, and it`s unclear how the law could draw a clear line. Plus, I think the members of the Girl guides should all make their own choice, rather than being used as support for political lobbying.

emark    [27093.   Posted 4-Aug-2010 Wed 16:28] View Near Messages
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10856055 - now the "Girl guides" - or rather, Liz Burnley - is demanding that airbrushed celebrity photos be compulsory labelled.

Aside from the idea itself, again we have an entire organisation being assumed to agree, based on the views of someone at the top. If we`re going to worry about pressures on children, what about the idea of forcing children into political lobbying, trying to coerce them for your campaign, and claiming they give support to the law? Perhaps we should let children make up their own minds.

It is also misleading to simplify complex and serious issues like eating disorders as simply being due to looking at images. There can be many causes (e.g., depression).

One good thing is that it turns out that Lynne Featherstone (the MP who started talking about this issue) has said she had "no desire to impose regulation or restriction on advertisers or others", and hoped they would make changes to their practices on a voluntary basis.

(Part of me wishes they did bring this law in - since just about every image I believe is manipulated one way or another these days, I`d love to see every single advert end up saying "This image has been manipulated", making the law competely useless, and the whole campaign a laughing stock as it becomes the new "This product may contain nuts"...)

And I laughed at this: "Some 42% of 11 to 16-year-olds admitted watching what they ate." - how terrible, obviously it`s much better that 58% of them don`t give a crap about what food they`re eating...

emark    [27092.   Posted 4-Aug-2010 Wed 14:35] View Near Messages
@pbr: Actually, it might not be quite as bad as that. The policy is titled "indecent images of children", and it specifically states (correctly) of the DDA "It is important to note that this legislation does not mirror the indecent photograph legislation". It also says for 11.2 "Indecent image offences stem from two pieces of legislation", given the two laws, but the DDA comes after that.

So it`s a bit ambiguous, but this may mean they`re just referencing the DDA, but don`t intend the policy to cover it. Or maybe I`m being too optimistic :)

emark    [27089.   Posted 4-Aug-2010 Wed 04:08] View Near Messages
I agree with Harvey about the cartoon porn law. IIRC for the "extreme porn" law, the first arrests came soon after (a matter of weeks) the law cae into force, but it was more like six months before they started being reported, due to the time it takes to come to court.

And yes, I share the worry that keeping track of this information is going to be even harder than the "extreme porn" law (where details are few), with the press just referring to "child porn".

emark    [27083.   Posted 3-Aug-2010 Tue 15:31] View Near Messages
I`m confused also - since when did Ofcom regulate bias in the media? And if so, what about the large amounts of one-sided reporting there is in all manner of TV and newspaper articles...

emark    [27075.   Posted 1-Aug-2010 Sun 08:13] View Near Messages
At first I assumed that "Prohibited Images of Children" was about the child porn laws. Oh wait, it`s actually "pretend `children`, where the fictional non-existent character might actually be over the age of consent". (What do they label child porn as?)

Also curious that this "guidance" doesn`t even bother defining what the law means by "child".

emark    [27070.   Posted 29-Jul-2010 Thu 16:35] View Near Messages
It seems a long shot that they`d include either the cartoon or "extreme porn" law - but it`s still worth making that shot. It`s unclear how much consideration they will give to this site, but at least it`s one way for people to have a say (the problem is that when repealing laws based on civil liberties, issues of censorship and sexual freedom are often ignored).

And whilst the votes can`t be taken as representative of public opinion in general, it is interesting to look at them in comparison to other ideas on the site: at 4.8 for the cartoon law, and 4.7 for the "extreme porn" law, they seem to be in the top rated ideas.

emark    [27061.   Posted 28-Jul-2010 Wed 14:34] View Near Messages
Having a label on commercial advertising to say that an image isn`t real isn`t inherently unreasonable (and seems similar to other fair advertising things, like computer game adverts that have to say if the footage isn`t from the game); calling them "health warnings" on the other hand does indeed convey the idea that images are harmful. But it`s not clear to me the wording would actually be warning people about health, or if that`s a term made up by the media?

I think the idea is pointless is nothing else - it won`t censor anyone, but AIUI almost all images are retouched in some way, so it`ll be the new "This may contain nuts"...

emark    [27036.   Posted 19-Jul-2010 Mon 03:09] View Near Messages
Re: the Daily Mail and Moat - whilst I appreciate it that most of their criticism is against the comments being posted, in articles like http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1295141/Siobhan-ODowd-set-Raoul-Moat-Facebook-tribute-site.html they are also arguing that Facebook should take the page down. (And a large newspaper trying to harrass an individual just seems low, whether or not we agree with her - not to mention the typical Daily Mail-isms like making a point of her being a "single mother".)

Good to see that a columnist is talking some sense of the issue.

"There has been some bemoaning of the fact that the most rabidly offensive opinions can now be instantly beamed into cyberspace by anyone, wheras in the past they would have only been heard in pubs and not paraded in the print/broadcast media which had to exercise degrees of censorship."

I don`t believe the tabloids have ever exercised degrees of censorship over some of the offensive stuff they print :) That stuff reaches far more people than a single person commenting on a Facebook page.

emark    [27035.   Posted 19-Jul-2010 Mon 02:46] View Near Messages
"the state should not place people under arrest for a mild slap to a child"

I never said they should. I would disagree with such a law. I was just responding to axis45`s point about people who seem unable to argue a clear moral line, and he was the one who gave the example of beating children, not me. I was also talking from an ethical point of view, not a legal one.

"stereotyping "Mail" readers"

I never said anything about the readers...

"Even New Labour failed to give the banners their way on this one."

Yes they care about fictional violence against fictional beings.

I also never used the word "abuse" in the context of the Daily Mail. Those were meant as entirely separate points. The MoJ article was about guidelines of the state using such methods; I was also pointing out a double standard rather than having a go at them solely for that issue. Nothing to do with the issue about what parents do to their own children. I think you have misunderstood me :)

emark    [27032.   Posted 18-Jul-2010 Sun 15:16] View Near Messages
@axis45 :

I`ve also noticed this online. On general English-speaking forums, that presumably mostly have US visitors, there`s a largely liberal viewpoint, and also generally what I feel is a clearer moral line. When I`ve been on UK-focused forums, in general (except here), there`s an awful lot more Daily Mail-style thinking, wanting to ban anything they disagree with, whilst supporting "their" right to do things like beat kids. Whilst there are sadly plenty of conservative religious nutters in the US, I think in general they have a greater sense of supporting freedom.

This has also led to oddities, e.g., it seems I`ve seen more support for the "extreme porn" law on UK _BDSM_ sites, whilst general international forums have hardly anyone in support at all.

I don`t know how England compares to other countries though.

"Contrast the french reaction."

Perhaps, but then there are other issues, like the recent Burka ban (or of anything covering people`s faces in public).

On the subject of beating children, see this story about the MoJ: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jul/18/guide-punishing-jailed-youths

Yes, the same Ministry that made it so people now get locked up for drawing a picture of a fictional 17 year old being "abused" says it`s okay for the Government to physically abuse actual children.

emark    [27015.   Posted 14-Jul-2010 Wed 15:17] View Near Messages
So now we have David Cameron calling for Facebook to shut down a group because it supports Raoul Moat (Facebook`ve so far told them no) - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/7891206/Facebook-defies-David-Cameron-and-keeps-Moat-tribute-page.html . And of course we also get the tabloid anti-Facebook hysteria to follow...

emark    [26975.   Posted 3-Jul-2010 Sat 06:24] View Near Messages
Have been listening to some of the BBC Glastonbury recordings on IPlayer. Last year, their swear word lyric "solution" was to apply some weird kind of filter, presumably in an attempt to remove the swear word without you noticing, but in practice it resulted in some horrid distortion, that left you thinking it was a flaw in the performance or production, and only after a while did I realise it was intentionally added by the BBC due to swear words.

This year they`ve gone for the classic of turning the sound down altogether. It`s as if John Beyer himself is controlling your volume knob for you, so you don`t hear anything he doesn`t want you to hear.

Bring back the bleep I say - at least it`s honest. Everyone knows it`s being bleeped because someone else might be offended.

(The BBC FAQ claims they`re not allowed to show such material - in some cases they end up not showing performances at all if there are too many swear words - which is clearly false as there are plenty of post-watershed programmes on IPlayer that doesn`t have this annoying sound cutting. They even have the technology to have a parental lock, but for some reason they only use this on some of their programmes.)

emark    [26973.   Posted 2-Jul-2010 Fri 19:17] View Near Messages
Also see http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-most-of-the-video-recordings-act .

emark    [26968.   Posted 1-Jul-2010 Thu 13:39] View Near Messages
See http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/restoring-civil-liberties/repeal-section-63-of-the-cjia-2008-extreme-porn and http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/section-63-of-the-criminal-justice-and-immigration-act-2008 .

You can vote, and leave comments.

ETA: Also see http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-laws-on-drawn-pornography for the cartoon porn law.

emark    [26904.   Posted 13-Jun-2010 Sun 11:04] View Near Messages
Linda Lovelace was even cited as a supposed example of people being abused in porn, in the Government`s Rapid "Evidence" Assessment for "extreme pornography"! Needless to say, it presented the allegations as fact. (Nevermind that the film wouldn`t come under their definitions of "extreme" anyway; and it was notable that that was the only example of abuse in the production of porn that they could actually come up with...)

emark    [26889.   Posted 7-Jun-2010 Mon 17:01] View Near Messages
Talking of Spartacus Blood And Sand, I was just noticing how many rape scenes there are in it. Obviously anyone viewing them is going to be compelled to start raping people left right and centre (if they haven`t already starting chopping people`s heads off from watching all the violence, of course).

(And anyone in Scotland had better not make any screenshots, if Scotland`s version of the "extreme" porn law passes. But it`s not illegal if it`s on TV.)

emark    [26877.   Posted 3-Jun-2010 Thu 18:39] View Near Messages
David Cameron opposes `knee-jerk reaction` on gun laws: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10225885.stm

My views on gun control are mixed - but it`s nice to see the idea that whatever laws we have, it shouldn`t be a knee jerk reaction. "You can`t legislate to stop a switch flicking in someone`s head and this sort of dreadful action taking place." - I can`t help feeling that point applies to a certain other knee jerk law we`ve had...

Re Livestock Market: So much for the law "protecting women" - I`m sure the woman will be protected when she`s forcibly locked up against her will.

emark    [26863.   Posted 29-May-2010 Sat 05:54] View Near Messages
Update from Backlash on an "extreme porn" case: http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/wp/?p=667 . The guy who previously faced a charge for the joke "tiger porn" image is also facing a new charge involving humans. He`s changed his plea from Guilty to Not Guilty.

emark    [26838.   Posted 17-May-2010 Mon 13:44] View Near Messages
Well the same argument applies independent of sexuality - should lapdancing clubs be treated any different to any old pub or nightclub, where plenty of men and women (be they straight, bi, gay) meet up for casual sex? It`s a fair point, though I don`t know if it would convince anyone against lapdancing clubs. (I suspect that the response would either be that being commercial makes it something that can be regulated; whilst others would say that both are bad.)

The first comment is more bizarre, in that usually people talk of the "horrors" of them being near to schools or churches rather than nightclubs, and it`s rather odd for someone to suggest that adults going to pubs or nightclubs care about the presence of a lapdancing club, whatever their sexuality. But the second comment seems to be the same old "Please won`t somebody think of the families", and it has just as little merit whether it`s a gay area or not.

emark    [26820.   Posted 11-May-2010 Tue 17:54] View Near Messages
Police handcuff man and remove "offensive" David Cameron poster: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/11/david-cameron-poster-police

(Personally I find a lot of the Conservative ad posters offensive...)

Although before we blame Labour, I believe that Section 5 of the Public Order Act refers to the 1986 Act, hence passed by the Tories. We`ll have to see if their attitude to free speech has really changed...

emark    [26811.   Posted 9-May-2010 Sun 14:23] View Near Messages
"demanding that we ban discrimination on the grounds of sub culture (no, seriously!)"

Note that the Sophie Lancaster Foundation issue was about hate crime law (i.e., when someone has been murdered), not discrimination.

Which is still controversial yes - I see arguments for and against and am sort of a fence sitter - but just to clarify that it`s not something ludicrous like discrimination.

Was a bit weird to see Sophie Lancaster`s mum on stage during Whitby Goth Weekend though...

ETA: Well, I`m talking about the Sophie Lancaster Foundation thing. I have no idea what Bizarre Magazine said on the matter, which may well have been different :)

emark    [26805.   Posted 8-May-2010 Sat 06:14] View Near Messages
"Well, to be fair being in power isn`t just about having the ability to pass laws."

True, but I mean criticism I`ve seen where people are claiming that even once a Government is formed, they claim that nothing would get done because the other parties would vote against it.

It`s true that there are other issues, such as deciding who forms the Government in the first place (although I think there are ways round that, and other countries don`t seem to have a problem - it seems more that people expect the instant news the morning after the election. Personally I think it makes a refreshing change for politicians to discuss things rather than rushing things through without challenge...:)

emark    [26802.   Posted 7-May-2010 Fri 14:51] View Near Messages
Indeed, and it`s tiring that the media spin against a hung Parliament is still going on.

I`d like to know what these laws are that are (a) necessary and (b) would fail to pass in a hung Parliament. It seems to suppose that the other parties would just block things for the hell of it - yet even in a majority Government, the opposition often votes with the Government (or just abstains).

I think it would be interesting to take the votes of various bills, and scale them according to the new numbers. Yes, it`s very approximate, but it gives an idea. Even with something as controversial as the Digital Economy Bill, Labour could still get it passed in this hung Parliament, despite them being the second party!

(The DEB vote was 189 yes, 47 no; scaling each vote by party, according to the new figures, it goes to 146 yes, 42 no - so still an overwhelming majority, for a law that was unnecessary, controversial, and opposed by tens of thousands.)

Everytime people moan about a hung Parliament, I ask them for an example of a law which wouldn`t pass, but which they think should pass - I`ve yet to hear one.

emark    [26797.   Posted 7-May-2010 Fri 02:10] View Near Messages
I`m pleased with a hung Parliament - less chance a Government with majority control (but minority vote) can pass more draconian laws on us.

There`s still enough Conservative and Lib Dem MPs to outvote Labour, too.

The Lib Dem result depresses me - but with a hung Parliament, there`s still some chance of a better voting system.

emark    [26787.   Posted 4-May-2010 Tue 15:26] View Near Messages
Well indeed - I figured I`d at least update the Wiki given that it`s there, but I`ll be voting Lib Dem (and would much rather a hung Parliament than a Tory win).

I noticed that problem on the Wiki page too - theoretically it`s meant to be for "restrictive laws and regulations believed to hamper individual freedoms, society, and businesses", but I see people jumping in with everything from the HRA to civil partnerships (I believe the Tories want to abolish the HRA anyway, but I`m not sure they`ve linked it with this Bill).

emark    [26782.   Posted 3-May-2010 Mon 07:44] View Near Messages
Just to clarify, note that the mention of the DPA in the Great Repeal Bill is on a Wiki open to members of the public, and not actually part of the Bill. But still, it`s good to see that they`re taking input from the public like this, so there`s a chance that they will consider it. I agree that a future Government could simply quietly amend the law and I don`t think it would cause any political problem with it (the main problem is probably Longhurst - if she spots it, all she has to do is start complaining, and then all of the press are reporting it on her side; at least Salter is stepping down as MP though). OTOH, the problem is that they have no reason to amend it - they can win points by scrapping a load of other laws, without having to include this one.

I see the Dangerous Drawings Act is listed too.

ETA: I`ve made some edits to both sections, trying to give more information, and explaining the problems with the laws.

emark    [26754.   Posted 27-Apr-2010 Tue 02:18] View Near Messages
Re: religious hatred law, "Police discovered he had also visited a nearby Tesco and unplugged the Christmas music because he found it offensive."

Oh, so it`s okay for him to be convicted if people are offended by his leaflets, but if he was offended, that`s wrong too. Obviously he should have phoned the police instead and have Tesco charged.

If this sort of thing is now illegal though (so much for repealing the Blasphemy law), is it still legal for preachers in the street to be claiming that gay people and atheists will be going to hell?

ETA: Was he actually prosecuted under the Religious Hatred law? The Telegraph article doesn`t say this AFAICS, and only says "religiously aggravated harassment". Part of the problem seems to be that, despite dropping the blasphemy law, there are still numerous lesser known laws that still give special protections to religion. The BBC ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8640048.stm ) say he was found guilty "of causing religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress".

emark    [26730.   Posted 20-Apr-2010 Tue 03:53] View Near Messages
"it shows the double standards of the red top tabloids when they scream about kids being exposed to nudity and sex "filth" whilst plastering pics of naked/scantily clad girls who are "hot for it" everywhere which kids can have easy access too"

Remember this from The Daily Star?: http://chilled.cream.org/graphics/charlotte.jpg

@MichaelG: I find it amusing that the Daily Mail is suddenly crusading against gay hate crime. Personally I`m far more worried about the homophobia that spews from some of their articles, than some film from the 70s.

emark    [26725.   Posted 19-Apr-2010 Mon 02:22] View Near Messages
Wait, wait, wait - is it a Lib Dem policy to scrap the "extreme porn" law?

I know they were most critical at the time, but I wasn`t aware they`d made it a policy to scrap it.

Depressing to see The Star`s spin on it (though given the article, I can`t help thinking it`s the Lib Dems they hate, not the idea of kinky porn itself...) (I`m also pleased in a way how they worded it - they could have phrased that far more biasedly, e.g., talking about "violent porn" and "bestiality" - instead it gives the impression that it`s about images between consenting adults, and acknowledges they are still against harm to animals, so even though The Star evidently don`t like it, the phrasing isn`t going to deceive people.)

ETA: Can`t find anything in their Manifesto. Not that I`d put it past The Star to just make things up, but I`m curious where they`re getting this info from. Possibly they just stumbled across the criticism that they gave when the law was being "debated"?

emark    [26609.   Posted 15-Mar-2010 Mon 04:03] View Near Messages
Indeed - in fact one of the acts that people in the Spanner case were charged with was genital piercing. Whilst such piercings are legal for the purpose of decoration etc, it was ruled illegal simply because the motive was for sexual pleasure.

It is rather similar to the DPA, where legal acts become illegal just because someone has sexual thoughts over it.

emark    [26606.   Posted 14-Mar-2010 Sun 12:27] View Near Messages
"Do these idiots never stop to think about anything? If this arcane law, if indeed it actually exists in the first place (after all, it wouldn`t be the first time MediaSnitch have lied about something in an attempt to get their own way), was anything anyone was remotely bothered about enforcing, no doubt police cells would currently be full of self-harming Goth kids and BDSM enthusiasts."

"maybe Mediawatch UK should call for the police to investigate boxing where people inflict bodily harm on each other"

Actually, they`re sadly right (for once). In the UK, consent is only a valid defence for actual bodily harm if it`s deemed by the courts to be for good reason. And a BDSM case was ruled illegal in the 1990s - the infamous Spanner case (R v. Brown). The police cells aren`t full of BDSMers because thankfully it hasn`t been persued, but nonetheless, the Spanner verdict still stands, and hasn`t been overturned.

The extreme porn law also used this ruling as one of the "justifications" for if it covered images of S&M (also note the defence they added for consensual acts that you participated in - it only applies if the court decides that the consent is valid, so this defence isn`t much use for images of actual S&M).

Self-harm wouldn`t count, as (presumably) it doesn`t count if you`re just doing it yourself (and it`s not just goths! :p )

It seems to unfairly only be BDSM that`s affected by this law - things like sports and body modifications are considered legal (there was an interesting later case, R v. Wilson, where a man branded his wife - it was ruled legal because it was deemed to be like a tattoo; yet the same act would be illegal if it was deemed to be S&M). And of course, things like the stunts they do on TV programmes are evidently legal too.

Mediawatch are idiots as usual, but ironically I think it`s good to bring publicity to this issue, to raise awareness of how stupid the law is.

emark    [26588.   Posted 11-Mar-2010 Thu 14:37] View Near Messages
Re: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256793/I-posed-girl-14-Facebook-What-followed-sicken-you.html

There`s this interesting report by the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/rorycellanjones/2010/03/facebook_v_daily_mail.html

In short, the Daily Mail lied, it wasn`t even Facebook that this occurred on. They`ve now put a minor "clarification" at the bottom of the article. I really wish Facebook would sue them for libel.

(And what does pedophilia have to do with anything? She was 17. How would a red button help when it`s between adults? What does "grooming" have to do with anything? Although I suppose given that even naughty drawings of 17 year old stick figures are now illegal, it`s easy to forget that the age of consent is actually 16...)

emark    [26559.   Posted 7-Mar-2010 Sun 06:24] View Near Messages
"Well if that`s the case why doesn`t she just go right ahead and be one if she thinks men are that bad. Perhaps some men these days might think (or even say) it`s better to be gay than be subject to the daily whims of a hideous frigid, prudish controlling harridan, or failing that just remain single."

Yes, indeed - I mean, I never had a girlfriend when I was a teenager. People don`t have a right to be given a relationship (at all, let alone with Mr Perfect), not to mention that if there are problems with their sex life, they should try communicating with their partner about what they like. I don`t think there`s a problem in saying "these boys watch porn and are crap at relationships" - but the point is, it`s the boys to blame. Either communicate, find someone else, or be single - it`s not up to the Government to pass censorship laws just so a teenager can have a sexual relationship with Mr or Mrs Right.

emark    [26517.   Posted 27-Feb-2010 Sat 07:33] View Near Messages
A refreshingly different opinion on this latest "sexualisation" hype: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/26/children-behaviour-sexual-images

emark    [26498.   Posted 22-Feb-2010 Mon 05:27] View Near Messages
I`ve got to laugh - for years, "dangerous" was a parody term to mock the ridiculous and hysterical labels being used to label these images, now here we have it - a prosecutor using the label "extreme and dangerous", and leading to the press using terms like "dangerous pornography". Reality has outdone the parody.

(Where is she getting it from anyway? There is no category or mention of "dangerous" in the term. Heaven forbid a lawyer know the law - or is this a misquote?)

emark    [26491.   Posted 18-Feb-2010 Thu 15:29] View Near Messages
Indeed it`s very confusing (and shows how blind we are relying on vague reports from local news). My reading is that the "extreme piercing" and "extreme bondage" were not things that he was charged for, but the fact that they are mentioned shows how the police/courts/media are happy to paint things like BDSM in a negative light, even if the images are entirely legal (otherwise, why are those images any more relevant than any porn images, or indeed images of any other kind?).

But the reference to "likely to cause injury to body parts" in that same sentence is also odd, since that`s one of the clauses in this law - was he charged under that clause, or not?

£1000. What a disgusting waste. Someone should send the bill to Salter/Longhurst.

emark    [26485.   Posted 18-Feb-2010 Thu 03:38] View Near Messages
"incite hatred/murder"

But those are two very different concepts. I have no trouble with laws against inciting violence, which has long been illegal AFAIK. But I`m a lot more wary over the various newer laws on inciting "hatred" (most notably the recent religious hatred law). It`s not even clear to me what "hatred" is meant to cover.

The article doesn`t give much details on things that I can see would count as inciting violence (e.g., comparable to your "kill the infidels" and "behead those that insult islam" examples). Rather it simply talks about being "offensive" and "highly disturbing". (I`m sure I would find it very offensive, but it`s not clear to me that this should be illegal, and being offensive isn`t the same as inciting violence.)

emark    [26475.   Posted 15-Feb-2010 Mon 16:19] View Near Messages
Sadly I think the Times have got it wrong[*] - I don`t think this is in the DSM proposal (I can`t find it on http://www.dsm5.org ), rather it`s a proposal by someone else, Carol Queen ( http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/24664654 , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absexual ). A good idea though :)

[*] The Times also falsely define hypersexuality as merely "the desire for multiple partners". It`s sad to see this level of misreporting, especially on an issue that many people won`t know much about.

emark    [26460.   Posted 7-Feb-2010 Sun 04:46] View Near Messages
Her point about Hollywood is flawed, as she compares female actors to male directors. In fact, the highest paid male actor for 2009 was Daniel Radcliffe, only 20 years old! ( http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/news/a201788/emma-watson-named-top-earning-actress.html ). There might be a valid point that the top director slots are all male, but that`s nothing to do with age.

Interesting to see this from the Daily Mail, given that they are usually anti-anything to do with Islam. But yes, I wish someone would have oppressed me with a £20 million salary when I was 19...

emark    [26456.   Posted 6-Feb-2010 Sat 03:40] View Near Messages
Re: BDSM - just to nitpick, we should be careful with the terminology here - many people into BDSM _do_ identify as sadists (after all, that`s what the S is there for...), and indeed do enjoy hurting people, but of course the point being that it should be consensual. Of course I presume your original reference refers to the allegations of Mood Pictures involving non-consensual abuse, which if true rightly shouldn`t be condoned, but we should be careful of the labels used :)

Re: Churches - when buying a house, I came across the issue of Chancel repair liability ( http://www.chancelrepair.org/ ) which for me resulted in a £100 cost for insurance. I`d sooner complain about the local church, at least there`s no risk of a sex shop sending you a bill.

emark    [26435.   Posted 26-Jan-2010 Tue 04:26] View Near Messages
Martin Salter`s celebrity friends - http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2063485_martin_salters_tales_of_famous_friends - apparently Liz Longhurst is a famous celebrity now.

"I was really pleased a couple of years ago when Trisha invited Reading mum Liz Longhurst on to her show to promote the campaign we were running against violent internet pornography."

It would be funny if it wasn`t all so serious.

emark    [26434.   Posted 26-Jan-2010 Tue 03:25] View Near Messages
Dictionary found to have rude words, gets banned from US schools in California: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jan/25/oral-sex-dictionary-ban-us-schools

emark    [26412.   Posted 16-Jan-2010 Sat 15:58] View Near Messages
Italy to require Government permission for posting videos to the Internet: http://www.thestandard.com/news/2010/01/15/proposed-web-video-restrictions-cause-outrage-italy

emark    [26396.   Posted 12-Jan-2010 Tue 04:06] View Near Messages
If a child has Internet access, it`s because their parents gave it to them. If the Internet is deemed to be an adult place, then the obvious place to put age restrictions is on the access itself - e.g., buying phones, signing up to an ISP, Internet cafes. But even now, I imagine that the vast majority of children have Internet access because their parents gave them access, and not because they walked into a shop and somehow signed up to an Internet contract.

But no - for some reason we have this idea of letting 8 year olds have unrestricted access to the Internet without any supervision or filtering on their end (I wasn`t even allowed a TV in my room until a certain age), yet it`s deemed okay to put filtering in for the rest of us, or require everyone else to prove their age too.

emark    [26389.   Posted 10-Jan-2010 Sun 07:31] View Near Messages
Yeah, I always thought the cause of all these genocides and wars was dictators playing Civilization! (At least they`re consistent in their games-cause-violence agenda.)

Personally there`s nothing I like more in a game of Civilization 3 to invade a random country for their oil. I could make President.

emark    [26383.   Posted 6-Jan-2010 Wed 15:19] View Near Messages
Well, thankfully the case was thrown out. But yes, it does show that the police will ignore any restrictions written in the law and apply it as broadly as possible (why am I not surprised...)

emark    [26378.   Posted 2-Jan-2010 Sat 14:47] View Near Messages
And I worry about the now passed under-18 cartoon porn law (anyone know when it comes into force?), and how broadly this will be interpreted. We`ve had the same old Government promises about how it won`t be interpreted as people fear, but it`s clear that means nothing. And this is a law specifically targeted at non-realistic material. So all kinds of non-realistic joke images that feature someone who might appear to be 17 or younger will be fair game for the police.

emark    [26376.   Posted 2-Jan-2010 Sat 04:30] View Near Messages
Good article on the tiger image case at http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2010/01/tiger-has-its-day-in-court.html .

emark    [26372.   Posted 31-Dec-2009 Thu 19:54] View Near Messages
Tiger porn man found not guilty: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6918001/Man-cleared-of-porn-charge-after-tiger-sex-image-found-to-be-joke.html

Also see this thread on IC - http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/259325/ - John Ozimek points out that he still faces the charge of an image for the "serious injury" clause, which will be tested at a later date.

emark    [26352.   Posted 22-Dec-2009 Tue 13:50] View Near Messages
Of course when he says "I just want the information to enable me to avoid the comedians who offend me", if that is really true, then that would be perfectly fine. The problem is that the likes of John Beyer don`t want control over what they see, they want control over what other people can see. They don`t want to merely *avoid* them, they want to cut, censor, and ban.

emark    [26346.   Posted 21-Dec-2009 Mon 10:56] View Near Messages
Here`s an interesting idea for a "voluntary unrated 18" certificate: http://www.northwestnewwave.org.uk/campaigns .

Of course we know the real reason for the BBFC is that it`s censorship for adults, so I can`t see the Government taking any notice when they inevitable reintroduce the VRA, but by putting the idea out there, if people oppose it makes it more obvious that their intention is to censor adults.

(Petition at http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/unrated18/ )

(And after writing that, I see the news about the Video Recordings Bill being rush through by the end of next month! How depressing.)

emark    [26335.   Posted 17-Dec-2009 Thu 16:02] View Near Messages
I see the BBC having to apologise about swearing when Rage Against The Machine played their song: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8418158.stm . I love that a 17 year old song still winds people up. The Daily Mail reports: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1236591/Rage-Against-The-Machine-swear-BBC-radio-race-Christmas-No-1-turns-ugly.html

(Details at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2228594104 - I`ve bought my copy of the single already!)

emark    [26313.   Posted 8-Dec-2009 Tue 15:23] View Near Messages
Another extreme porn case, this time involving both animal porn charges (with a tiger!), and also the "serious injury" clause - and he`s pleading Not Guilty: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6750252/Man-in-court-over-pornographic-tiger-image.html , http://www.anorak.co.uk/233035/strange-but-true/man-accused-of-creating-extreme-pornography-with-tiger-tiger-woods-innocent.html .

I also think it`s worth noting how the media are treating this as comical and unusual, not disgusting or evil - consider that no one would dare make the same jokes about child porn. Even the Telegraph have put it in their "How About That" category, described as "From the unusual to the funny and the downright bizarre, we bring you a sample of weird news from around the world, along with cartoons, blogs and games... because news doesn`t have to be serious." Certainly sums up this law alright, it`s just a shame it does have serious consequences.

emark    [26296.   Posted 29-Nov-2009 Sun 07:39] View Near Messages
Harvey: "In the case of Hoque, the cartoons were found to be pseudo-photographs. A pseudo-photograph is something which is not a photograph but "appears to be" one. The new law in the Coroners and Justice Act does not require the cartoon to be photo-realistic"

Well this is the key point, I`m not saying that it won`t cover fictional images (it will), I`m saying that it was generally thought to only cover realistic (in the sense of "photo-realistic"), and not all cartoons or drawings.

So did the Hoque case involve photo-realistic cartoons? I must admit, I find it hard to see how one could create a drawing that was "photo-realistic" unless you were very good, but yes if someone did this, I agree it would be covered. I assumed paintings in the British Museum aren`t usually photo-realistic - are there any examples of realistic ones?

Similarly with computer graphics:

pbr: "If you`ve ever seen the kind of 3D models produced on a porn budget (particularly a porn budget from 2000(!)) you`d know that if anyone mistook the image for being a photograph or something derived from it that their existance must be one long terrifying nightmare..."

Would such images would be caught by the DPA, or not?

"It`s been awhile since I did criminal but if you read through the offence it`s explictly only about appearing like "a photograph", not a series of images like the DPA or DDA, not any other kind of image, it had to be photo-esq."

Indeed. So I`m curious where the Hoque case fits in - is this an example where the court interpreted it to include cases that clearly didn`t appear to be photographs (in which case, I agree we should be worried about the DPA)? Or if not, we`re just left at speculation - my view is that the DPA requires images to be realistic and that a reasonable person would consider the person to be real, thus ruling out drawings and cartoons involving clearly fictional participants. But at the same time, yes there`s no knowing how a mad court might interpret the law in future.

Indeed, this could apply to anything - generally the consensus seems that light spanking shouldn`t count as illegal, but who knows how the courts might see it - any law can be interpreted in a way that is vastly out of the scope of what was written.

emark    [26293.   Posted 28-Nov-2009 Sat 20:35] View Near Messages
It`s possible - I`m not saying a court couldn`t potentially interpet the law this way. I`m just curious why no one made these points when the law was being pushed through :) (At least, my general impression among most people opposing the law was that it`s only intended to cover realistic images, and this possibility was expressed as a potential fear, but not a certainty.)

@pbr: It doesn`t cover all images, they have to be realistic, and where a reasonable person thinks the participants were real. You couldn`t portray a train crash _realistically_ with toys. I agree that the law covers fictional depictions - that`s known to be true, and was clearly intended by the Government - the question is that of unrealistic depictions.

The BBC story is worrying - surely this makes the new law on cartoon depictions of under-18s pointless...

emark    [26290.   Posted 28-Nov-2009 Sat 17:59] View Near Messages
If it`s a drawing, how would the image be realistic, and enough so that a person would think the person was actually real?

I mean, it don`t disagree that it`s plausible some mad court in future might decide that "real" should be interpreted in a way that it should include non-realistic depictions, but I thought the general consensus was that drawings should be safe? And, whilst the Government have been inconsistent on a lot of things on this law, they have consistently talked about only covering realistic images, as opposed to all images. I don`t feel there`s any evidence of it being interpreted in a way to include drawings.

Also, with this broad interpretation, we might equally be worried of a court deciding that existing child porn law covers drawings (but evidently the Government believe it does not, since they`re about to pass a law which does just that...) Note that pseudo-photograph is itself defined as an image ("an image, whether made by computer-graphics or otherwise howsoever, which appears to be a photograph"). Of course, I`d say that a drawing doesn`t appear to be a photograph, but it doesn`t realistically depict anything either.

emark    [26287.   Posted 28-Nov-2009 Sat 14:51] View Near Messages
The DPA doesn`t cover drawings - the images have to be "realistic". None of the current laws cover drawings, although that will all change when the Coroners and Justice Bill (covering any sexual drawings/etc of under-18s) becomes law...

emark    [26284.   Posted 28-Nov-2009 Sat 10:11] View Near Messages
Indeed, why isn`t he being prosecuted? It`s sad that it`s not a Labour politician of course (I mean, to be fair, the Lib Dems as a whole did the most to oppose the "extreme" porn law). But still, it seems a case of one rule for them, and another for the rest of us...

As for being a Lib Dem - yes, it`s sad to see a Lib Dem spouting "it shouldn’t even be shown on the telly". OTOH, if someone with anti-porn views gets done by such a law, that in itself would make a point :) (I mean, to be fair, it probably wouldn`t help his case to start saying that it should be okay to download bestiality porn whilst at work.)

ETA: OOI, the name of the film in question was "Bestiality – Black Girl Fucking Horse", according to http://www.adjudicationpanel.tribunals.gov.uk/Decisions/i434/APE%200455%20Full%20final%20decision.doc .

ETA: Okay, the BBC cover it, referring to it as "illegal": http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/8377170.stm

But hang on, it says:
---
When one of the computers was handed back, the council`s IT staff found "highly offensive" material which had been "illegally downloaded".

They also examined a second laptop given to him and found further material allegedly obtained in breach of copyright.
---
It`s unclear, but are they seriously saying it`s illegal, but only on the grounds of copyright infringement? (I also can`t help laughing - if "extreme" porn is bad, but copyright infringement also harms the industry as the Government loves to tell us, surely pirating "extreme" porn ought to be a good thing? Imagine, everytime someone downloads "extreme" porn without permission, they`re putting them out of business! And this isn`t the first time that the "extreme" porn law has been conflated with copyright infringement: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/16/extreme_pr0n_convictions/ )

emark    [26271.   Posted 26-Nov-2009 Thu 15:16] View Near Messages
Yeah - the first boingboing article was the day before the bill was published, but it turned out that, as Harvey says, the plans are already in the bill, with no need for amendments.

A follow up post is at http://boingboing.net/2009/11/20/britains-new-interne.html . Also see the same author in the Guardian at http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/26/digital-economy-file-sharing-mandelson .

emark    [26258.   Posted 23-Nov-2009 Mon 16:10] View Near Messages
First it was virtual "rape" and virtual "child abuse", now we`re onto virtual war crimes: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8373794.stm

And the BBC seems to talk about this as if the games are actually breaking the laws themselves, as opposed to just depicting them (are the BBC committing virtual war crimes when they report of them? Are they committing virtual virtual war crimes by writing about these virtual war crimes...?)

emark    [26224.   Posted 16-Nov-2009 Mon 18:10] View Near Messages
Yeah - I wrote to some Scottish Government thing about it, but it looks like I wasn`t included in this report; the problem is that even when individuals do respond, it`s not good enough unless they write again and again at every stage, and most people don`t have the same time and resources that organisations have.

It`s also a problem that the Scottish Government have decided that only individuals who live in Scotland are worth considering, but they are also counting organisations from the UK as a whole, thus biasing the response in favour of organsiations, which were more likely to be in favour of the law, than people.

I do worry that the Scottish law is going to be far worse - in England, the lobbying groups pretty much gave up once they got the announcement of the Government plans, but in Scotland, a group of organisations are lobbying for the law to be extended even further (the various so-called women`s groups). They`re basically copy-and-paste entries, it`s mad that they`re allowed to be counted as separate entries when it`s so obviously a coordinate effort!

emark    [26213.   Posted 15-Nov-2009 Sun 08:49] View Near Messages
It`s also plainly factually incorrect, as the law is not an extension of the existing child porn law, it`s a new separate law altogether.

And yes, the law explicitly includes images of adults. As well as cases where the so-called "child" character is drawn merely in the background of a scene where cartoon adults are depicted having sex.

emark    [26194.   Posted 9-Nov-2009 Mon 16:45] View Near Messages
Violence in a war game, who would have thought?

MP Tom Watson has set up a Facebook group in opposition, to talk about setting up a pressure group for gamers: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=189974734041&v=info&ref=nf

emark    [26164.   Posted 26-Oct-2009 Mon 17:20] View Near Messages
Tarkus:

As I said, it is overly simplistic to attribute such images as being the cause of eating disorders - it may be a factor for some, but you can`t automatically claim it as the source. Things are often more complex than this (e.g., for some it is a coping mechanism).

I am not sure what kinds of teenage plastic surgery (remember, not all plastic surgery is purely for "cosmetic" reasons), or if teenagers includes under-18s here. But the obvious question is, if we are worried, why are under-18s allowed to consent to such plastic surgery? Shouldn`t consenting to that be treated with more caution than consenting to see an image?

"So what damage occurs if a child starts seeing blatant sexual imagery at an early age? I think it is hard to say but something tells me that the social experiment isn`t worth the potential consequence."

I don`t think anyone`s suggesting forced viewing of sexual images to children. But you`ve jumped from the images shown in magazines, to "fairly disturbing images" that children shouldn`t have access to anyway (if a parent gives them unrestricted unsupervised Internet access, then there`s the problem right there).

"Was makeup applied to her nipples to further express the sexuality?"

Wearing makeup on other areas for this purpose is commonplace in public.

Don`t get me wrong, I don`t care if there are laws on magazine covers in ordinary shops (I only wish that the Government would _stop_ at such cases, rather than also censoring when people do consent to seeing it). But I`m not sure I agree with some of your arguments, about harm to children.

emark    [26159.   Posted 25-Oct-2009 Sun 12:03] View Near Messages
On the one hand I`m no fan of portrayal of women by much of the media, but the problem is that this is throughout much of society, where as various bans typically only focus unfairly on some kinds of media - the unpopular parts of society, and not those that cause more harm. E.g., when I look at the magazines, personally I`m put off by the stereotypicaly gender roles portrayed by pretty much the entire range, including women`s magazines. Why pick on lads mags?

(And surely, young girls are more likely to be reading the women`s magazines, than the "lads` mags"...)

Whilst I`m less concerned with restrictions on children (as opposed to for adults, which I absolutely oppose), note that issues and disorders surrounding body image are far more complex than simply being due to what children see. Often things like eating disorders and self-harm are due to underlying issues in a person`s life. Boys (and men) have such disorders too, for that matter, there`s just not as much awareness about it.

emark    [26155.   Posted 25-Oct-2009 Sun 06:23] View Near Messages
Hmm, just to say that New Labour is anything but socialist - we weren`t socialist (especially under the previous Tory Government), and Labour continued to move to the right on economic matters.

But um yes, apart from that odd mention, it`s an informative article, and summarises just how batshit the MPs are in their inability to form any kind of rational argument.

I fear that this law could be broader than the "extreme porn" law; it`s written to catch any kind of image with a sexual act depicted; there`s the broad definition of catching absolutely any character that might appear to be under 18 - and even includes adults where the predominant impression is of someone under 18.

In some ways the law is broader than that for child porn, in that it explicitly includes images where a "child" is drawn fully clothed standing in the background of a sexual scene.

Everything from hentai, to joke Simpsons images, to screenshots from legally published graphic novels and South Park, could be caught.

At least the new law doesn`t lump things together with something like animal porn (a problem opposing the "extreme" porn law has been that people, even those into BDSM, seem far less likely to was to criticise when it`s lumped together with the animal porn clause).

emark    [26131.   Posted 20-Oct-2009 Tue 18:57] View Near Messages
"In my view prison is for those who present a danger to us. Not for people of whose behaviour we disapprove."

Well surely he was a danger to that child ;) Punishment serves various purposes. One of those is simply to prevent someone doing it again - in this case it serves that purpose. Another purpose is deterrent.

The question here shouldn`t be about approval or disapproval, it should be about harm done. Is a 3 year old smoking no different to an adult smoking?

emark    [26120.   Posted 18-Oct-2009 Sun 05:40] View Near Messages
FWIW, here`s a non Daily Mail source http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/15/man-jailed-child-smoker . Which bit is in dispute?

I don`t think it`s relevant that he takes drugs, and I dislike the usual tabloid reporting (although for once the DM is fairly restrained), but that`s separate from the case itself. I`m not convinced that a 3 year old smoking is no different to an adult smoking. It`s not explicitly illegal, but he admitted "wilfully ill-treating, neglecting or exposing a child in a manner likely to cause suffering or injury to health."

And for once, I think it`s worth noting that it`s good that everyone seems to understand that it`s not the "making a video" of it that`s a problem, but the act itself. In stark contrast to sexual abuse or acts, where suddenly the image is the problem, even if fictional, and no one cares about if there was any abuse in the production anymore. For once, the videos were treated as they should be: as evidence of a crime.

pbr: Was he given a harsher sentence because it was filmed? As far as I can tell, the sentence was based on the act itself?

emark    [26094.   Posted 13-Oct-2009 Tue 03:36] View Near Messages
Seen the news about the Guardian being gagged from reporting Parliament? http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament

Speculation is that it`s about a question regarding Trafigura: http://order-order.com/2009/10/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament/ , http://www.politics.co.uk/news/culture-media-and-sport/guardian-gagging-order-sparks-twitter-frenzy-$1333687.htm

emark    [26053.   Posted 5-Oct-2009 Mon 14:17] View Near Messages
Apparently the BBFC have acknowledged the existence of female ejaculation, and passed it: http://annaspansdiary.com/annaspansblog/2009/10/05/first-ever-uk-release-of-a-film-that-contains-female-ejaculation/

(Until now, such scenes have been cut on the grounds that they thought it was urination, AIUI...)

emark    [26039.   Posted 3-Oct-2009 Sat 07:31] View Near Messages
Who`s being hypocritical? Just a bit confused - seemed like a positive article to me :)

emark    [25965.   Posted 22-Sep-2009 Tue 19:10] View Near Messages
LOL - Lily Allen has set up a blog to rant about piracy, and in the first post she was found plagiarising somebody else: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090921/0527456270.shtml , http://techdirt.com/articles/20090922/0310156273.shtml .

emark    [25960.   Posted 22-Sep-2009 Tue 14:13] View Near Messages
Well, she seems to be doing all right... perhaps these alleged artists trying to break through should speak for themselves. I`ve certainly come across artists trying to break through who encourage filesharing, in order to get more well known, and among non-professional artists, there are plenty allowing distribution of their work (in some cases under licences like Creative commons).

emark    [25939.   Posted 14-Sep-2009 Mon 14:10] View Near Messages
Request for help from Inquisition21 related to Operation Ore - http://www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=64 :

"We urgently need some help with research for a court action separate from, but related to, the Operation Ore group action.

"Can you please give us suggestions of films in which children are tied up or restrained in some way (cowboys and indians, handcuffed, etc) that have been classified as 15, 12 or PG by the BBFC, preferably since 2004? We would like to hear about similar ones with over 18 certificates also.

"This could be a big help in our attempts to stop the tidal force of the police state and expose the deceits being practised in the courts.

"Please send, anonymously if you prefer, to the Editor" [ ed-inquisition@live.ie ]

emark    [25921.   Posted 11-Sep-2009 Fri 19:03] View Near Messages
IanG - that`s interesting to read, I`ve often wondered what sort of material has been found guilty under the OPA. Whilst there are occasional news reports of people getting convicted, there`s very little coverage (unlike for written material, where there is much greater news coverage).

For example, the BBFC have claimed that scenes of urolagnia "are regularly found obscene by juries in the UK and therefore cannot be classified" (http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/guide05.htm). The CPS say that they prosecute for a broad range of material ( http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/obscene_publications/ ), including flaggellation and bondage, which would put most BDSM material at risk.

But I realise this could just be fearmongering - claiming these things are illegal, allowing the BBFC to censor, and hoping people will plead guilty.

emark    [25907.   Posted 9-Sep-2009 Wed 14:44] View Near Messages
I agree the obscenity case was very worrying - what happened to the "deprave and corrupt" test? Now we`re judging people based on guesswork?

And the BBC coverage is rather biased, "Men behind porn DVD empire" and referring to a ""lucrative and seedy" business".

And as for the batshit Judge Fingret:

"I do not accept that the principal objective was to provide for the needs of your customers.

"The primary objective was clearly to make money from what was, on any view, a lucrative and seedy business."

Since when was making money mututally exclusive to providing for customers? Welcome to Capitalism 101.

We`re in the midst of a recession, yet heaven forbid someone try to make a living by providing something customers are buying. Obviously it`s much better to waste money enforcing outdated laws, and throwing productive members of society in prison...

emark    [25886.   Posted 4-Sep-2009 Fri 03:15] View Near Messages
Worth remembering for the child drawings law - if someone who is known to be 23 can be deemed to appear under 16, even when it comes to a realistic photos, just how many cartoons and drawings of adults are going to be deemed to be under *18* (or give the "predominant impression" of someone under 18, as the law also covers), given the vague nature of drawings compared with photos?

emark    [25882.   Posted 3-Sep-2009 Thu 15:11] View Near Messages
Another "extreme porn" case, no mention of other crimes this time: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1134945_council_worker_on_porn_charge . He was "arrested after a colleague made a complaint"...

emark    [25879.   Posted 2-Sep-2009 Wed 15:22] View Near Messages
Yeah I saw that today too - the page is at http://www.equalities.gov.uk/national_equality_panel/call_for_evidence.aspx and annoyingly it says the date for submissions is past :(

Note that CAAN are currently trying to do a similar thing for the Equality and Human Rights Commission (I don`t know if it`s part of the same thing, or not?), see http://consentingadultactionnet.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C5CCF94F23E0484D!374.entry .

And the point about Naturism is interesting - one of the usual stumbling blocks is that they view BDSM as "something that people do, not something that people are". I think this is a flawed viewpoint for many reasons: technically most anti-gay discrimination or laws have been based on acts rather than identity, but that doesn`t stop it being discrimination; many people identity as dominant, submissive, sadist, masochist, and have done so from an early age; religion is often protected but is surely not innate.

But if the laws end up including naturism, then that is even stronger an argument, I don`t see how it can be argued that sadomasochism should be not included on the grounds that it`s merely something that people do. (Of course, the flaw in my reasoning is making the mistake of assuming the Government care about reason and logic in their decisions.)

emark    [25871.   Posted 30-Aug-2009 Sun 07:38] View Near Messages
That article is amusing - like advertisers willing to advertise in the Daily Mail might be worried that their adverts now appear along "far right" views? Also I like that advertisers are now evidently more important than readers.

Personally I think advertisers should be far more concerned about the kind of stories the tabloids print, than what might appear in a comments section...

Or the DM and The Sun are worried about "brand protection" from a few comments, when you consider some of the material they print?

(And it`s not like the DM is the only media website now allowing unmoderated comments. I don`t know if any court cases have addressed the issue of defamation, but I would be very worried if a host was hold responsible for unmoderated comments - such a ruling would have far reaching consequences for almost every website on the Internet.)

emark    [25865.   Posted 27-Aug-2009 Thu 14:18] View Near Messages
Another good article on the VRA at: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7320/

emark    [25860.   Posted 26-Aug-2009 Wed 14:35] View Near Messages
Barbara Follett MP suggested that the information on the Video Recording Act being invalid be censored (how appropriate, censoring for a censorship law):

http://tinyurl.com/m8kuj8

emark    [25853.   Posted 25-Aug-2009 Tue 18:44] View Near Messages
And now the Guardian is making some batshit claim that video pirates will be let off the hook: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/25/video-piracy-damages-1984-act . All I can think of is if the VRA was used against video pirates, in the same way that the "extreme" porn law now apparently is. But it`s nonsense for the Guardian to present it in this way, since piracy is clearly covered by other laws. And if a video pirate can overturn a conviction, it serves the Government right for using the wrong law for the job.

(comments are allowed on this article, at least)

emark    [25843.   Posted 25-Aug-2009 Tue 02:30] View Near Messages
The Guardian reports 1,703 found guilty under the Act - http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/25/prosecutions-sale-unclassified-videos . It would be interesting to know how many of these were for "selling porn to children" as the media are scaremongering, and how many for other offences (either selling porn to adults without the proper regulations, or selling non-porn to under-18s in violation of the age rating)...

The BBC have an article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8219438.stm (again with the "Think of the Children!" argument.

And the Daily Mail are at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208805/Legal-error-lets-shop-sell-children-explicit-DVDs.html .

emark    [25837.   Posted 24-Aug-2009 Mon 14:14] View Near Messages
Not sure if this has been posted? The Video Recordings Act 1984 was apparently never enacted!:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6083182/Selling-illegal-DVDs-not-illegal-because-of-blunder.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6808592.ece

It`s a bit of a shame that the press are focusing on the "selling to under-18s" angle - whilst that might be the bigger source of embarrassment from the Government, it means that any debate about the issue of things being banned for adults risks being lost under the "Think of the Children" argument. It would be interesting if this could be an opportunity to raise awareness for things banned for adults.

E.g., will we see Grotesque on the shelves? Or have there been people who were prosecuted for selling or supplying films to adults?

Does anyone know how this affects the regulations for R18 material - is that the same law, or something separate?

emark    [25811.   Posted 13-Aug-2009 Thu 03:33] View Near Messages
That is quite mad - personally I prefer that style of swimming trunks (I didn`t realise it was only Speedo?) rather than the baggy shorts. It also seems sexist if women aren`t subject to the same rule.

Amusingly, especially with the Sharia reference, here`s a story on the opposite end of the scale, albeit in France, about a woman banned from wearing a swimsuit that covered her entire body: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8197917.stm

(I`m a militant atheist who will happily criticise religion, but I think trying to ban clothing styles that women choose to wear is no better than countries that force women to do it in the first place. It`s like the nuts who try to ban BDSM, on the grounds that they`re saving women who are "coerced" into it.)

MichaelG: Yeah, I`m also reminded of the BBC`s recent Glastonbury TV coverage this year, where they "muffled" out any swearing on their online coverage (which means you get these awkward and jarring gaps in songs), despite the fact that there`s obviously no age restrictions for children to be there watching it live. (And it was particularly odd, given that they happily show post-watershed stuff uncensored on Iplayer.)

emark    [25806.   Posted 12-Aug-2009 Wed 14:45] View Near Messages
A pensioner from Reading? For a moment I was hoping Liz Longhurst herself had got caught up in the law. I would`ve been first in line to tell her "Hard luck".

Yeah, I`m sure that this 66 year old man is obviously such a danger to society. If the police hadn`t got there when they did, those images would have turned him into some murdering psycho, out on the dark streets of Reading brutally slaying everyone he comes across. We should be thankful to Liz Longhurst, now that this law has passed no one will ever be murdered again. But if they are, we can always ban something else in response.

emark    [25801.   Posted 11-Aug-2009 Tue 18:28] View Near Messages
A friend of mine is the editor of the newly launched http://www.filamentmagazine.com .

Their printers have refused to print their second issue if it includes photos of men with erections, out of fear of offending women`s and religious groups: http://www.filamentmagazine.com/fundraise.aspx

An erect phallus in a non-R18 magazine has apparentely never been done before in the UK, according to a distributer who claims that they won`t get distribution full stop with such an image ( http://filamentmag.livejournal.com/13027.html ) - anyone know any better on this?

I feel that this is exactly the way that issues in the magazine and porn industry should be addressed - improving equality by providing images of men for women, and not responding with censorship. Yet their efforts are hampered by the pro-censorship and anti-porn attitudes. (I would love to know what the anti-porn feminist groups such as Object would think of this...)

They`ve also been turned down by a distributer for having a man on their cover, not a woman: http://filamentmag.livejournal.com/7496.html .

emark    [25787.   Posted 6-Aug-2009 Thu 02:41] View Near Messages
...and when it comes to same sex BDSM relationships, that`s bad too because it`s "mimicking the role of a man abusing a woman".

The sad thing is that they`re not even consistent in their own logic - I mean, they should surely be against women being in positions of power, either because "men made them do it" or "it`s mimicking when men have that power". But no, I guess it`s only bad when it`s consensual.

emark    [25772.   Posted 4-Aug-2009 Tue 14:16] View Near Messages
I think the citizenship thing is ridiculous - you get points for being involved in politics, but not if the Government disagrees with it? What if you attended one of these protests as a member of a political party (e.g., the Lib Dems were anti-Iraq-war)?

Speaking as a British citizen, I wish Phil Woolas would fuck off to another country.

emark    [25759.   Posted 29-Jul-2009 Wed 14:00] View Near Messages
What are the rules on wearing other kinds of badges on uniform while on duty?

The article quotes Met Chief: "The Met has a dress code policy which states that only approved corporate badging may be used."

So it looks to me that this is a standard policy for all badges. And now a special exception has been made to allow the SOS. I`m sure there`s a valid debate to be had on dress codes of the police in general, but I don`t think it`s a case of specifically banning just one badge. On top of that, I think it is misleading to suggest it`s the flag that`s offensive - the issue would be the advertising of the SOS website.

(I work in a place that isn`t open to the public, has no uniform, and a very relaxed dress code - but I still would never think of it as a place to wear badges that were advertising any kind of political sites or message, no matter how "good cause" they might seem.)

phantom makes a good point about anti-war protests. Furthermore, if the SOS site is allowed, then it opens the floodgates for every pet charity, cause and lobbying group to say it should be okay for police officers to be wearing their badges. (Imagine if police officers, or people at your workplace, were wearing "Jane Longhurst Campaign" or NSPCC badges?;)

emark    [25755.   Posted 29-Jul-2009 Wed 03:52] View Near Messages
It seems a very biased report - it`s not clear it was explained that "violent" means fictional and consensual material, so it`s plausible that many would assume it meant abusive material. Even more so, considering the material it`s listed alongside. They don`t seem to explain what "extreme" means - most people would assume it means the dictionary definition of the word, not the Government`s classification. On top of that, it seems "extreme" isn`t enough - now we have "very extreme", whatever that is!

ETA: It`s worse than that - since "extreme" inherently implies something that is to the greatest degree, and something to be concerned about. It`s a bit like me asking "Are you concerned about extreme behaviour from someone" - many people will answer "Yes", but that tells us nothing about what behaviour they actually think is acceptable. Consider that a liberal person might think of "extreme" as being, I don`t know, chopping someone`s leg off. He`d still have to answer that he`s concerned about it, even though he might not be concerned about what the Government classes as "extreme porn". We basically are back at the problem is that there is no term for such material that uniquely, accurately and fairly describes the criminalised material (other than "material banned by Section 63 of the Criminal Justice Act").

What would the response be if the question asked about material staged with consenting adults? OTOH, what if we asked about "Very extreme/violent religion", and then used the results to urge a ban on possessing "extreme religious material"? (Not that I think it should, of course, but just to demonstrate the point.)

The question seems to conflate whether people think it is illegal, or whether it should be illegal. I mean, I`d be counted in that 76% who think that extreme porn "is illegal or should be if it isn`t already", but that obviously doesn`t mean I think it should be illegal! So we can`t assume that only 13% think it should be legal (and as you say, even 13% is millions of people).

Another interesting point is that 13% have seen extreme porn - if this is true, at almost 8 million people, it seems that Backlash were right after all to claim that millions of people could be criminalised by this law...

emark    [25752.   Posted 28-Jul-2009 Tue 19:01] View Near Messages
I received a reply back from the BBC, and they`ve fixed the error in the article now. (And perhaps we can hope that they`ll be less likely to rely on a certain campaigner as their resident legal expert in future...)

IanG: Do you have a source for that 13% figure from the IWF? (Just curious, I wasn`t previously away of any surveys being done on this?)

emark    [25722.   Posted 24-Jul-2009 Fri 18:48] View Near Messages
I wonder if the BBC will be calling Liz Longhurst - newly appointed legal expert on extreme porn - to give her opinion on what the law covers?

I can hear it now: "Dear Mrs Longhurst, some critics of the law claim that the law is perhaps a bit vague. In your expert legal opinion, would you like to clear up whether images of genital piercing or breast mutilation are covered by the law? What about flogging a dead horse?"

emark    [25720.   Posted 24-Jul-2009 Fri 17:46] View Near Messages
What were you banned for? I don`t think anyone can really comment here, as we don`t know the full facts.

Discussion of whether things should be censored or criminalised by the Government on the grounds of personal taste, is very different to a private website owner choosing to block people from their site (that the two things share the word "ban" in common isn`t really significant). Firstly it`s their site, ultimately their choice (even though we may disagree with it); secondly, there may be legitimate reasons to ban people, although of course I have no idea what reasons apply in your case.

What do you mean by "edit text"?

Perhaps that site is full of idiots, in which case my sympathies, but then there are idiots all over the Internet. It doesn`t have anything to do with the issue of anti-censorship. I hope you`ll find people here pleasant :)

emark    [25718.   Posted 24-Jul-2009 Fri 15:43] View Near Messages
It`s not the first case actually - see http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/gch09b.htm#Beware_of_Computer_Repairers_4098 . In fact, even the BBC themselves reported another earlier case ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8103992.stm )!

The only source for this being the first case is Liz Longhurst. It`s bad enough that she is given her say everytime the BBC report the issue, but now she`s being consulted on legal matters, when she has no authority in this area?

I will be sending in a correction and complaint at https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/ .

"cross party support" is misleading on two grounds. Firstly it ignores the cross-party criticism - MPs and peers spoke against it, from all three main parties. Secondly, note that it says "Mrs Longhurst received" support, not the law - they`re referring to the Longhurst campaign. Yet supporting her campaign doesn`t entail support for the law - for example, see Amnesty`s statement ( http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/amnesty711.html ), or consider MP Harry Cohen who supported Salter`s Early Day Motion, but later became a main critic of the law.

How many of those supporters of the campaign did so, because the petition talked about violence against women? How many of them actually support a law on images involving consenting adults, even those that are entirely staged? I`m glad that the BBC now refer to the law as "controversial", but I think they could word this better.

emark    [25637.   Posted 5-Jul-2009 Sun 10:01] View Near Messages
Shaun: Indeed, I don`t disagree that Labour passing draconian laws is worse than kids bulling. That`s comparing two entirely separate things (it`s just like the people who say we shouldn`t worry about Labour, because there are worse things that go on in the world). (Plus that argument works the other way - surely the other things that Labour are doing is far more worrying than a slight disagreement over the issue of tackling school bullying?) Note the article isn`t talking about restricting free speech, the issue is bullying.

IanG: I`m not sure that any of that`s relevant to what I or the article says. Just because you can cite some examples which should not be offensive, does not mean that all forms of verbal abuse are okay. No one is claiming that all speech that might offend should be banned - that`s a straw man. The issue is bullying and harrassment. If I started calling people here names, then whether the names were literally true or not, I`d probably be told to stop according to the rules. If I went up to someone in public and started shouting insults at them, they might call the police, and I could hardly complain. If I started verbally abusing someone at school 20 years ago, I`d have got in trouble. I don`t see why I should be let off just because I use insults based on sexuality.

It`s not about the words alone, it`s about the context and the meaning. If it was true that a kid was being punished for using a word, in any context, I`d agree that would be bad.

MichaelG: Who says teachers won`t be giving out such advice? Name-calling and harrassing other kids has always been something that could get you in trouble in school. That doesn`t mean teachers can`t in addition give advice as to how to deal with it. No one is suggesting that kids have a right to never be offended, or suggesting that kids tell tales.

As for bullying versus not bullying - there is no evidence to suggest that this will be applied to "not bullying". Even if you doubt Ed Balls`s ability to tell the difference, it`ll be the school teachers who make the distinction.

As for your other point, I disagree that this is some new bandwagon. The Torys were homophobic back in the 80s (e.g., Section 28) - the question is whether they`ve changed now. New Labour have always been better on gay rights (e.g., repealing the law against gay group sex, equalising the age of consent, civil partnerships). I just wish that their tolerance of bi- and homosexuality also extended to other sexualities such as kink/BDSM, which as we know with their views on the "extreme porn" law, it doesn`t :(

I agree it`s true that one could criticise Labour`s gay rights support as still being rather shallow - as Peter Tatchell`s poster points out in your link, Gordon and Sarah can marry, but gay people can`t. But still, bandwagon or not, I`d rather that gay rights is being seen as a good thing, as opposed to the bandwagon being to take people`s rights away, which both parties sadly still seem to love.

Although I think all that is separate to the issue of schools dealing with bullying.

emark    [25633.   Posted 5-Jul-2009 Sun 08:33] View Near Messages
cor: I don`t see that the article suggests any of that though. There`s a difference between punishing a kid for using a word at all (which I would be concerned about), and name-calling. I see nothing that talks about banning "opinions".

MichaelG: Just because "kids are kids" doesn`t mean it should be tolerated by teachers. I don`t see anything new here - in my day (back when Torys were in power), you`d get in trouble for harrassing other kids with name calling, and especially calling them a "puff". That doesn`t mean the word is censored, it`s just specific to verbal abuse. I don`t see why saying that harrassing kids for being gay is as bad as harrassing them for race, is controversial.

No one`s talking about kids getting expelled, or getting sent to prison, just for saying a word! I see no evidence that this is part of "NuLabour" "clunking fist". Nor is it PC - if anything, the only ones being offended by this are the ones who disagree with it. Crying "PC" doesn`t make it okay to call a child a "puff" in class - just as it would likely be against the rules on this forum to verbally abuse someone ("No aggressive personal abuse"), but that doesn`t mean that this site advocates censorship, or that it`s part of the mythical "PC Brigade". Am I allowed to dish out some aggressive personal abuse, on the grounds that you don`t have the right to not be offended?

emark    [25630.   Posted 5-Jul-2009 Sun 03:39] View Near Messages
Dealing with schoolkids insulting each other isn`t really censorship, I`d say - I wasn`t allowed to call other kids names when I was a child, that isn`t censorship. Trying to stop bullying isn`t censorship either.

No one is talking about sending kids to prison. I`m not sure what`s so controversial about saying sexist and sexual bullying should be taken as seriously as racism in the classroom, or generally trying to help schools put a stop to bullying? I don`t know how you mean "jokingly" - bullying isn`t a joke, and this article is talking about bullying. The claim about "banning" the word outright is just the Daily Mail`s spin, but even they qualify it with "as an insult", so your "jokingly" example wouldn`t count.

I disagree that trying to stop bullying of gay people is a "frantic scramble to be seen on the `I love gay people` bandwagon" - all I see is a continued frantic scramble to be seen on the homophobia bandwagon, e.g., the comments from the Tory MP.

(There are examples of restrictions of free speech that attempt to help gay people - e.g., the law criminalising inciting hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation, which I generally disagree with. But this is not one of them.)

emark    [25624.   Posted 4-Jul-2009 Sat 07:22] View Near Messages
Part of me says that such a draconian and sloppily written clause could never be accepted as a law - but then I thought that about the DPA in the first place. It also seems rather presumptious of her to jump ahead like this: non-realistic images of extreme porn, as well as written material of sex between under-18s, are (so far) still legal.

"...and a reasonable person looking at the writing would think that any portrayal of such person or animal was realistic."

Not only is this ludicrous, note that there`s another subtle but significant change she`s made - the DPA says "person or animal was real".

Also note the lack of any defences - not that there`s a BBFC for books, nor does it make sense to talk about consenting participants, but it shows that the law becomes vastly broader.

(This reminds me of the way that although actual child porn law has a defence for 16-17 year olds who are married, there is no such defence for the new cartoon law - so despite supporters claiming that fiction is the same thing as child porn, and that it should mirror existing law, in fact the law they argue for is far broader. Conveniently, they love to copy the bits that are broad, however nonsensical, but miss out the defences that would restrict the law.)

I thought the Lords couldn`t propose new laws? Seems a bit of a loophole if they can simply add new laws in amendments...

emark    [25609.   Posted 2-Jul-2009 Thu 14:06] View Near Messages
There was an interesting thread I saw on Informed Consent recently, where IIRC someone was trying to get hold of some R18 anime (and it was for some workshop type thing I think, not even personal use), but they were simply unable to get anyone to mail it to them apparently because of restrictions in the laws - they were only willing to mail it out to a shop with a sex licence, for them to then pick it up from.

emark    [25599.   Posted 29-Jun-2009 Mon 15:29] View Near Messages
dano: Did Ian Tomlinson have intentions of winding up the police too?

As for protestors, where is your evidence that the ones who were attacked in any way deserved? The evidence we actually have suggests otherwise.

Just because a minority of other protestors may have been up to no good doesn`t justify violence against someone who just happens to be in the same city. London is a big place!

Generalising against all protestors (and even non-protestors) is no better than generalising about all police officers.

I`m not sure what reading the Guardian has to do with this? What paper would you recommend?

emark    [25591.   Posted 27-Jun-2009 Sat 18:30] View Near Messages
FFS - now there`s an alleged uproar about material on the BBC *after* the watershed: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/5628315/BBC-bows-to-viewers-and-curbs-swearing-after-9pm-watershed.html

emark    [25590.   Posted 27-Jun-2009 Sat 10:19] View Near Messages
It`s odd because Politics has published many articles, including by the editor, against both this law and the "extreme porn" law - e.g., see this one by editor Ian Dunt: http://www.politics.co.uk/analysis/legal-and-constitutional/analysis-a-law-against-drawings--$1283157.htm . So I don`t know if it`s just unintentional or not, but it`s annoying for Zoe`s biased rant to be up their apparently unchallenged.

emark    [25588.   Posted 27-Jun-2009 Sat 06:14] View Near Messages
I`m glad to see Barnado`s and Eaves4Women listed - in fact quite a number of the organisation responses to the Government consultation on "extreme porn" (predictably, in favour) were charities (consultation response numbers in brackets):

Barnardo`s (176), CARE (234), Childnet (186 - http://www.childnet-int.org/downloads/response_pornographicMaterial.pdf), CHIS (Children`s Charities` Coalition for Internet Safety - which includes Barnado`s, so they effectively responded twice!) (394), Kidscape (20), Lawyers` Christian Fellowship (295), Lilith (Eaves4Women) (? - http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/lilith.html), Lucy Faithfull Foundation (397), National Council of Hindu Temples (151), Salvation Army (351), The Christian Institute (330), Wearside Women in Need (303).

(There may be more that I`ve missed.)

They typically promote the same old myths about porn, either calling it abusive, claiming it causes crime, claiming that a child might say it, or comparing it to child porn. Some such as The Christian Institute and Lilith (Eaves4Women) argued against a wider range of porn.

I don`t know how many of these receive Government funding though.

I knew that Eaves4Women received Government funding (and their response was endorsed by Liz Kelly, who then went onto write the Government`s Rapid "Evidence" Assessment), I had no idea they were a charity too!

I appreciate charities may sometimes get asked their views on things that are political, and go beyond their realm of expertise, and I suppose the fault lies with the media for promoting their views - but responding to consultations should surely be counted as lobbying.

I imagine a similar thing applies to the consultation of sexual cartoons of under-18s. Talking of which, remember this claptrap from the NSPCC? http://www.politics.co.uk/analysis/culture-media-and-sport/comment-we-need-to-ban-these-images-$1283060.htm (Hmm, I`m sure when I last looked, there were loads of comments disagreeing with the article - I know I left one myself - now they are all gone?)

emark    [25549.   Posted 21-Jun-2009 Sun 08:04] View Near Messages
For the "extreme" porn law, it says that one gets put on the Sex Offender Register if they are sentenced to at least 2 years.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080004_en_44#sch26-pt2-l1g361-l1p6

So perhaps this is talking about when registration is compulsory. Do you think that even for lower sentences, and even non-prison terms, the judge could still insist on being placed on the SOR? That would be very worrying :(

Also talking about sentences - I had thought it a good sign if even bestiality doesn`t get a prison sentence. But I now remember the oddity that under the law, "extreme" images with adults are considered more serious than necrophilia or bestiality images (apparent threat to life or likely to cause serious injury has a maximum sentence of 3 years, whilst bestiality and dead people images are 2 years).

emark    [25547.   Posted 21-Jun-2009 Sun 07:26] View Near Messages
A shame we`ve no idea what this computer repair shop was ... would be interesting to know if it`s just an independent shop, or a mainstream store. My guess would be the latter (on the grounds that independent PC shops seem to have mostly disappeared now), in which case I`d be curious to know if they have any kind of official policy on what kind of images they report (not to mention making sure I never shop there, the nosey tell-tale bastards).

emark    [25546.   Posted 21-Jun-2009 Sun 05:56] View Near Messages
Well on the plus side, at least even for something like bestiality (which, whilst I agree there still seems to be little justification for criminalising images, it`s still generally seen as worse than anything involving consenting adults, one would hope), he only gets a minimal fine (and yes, the counselling - I dread to think what sort of bullshit that will involve).

I thought according to the law, you could only go on the Sex Offender Register if the sentence was at least 2 years? Of course, he wasn`t, but the reporting suggests here that that was simply the judge`s choice...

It`s just a shame that more of these victims of the law aren`t seemingly aware of organisations like Backlash and CAAN. My understanding is that Backlash were preparing legal arguments, and IIRC they have contacts to lawyers specialising in these areas. But unless a defendant actually makes contact, nobody has anyway of knowing until we read about their conviction in the press (if at all).

The worrying side is that computer repair shops are happy to report you - one hope might have been that they wouldn`t have cared unless it was child porn (either because they don`t think it`s abusive, or they aren`t aware of the new laws). This shows that you are at risk from repair shops.

“Hopefully supervision will make you realise that it is possible that by looking at such images, whether it is out of curiosity, can result in a criminal conviction.” - I think this says it all: it`s not "people shouldn`t do something because there`s actual harm to others", but "people shouldn`t do things, because it`s against the law".

I`m also amused at the "Man had "grossly offensive and disgusting" porn images on computer" in that I can see it having two diverse reactions in the readers: those who will think the worse, because its "grossly offensive and disgusting"; and those who will think, hang on, we`re criminalising people just for it being "grossly offensive and disgusting"?

ETA - I wonder if the animals were dead or alive. Lord Hunt wants to know!

emark    [25489.   Posted 17-Jun-2009 Wed 03:24] View Near Messages
There are reports in the media of another use of the "extreme" porn law - e.g., from the BBC - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8103992.stm :

"He has been charged with distributing, making and possessing indecent images of children and possession of extreme pornographic images."

Of course, the idea that they would first use it for indefensible cases such as bestiality, or those also possessing child porn, was always suspected, so that they can easily get convictions and set a precedent, with no one wanting to defend them.

So what "extreme porn" does this guy actually have, I wonder?

emark    [25488.   Posted 16-Jun-2009 Tue 18:42] View Near Messages
"It suggests the DPA possession offence is being used to side step the deprave and corrupt test in the OPA.

But it doesn`t ring true. Firstly, the DPA has it`s own subjective tests (disgusting/of an obscene character, etc)"

But the concern is surely that "disgusting" is a lower threshold than saying it must "deprave and corrupt" those likely to see it.

emark    [25485.   Posted 16-Jun-2009 Tue 13:38] View Near Messages
Wait a mo - I had no idea that there had been any prosecutions under the "extreme" porn law at all. Up to 100 cases! What happened to the court cases?

This was my fear, that there`d be so little publicity, making opposing the law all the harder...

Is there any evidence for it being used for non-bestiality (i.e., anything staged with consenting adults)? Any idea what sort of material these DVDs actually contain?

But yes, so much for the lie about it only convering material illegal under the OPA - if that were true, why not use the OPA when it carries a heavier sentence?

emark    [25478.   Posted 15-Jun-2009 Mon 16:54] View Near Messages
Police called to censor Cumbria university student’s art show - http://www.cumberland-news.co.uk/features/police_called_to_censor_cumbria_university_student_s_art_show_1_560444

I stumbled across this curious story. Haven`t the police got better things to do than dictate what paintings should be allowed? (Still, they were willing to give advice, unlike the Dangerous Pictures Act where they haven`t a clue.)

emark    [25468.   Posted 14-Jun-2009 Sun 07:23] View Near Messages
Apparently not the first time: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5119602.stm .

I don`t get why it`s just "lad`s" mags - the "women`s" mags are also portraying the same sexist gender roles. But I guess it`s easier to demonise "lad`s mags" and pretend that they are the cause, rather than addressing the questions of why women are buying the women`s magazines.

At this right, the "top" shelf will end up holding most magazines...

emark    [25434.   Posted 9-Jun-2009 Tue 15:58] View Near Messages
Banning things seems to still be an obsession of Labour - the Labour leaflet I received before the elections did the usual slagging off of other parties, and the main thing they picked for the Lib Dems, in a special highlighted section, was to whine how outrageous it was that the Lib Dems don`t want to lock people up for simple possession of drugs for personal use. "It`s hard to believe", they whined... (I wasn`t actually aware that this was a Lib Dem policy, so I`m all the more glad I voted for them.)

Fucking police in Cambridge this weekend were detaining everyone getting off any train arriving at the station, to search everyone with sniffer dogs (and then full searches for those who were unlucky to get barked at) - keeping me waiting about 30 minutes. Despite the ridiculous over the top scale of it, with tents set up, and loads of police officers standing around doing nothing, they only actually had one dog doing the work, making the whole thing both expensive, and completely inefficient. No information or explanation was given about what was happening, or what law we were being detained under.

Afterwards I took a photo, and an uncover policeman revealed himself to me, claiming I wasn`t allowed to take a photo of him.

emark    [25417.   Posted 7-Jun-2009 Sun 03:39] View Near Messages
It would be nice to see Labour do so badly to the extent that they are destroyed, and Lib Dems become the opposition Government. Given that there doesn`t seem to be any swing towards the Lib Dem, for that to happen the landslide would have to be huge. So I suppose that whilst a massive majority win for Tory would not be something I`d like in itself, there is better hope long term if Lib Dems become the second party.

But if it`s simply that Labour go to being second party, for a few years again until they get back in power, I fear it`s just switching between two parties that both have politicians who like censorship, and no real gain is made.

emark    [25414.   Posted 6-Jun-2009 Sat 10:39] View Near Messages
"ain`t it fantastic?"

It is and it isn`t. I know that Labour are the ones who have brought in many vile laws, but a landslide victory (which seems likely we will get in the next general election) is what allows any Government to force through bad laws, and the Tories aren`t exactly great either when it comes to matters such as sexual freedom or censorship.

Don`t get me wrong, I want Labour out, even if that means a term of Tory Government, but I fear the results of it being a massive landslide. Remember that Labour were able to push through so many laws based on the massive landslide they got in 1997.

Meanwhile, the only party that criticised laws such as the "extreme" porn law - the Lib Dems - seem to have lost rather than gained.

emark    [25372.   Posted 27-May-2009 Wed 14:03] View Near Messages
Re: Longhurst`s words - "hard luck" to be precise :) ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7364475.stm ).

emark    [25364.   Posted 25-May-2009 Mon 04:57] View Near Messages
I think this is a worrying case - even if we agreed that he was no longer qualified as an "expert", even if he had never being an expert witness at all, surely one should be free to choose their own defence? The problem is that the police, and presumably prosecution are entitled to see the images, but the defence team are only allowed if the police allow it - failure to abide by this risks a conviction under the same law too.

If any other kind of evidence was handled in this way - restrictions on who in the defence can see it, and the possibility of convicting the defence team under the same law - it would be seen as an appalling standard of justice. But because it`s child porn, it`s seen as different - the hysteria has got to the point where we are expected to consider the absurd possibility that pedophiles are infiltrating defence teams in order to get a look at the pics...

OOI, how are such images shown in court? Surely they have to be, in order for the jury to decide? Does this mean that anyone can go into the public gallery and see? Or is it done in a way so that only the jury can see? (This is a worry I have if/when any cases come up for the "extreme" porn law - that we still might have no idea of what sort of things are being classified as illegal, because no one can even see the things!)

emark    [25319.   Posted 18-May-2009 Mon 04:24] View Near Messages
The report doesn`t try hard to hide their POV does it. The UK is "liberal" because it doesn`t criminalise them as harshly? And yes, I`m sure that if alcohol was included in those stats, the numbers would rocket.

emark    [25314.   Posted 16-May-2009 Sat 16:56] View Near Messages
"To have her memory besmirched is contemptible and passé. He needs to grow up"

Hahaha. There`s only one fucker who needs to grow up here. What sort of person makes their entire livelihood out of constantly being offended by everything? He should learn to get over it already.

emark    [25300.   Posted 12-May-2009 Tue 16:09] View Near Messages
Written submissions for Scotland`s Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill (which includes their "extreme porn" law):

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/justice/inquiries/CriminalJusticeandLicensing/ju-criminaljustice-evid.htm

Looks like the usual "OMG an image is violence against women" suspects are in there...

emark    [25294.   Posted 9-May-2009 Sat 07:53] View Near Messages
Re: Paintball

So wait - when it comes to actual guns that can kill people, they talk in terms of stronger controls for gun storage (I can see there might be arguments for and against this, but I can entirely understand the principle of this).

Yet for simulated "violence" that presents no harm at all, it gets an outright ban.

I think this sums up the mad way in which depictions are treated worse than real harmful things. At first I honestly misread it that the school shooter had managed to kill someone with a paint gun, and had to doublecheck...

I wonder if it will still be legal to role-play paintball? Or if images depicting paintballing will still be legal?

emark    [25283.   Posted 7-May-2009 Thu 14:49] View Near Messages
The Government have a "consultation" out on the issue of retaining DNA: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2009-dna-database/

emark    [25276.   Posted 6-May-2009 Wed 14:13] View Near Messages
Also on ID cards - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8036536.stm - when the Government told us the cost for the non-passport ID card would be £30, they neglected to tell us that it would actually cost us £60:

"The cost of the cards will be capped at £30 for the two years but once retailers are brought in to collect the data stores will be able to charge for processing it, with the total cost to applicants expected to be £60 per card."

How much will the combined passport/ID cards end up costing? Another £30 on the planned £93 takes us to £123.

(And private companies that stand to profit from this scheme telling us that there`s nothing to worry about with them handling our data? Of course they`re going to say that!)

emark    [25274.   Posted 6-May-2009 Wed 03:54] View Near Messages
Also see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8035002.stm .

I`m hoping that there will be a great lack of demand of the ID card - in that why pay £30 for an ID card when there are cheaper possibilities (e.g., the Citizen Card - http://www.citizencard.com/ ).

The biggest problem is that it will be sold as a "cheap" passport - £30 for travel through Europe is much cheaper than £90+ that passport/ID cards will cost when they are introduced.

The joke is that only a few years ago, full passports themselves cost about £30! The cost has only shot up rapidly as they`ve gradually be converting the passport. So despite it being "voluntary", the ID card is forced upon us by denying us the right to a passport - anyone wanting to travel will be forced to get an ID card, whether it`s the standalone version that`s only valid in Europe, or a passport/ID card that`s now much more expensive than full passports used to be.

No doubt that anyone signing up for an ID card will be taken as "proof" that people want it - even if the numbers are no greater than the numbers of people who previously wanted passports.

ETA: Although I curiously see that they say "Anyone over 16 in the city with a UK passport" - I don`t know if it will remain the intention that you need a passport to get an ID card, or if that`s just for the moment. I fail to see the point of spending £30 on an ID card if you already have a passport! Hopefully this will reduce the number of people who voluntarily sign up for one...

emark    [25156.   Posted 5-Apr-2009 Sun 06:20] View Near Messages
If anything, I`d be more concerned about young children reading the Daily Mail...

emark    [25146.   Posted 4-Apr-2009 Sat 05:58] View Near Messages
I think criminalising images of 16-17 year olds as child porn is mad. I`d have no problem if there were higher age restrictions on working in porn (which is what the usual argument people make for it), just as there are age restrictions on many jobs. But it shouldn`t be treated as child porn, with all the connotations of that law, and with simple possession criminalised. (The fact that child porn law covers up to 18 ought to be proof that child porn law is meant to be about protecting participants rather than people being turned on by such images, but unfortunately lobbyists like Dr Zoe Hilton and the NSPCC will conveniently ignore this point.)

Criminalising drawings of 16-17 year olds is even madder - there the logic of protecting participants doesn`t apply. How does the logic that it might encourage pedophiles work? As Shaun notes, there is a defence (I believe it`s if your married or living together in a relationship - not all relationships will count). But this new law doesn`t have such a defence. Leaving aside the ludicrous notion of people marrying cartoon characters to be exempt under the law, we will have the situation that a photo of your 17 year old wife or husband is legal to possess, but a drawing is illegal!

So we already have:

Act legal, photo illegal, drawing illegal (as Shaun points out - other examples would be the extreme porn law).

And also:

Act legal, photo legal, drawing illegal (another example is that the cartoon law criminalises even images of *adults* if they predominantly look under 18 - so a drawing of adults roleplaying as schoolgirls might count, even though the photo is legal).

It`s like they`re playing legislative bingo and trying to get all possible combinations.

emark    [25109.   Posted 31-Mar-2009 Tue 03:16] View Near Messages
A six year old?

Can we report them for possession of child pornography?

Especially if this was staged - it means they wouldn`t have any defence for accidentally coming across it. And I`m sure a jury will fairly decide if them accessing it was justified or not, after they`ve been arrested, and had all their electronic items searched and confiscated.

emark    [25092.   Posted 29-Mar-2009 Sun 12:35] View Near Messages
Political spin from the NSPCC on the cartoons law - http://politics.co.uk/analysis/culture-media-and-sport/comment-we-need-to-ban-these-images-$1283060.htm .

And on Jacqui Smith, I love CAAN`s invitation for her to sign up to their statement: http://consentingadultactionnet.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C5CCF94F23E0484D!332.entry

emark    [25090.   Posted 29-Mar-2009 Sun 09:40] View Near Messages
Re: 20000 new images a week.

I wonder if they distinguish between images of abuse, and user-generated images where teens are posting topless pics of themselves to MySpace?

Also, I stumbled across this which tries to debunk various claims: http://libertus.net/censor/resources/statistics-laundering.html (also note that this is a rather old "study", conducted in 2002).

emark    [25087.   Posted 28-Mar-2009 Sat 13:02] View Near Messages
About the child cartoons law - I had a thought about the clause the covers images that show an act merely in the "presence of a child". Would a real photograph be caught by current child porn laws? AFAIK, the law simply says "indecent". I suppose it`s possible a court might say an image is indecent if it looks like the child is made to watch it, but firstly it`s not clear this would catch any image showing a child in the background, secondly it would be up to the jury to decide - this law specifically criminalises it.

So is this an example of something that could be legal in a photograph, but illegal in a drawing? Anyone know of any cases of photographs that had a fully clothed child being ruled as child porn, based on sexual acts between other people taking place in the photograph?

Don`t forget to sign the petition: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Protect-Comics/

emark    [25007.   Posted 12-Mar-2009 Thu 15:35] View Near Messages
"(f) the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary) in the presence of a child."

I must admit, I missed this one - it seems particularly mad to talk about being in the "presence" of a "child" when talking about drawings etc. I mean, consider: a drawing of an adult shagging a farmyard animal would be entirely legal, but if I then doodle a 17 year old in the corner on the scrap of the paper, suddenly it`s illegal child porn!

But then, I could take a pair of scissors, and neatly cut off the bit with the child, and suddenly they are legal. But someone could put them together again whenever they wanted - look, I`ve found a loophole!

Perhaps stickers or "fuzzy felts" could provide an answer - just think, all those pedophiles out there who are apparently obsessed about drawings with adult bestiality, but with a child in the corner, could get round the law by possessing legal drawing of adult bestiality, and then whenever they wanted to get off on it, they`d just apply the sticker or felt with the child drawing on it. Quick, someone tell the Government! How many imaginary children will be imaginarily exposed to imaginary acts of bestiality with imaginary people and imaginary sheep, cows and badgers? Just imagine it!

Clauses (a) and (b) also have this nonsensical "presence of a child" definition. On that note, I`m curious by the overlap in (a)/(b) with (e)/(f). The first two criminalise intercourse, oral sex and masturbation in the presence of a child, which would surely already include animals. But (e) and (f) don`t specify masturbation. So would masturbation of an animal by a child, or in the presence of a child, be illegal to draw? It doesn`t come under (e) or (f), but clause (b) criminalises "an act of masturbation by, of, involving or in the presence of a child".

South Park`s Proper Condom Use would fall foul of this. Well, not the BBFC approved version of course. But people could be criminalised for a scene that`s legal to show on national TV. This mainstream website could be illegal to view, because it`s not the BBFC approved version: http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/74977

emark    [24995.   Posted 11-Mar-2009 Wed 04:44] View Near Messages
Scotland`s "extreme porn" law published http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/24-CrimJustLc/b24s3-introd.pdf , Section 34 (page 56).

See http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/229588/ for more info.

Some thoughts:

"Serious" is replaced with "severe" - god knows what the difference is.

The law is much broader, including any depiction of "rape or other non-consensual penetrative sexual activity" - even if it was actually consensual, an image will be illegal if it looks non-consensual. Part 7 makes it clear that the only context allowed in determining whether it "depicts" an non-consensual act (or falls under any of the other clauses) is the image itself, any accompanying sounds, and its context if the image is part of a series of images.

Similarly, much like the English law, the decision of "pornography" is decided solely by looking at the image, any sounds, and the context if the image is part of a series of images. So "But this image wasn`t really produced for the purpose of porn" won`t help.

The defence for directly participating in consensual acts is there, but not as broad. For "threat to life" and "severe injury", the defence only applies if the act did not really involve a threat, or was not really likely to result in severe injury. In practice, this is the same as the English law (where the defence only applies to acts we can legally consent to), however, at least there is the possibility of a court deciding we can consent to the act. Here, the Government have made up their minds for them, and explicitly left images of consensual acts illegal, unless they are staged.

The defence is also not available if you show or give the image to anyone who didn`t directly participate (even if it`s the photographer, or your partner)!

On the plus side, it looks like they have restricted the law to images that would be illegal under Scotland`s equivalent of the Obscene Publications Act? The image must be "obscene", and this text modifies the law on publication (so unlike the two-faced English law, it seems they haven`t switched to using the dictionary definition?)

(As an aside, I note that the English law makes no reference to sounds - is this just sloppy wording, or could this mean that the prosecution argue that a video be considered illegal by ignoring any context provided by the sounds?)

emark    [24994.   Posted 11-Mar-2009 Wed 04:23] View Near Messages
cor: I fully agree about the issue of 16-17 year olds. People have been making this point, but unfortunately no one in the Government (or AFAICR, in any media articles).

I mean yes, I oppose criminalisation of fictional images of any age as a matter of principle, so perhaps just criticising one point of it sounds like giving up. On the other hand, it is a useful tactic to criticise a law on its weakest point.

This is also a useful way to get more support against this law, from people who might otherwise not want to defend what they see as "child porn" (even if fictional). Let`s be clear here:

This law will criminalise fictional images of consenting adults.

It`s not just 16-17 year olds - it also covers images of any adults, if "the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is [someone under 18] despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of [someone under 18]". And as you say, when we add the difficulties determining the age, it becomes even more broad - as the Melon Farmers image sums up, "How the fuck are we expected to know how old she is?"

An age of consent makes sense for actual people because, despite some problems, it is at least an objective test. A person has an age, that you can theoretically verify. For imaginary characters, drawn non-realistically, it is meaningless.

Another inconsistency is that adults role-playing as schoolgirls/children/etc is legal, a photo of that is legal, but a drawing would be illegal.

Although the law for child porn is 18, the only argument that could support the change (wanting to protect people working in porn at a young age) obviously doesn`t apply to fictional images. Another thought I had - even there, there is a defence if you`re living together in a relationship. There is no mention of a defence here, so a 17 year old could photograph his or her 17 year old partner, but would be breaking the law to draw a sketch of her! (And if they do introduce a defence, how will that work for non-existent characters!)

emark    [24974.   Posted 9-Mar-2009 Mon 14:13] View Near Messages
freeworld:

"I remember thinking at the time the DPA was in the Lords....all credit to Lord Wallace and Baroness Miller for trying make this crap less ghastly, but really it would have been better to table something like the Cohen amendments for the EVP law, rather than adding the OPA definition, which seemed like a non starter-being basically unworkable in a possession context."

In fact they did propose sensible amendments - both the Liberty defence of belief of willing participants, and a restriction to images of actual sexual offences.

But then these were never even voted on - whilst I understand the idea of withdrawing amendments to leave it to later on, I don`t understand not trying at all. They only voted to remove the clause entirely, which is surely the one that would be least likely to pass.

(Another problem is that they botched the OPA amendment - the line number was wrong, leading to a nonsensical bill (er, more so than it was!) due to referring to the wrong bits. Lord Hunt noticed it, but rather than point out the mistake, he just said the law would now be nonsensical. So chances are lots of people voted it down because it was botched, or because they simply didn`t understand what it was meant to be saying...)

(And yes, applying the OPA to private possession is unworkable - I just love that the Government try to have it both ways, both claiming that it`s unworkable, and also claiming that it`s just closing a "loophole" to apply the OPA law to private possession...)

emark    [24963.   Posted 9-Mar-2009 Mon 02:40] View Near Messages
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/4949555/Harriet-Harman-under-attack-over-bid-to-water-down-child-pornography-law.html

I think that exemplifies the very problem we have - the article is rather misleading, she wasn`t calling to make such images legal, she was calling for them to *remain* legal, since this was discussion on the law in 1978.

Yet here we are, over 30 years later, and she`s being dragged through the mud as a pedo-supporter because she dared to suggesting framing a law in terms of evidence of harm. Sure, there are reasonable criticisms to such a law, but that`s not what`s happening - she`s demonised merely for giving her not unreasonable opinion.

It really does show how downhill things have gone, if now cartoons are criminalised with little question, whilst the law on actual child porn was questioned. In 30 years time, are politicians going to be demonised because it turns out they "supported extreme porn", or that they dared to suggest a law on cartoon porn should "only" criminalise publication and showing images to people?

(The alleged links to Paedophile Information Exchange and Paedophile Action for Liberation might seem more worrying, but this seems dubious - what does "links" mean? Note that the organisation referred to, the National Council for Civil Liberties, is now known as Liberty, so are people going to criticise Liberty too?)

ETA: Having said that, the only "attack" seems to be Tim Loughton, the Shadow Children`s Minister, so this seems to amount to nothing. It`s more troubling that the Telegraph has gone on this biased tabloid attack on the issue.

emark    [24955.   Posted 8-Mar-2009 Sun 15:02] View Near Messages
I believe pbr`s criticism was about their ability to argue this law in committee, not on getting elected. I`m sure that politicans are better than I am at winning votes and running popularity campaigns, but that doesn`t mean I can`t criticise them in another area.

I don`t think it matters what majority opinion is - I`m not convinced that say Maria Eagle`s position is a "majority opinion" either (most people probably don`t care either way). But even if 99% of the population agreed with her, that doesn`t stop us criticising the arguments made. I mean sure, if their argument was based on "Most people have demanded this material to be banned, and here is the evidence, so I feel I have to go along with that", then I could see what you mean, but they haven`t done this AFAICT.

emark    [24932.   Posted 5-Mar-2009 Thu 19:04] View Near Messages
That was my first thought - but, I remember how many people refused to sign the extreme porn petition because "oh, it can`t possibly affect BDSM". As much as we disagree with them, this nonetheless seemed a common response.

But here, people are only asked to sign a petition asking for comics not to be covered. Yes, we know that the law is likely intended to cover them, but it`s easier to get people to sign a petition if you don`t need to convince people of this fact. The petition spreads awareness of the law (which most people will not have heard of at all), and explains the risk that comics will be covered, if nothing changes.

I agree that I`d rather a petition that opposed a law in its entirety, and got thousands of signatures. But I`m not aware of any such petition, and it seems unlikely that that will happen. In which case, I`d be happy to see a more cautiously worded petition, if it gets more signatures (it`s the same tactic used by Longhurst, after all - use a biasedly worded petition that people are more likely to support, but still use it to claim support for the law you want).

emark    [24930.   Posted 5-Mar-2009 Thu 16:58] View Near Messages
New petition against the law on cartoons: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Protect-Comics/

(I know, I don`t expect the Government to listen, but it can be a useful way of spreading awareness about the law.)

emark    [24918.   Posted 4-Mar-2009 Wed 17:49] View Near Messages
I agre with pbr. Also from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmpublic/coroners/090303/pm/90303s08.htm , it look like Edward Garnier agreed to withdraw his amendment. Here is the stunning argument from Maria Eagle (the same one who lied about promising to fix the problems in the "extreme porn" law - you can`t trust a word that comes out of her mouth):

"We ought to remind ourselves that these are the worst kind of images at the top end of unacceptability in our society and at the most dangerous end of potential to harm our children. We are determined to ensure that we protect our children and not to allow loopholes like this to make a mockery of the law. On that basis, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will ask leave to withdraw his amendment."

"Most dangerous end of potential" - what the hell is that? Not a single piece of evidence has presented to show the danger. I think Maria Eagle is the top end of unacceptability...

AFACT, the committee has covered the law on cartoons on:

3 February AM ( http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmpublic/coroners/090203/pm/90203s07.htm )

5 February PM ( http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmpublic/coroners/090205/pm/90205s01.htm )

3 March PM ( http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmpublic/coroners/090303/pm/90303s06.htm )

(This is based for me doing a quick word search of various terms such as "child".)

I`m concerned at the way Edward Garnier responds to Maria Eagle`s tired argument about these images being allegedly used to groom children:

"There must be third party interaction to groom. The child must look at the image, and as soon as the dirty old man shows it to the child for the purposes of grooming, there is publication under my definition, because he will have made the image known to a third party. That is why we must work out whether we are trying to stop publication in various forms—by internet, e-mail or physically showing someone a hard copy document—for all the sensible, catch-all provisions in clause 49, or whether mere possession is sufficient to create a criminal offence."

Now sure, if it was illegal to show an image to a child, that`s fine, but that`s not what the amended law would say. The definition of "publication" would be so broad that showing anyone - even in private, even an adult who wanted to see it, would count as "publication"!

(Still, it`d be better than a possession offence, and would be harder to prove - you wouldn`t automatically be guilty just because it`s on your hard disk.)

Mr Boswell asks what if the image was made from real people - erm, isn`t he aware that real child porn, along with "realistic" child porn, as well as non-realistic images derived from such images, are already illegal?

Mrs Moon refers to Edward Garnier as a "libertarian" because he only wants to criminalise distributing or showing the images, and not simple possession. My god, it would be funny if it wasn`t so serious.

It`s depressing that, even with the still broad, authoritarian and unnecessary law that Edward Garnier proposes, to see him having to battle it out with these idiotic and laughable arguments from those who think the law doesn`t go far enough.

George Howarth says: "What I am saying is that we want those offences prevented. If somebody is in the process of arousing themselves sexually by that process, it must be part of something. In a lot of cases, it will be part of something that will lead on to something else."

There you have it - next time someone claims that these laws aren`t thought crimes, or they aren`t about what people are aroused by, here it is: these laws are about criminalising people based on their thoughts, in order to prevent the possibility that they might commit a crime in future.

Jenny Willott makes good arguments, and thankfully challenges the law as a whole.

Issues such as criminalising images of adults (16-17 year olds, or adults with child-like features) are not even mentioned - even those arguing against it seem to be accepting that the law as written is all about pedophilia.

emark    [24905.   Posted 1-Mar-2009 Sun 08:12] View Near Messages
Re: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7916110.stm - that is worrying.

"The policy paper, for England and Wales, also proposes scrapping some forms which officers have to fill in." - yes, those pointless forms, obviously there`s no need for them at all!

"Suspects could be fingerprinted, swabbed for DNA and even charged, with the authorisation of a police sergeant via video-link." - Oh, just brilliant. How long before we get judgement and sentencing? (Sure, it was Labour who brought in the keeping of DNA and fingerprinting, but it`s worrying that Conservatives seem eager to get them too.) For charging, how would this allow people access to a lawyer? Or the usual phone call, and so on?

"Twelve years of Labour red tape and bureaucracy" - if only the worse thing that Labour did was red tape and bureaucracy.

On a more friendly note, don`t forget to sign the petition for the Lib Dem`s Freedom Bill: http://freedom.libdems.org.uk/petition/

emark    [24894.   Posted 26-Feb-2009 Thu 16:58] View Near Messages
Does anyone know how to submit written evidence to this committee for naughty drawings?

It would seem rather crap if only politically lobbyists like the NSPCC are allowed a say.

(And only a week to go until committee is up ... I haven`t been following it too closely, has anyone been giving evidence in opposition to the law?)

ETA: A full list of written evidence is at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmpublic/cmpbcor.htm , but I don`t see details on how to submit any?

emark    [24884.   Posted 25-Feb-2009 Wed 19:25] View Near Messages
£100,000 a year? So much for the crap about how they make hardly any money, that we recently heard from POPPY.

At least Kidscape are actually talking about a child here - despite their name, that didn`t stop them writing to the "extreme porn" consultation in favour of the law. In fact, it was Michelle Elliott who wrote their response - she made the batshit and unsupported claim that "many if not most" participants in "extreme" porn are "victims" who are unwilling (I think - her handwriting was near illegible). In fact the response contained no information or argument at all, just her quick personal opinion that the law should be passed, and as a result, the Government count her as an organisation in support of the law.

(Since sex with a 15 year old is already illegal in any circumstances, it would be ludicrous to use this to justify any law involving adults - however, it wouldn`t surprise me if people do that.)

emark    [24882.   Posted 25-Feb-2009 Wed 16:16] View Near Messages
I filled in the BBFC survey. A bit disappointed at not being able to say "I don`t care about your age ratings, just stop with the censorship".

I also love how the list "transsexual" as an option for sexual orientation, but they have nothing other than male/female for gender...

emark    [24878.   Posted 24-Feb-2009 Tue 20:09] View Near Messages
Re: child drawings law amendments - it`s good to hear that some of the MPs are critising this. But AFAICS these amendments aren`t passed - remember that the DPA also had sane amendments proposed (although curiously not a suggestion to amend it to publication), but they got dropped and never even voted in - not in the Commons, nor the Lords. I`ll be pleased if, somehow, things are different this time.

emark    [24858.   Posted 22-Feb-2009 Sun 12:39] View Near Messages
Re: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7474801.stm - I`m against positive discrimination, but that`s not what this is. It clearly states that a man could also be preferred over a woman, so this does not support your claim that any group have an advantage.

The argument is that if you`ve got a set of employees of all one race/gender, and you need someone of another, you would be able to do so. And hang on - surely it`s the current situation that is "PC", in that firms cannot hire who they want, out of fear of discrimination laws?

"Of course, we are oppressed in far more ways, like the DPA as you rightly point out - and just about all of it stems from CommuNuLabour"

But that`s my point - the DPA doesn`t oppress people for being white and British! It oppresses people with a minority sexuality. You can be black or foreign, and into BDSM and so on; meanwhile, the majority of white British people who are vanilla and straight will be unaffected by the law. And it`s white British people like the likes of Longhurst, Salter and Harman who call for such laws.

Laws like the DPA have much in common with many previous oppressions of minorities (e.g., of gay people).

Now, it`s certainly two faced the way that Labour claim to be inclusive of "minorities", which is only in the context of being gay, or in terms of race, while they ignore BDSM - but that doesn`t support the notion that somehow white British people now have it worse than anyone else.

"But it now has a multitude of meanings, one of which being it`s abuse"

Except no one actually uses the term "PC", except those people claiming it to be bad. And yes, it does mean many different things. Political Correctness meant changing things out of fear of offending people. It is people who claim "PC gone mad!" who have abused the term, by using it for absolutely anything they disagree with. The DM story you link to is a case of point. What is it to do with "PC"? One might as well just say in response that it is Blears who is being PC. I fail to see why focusing bus services where people might be more likely to need them is such an awful idea. I`m sure there are arguments for and against it, but the point is that branding it "PC" is not making any kind of rational argument. The term has been abused so that it now means "I think this is stupid", and as such doesn`t actually explain anything beyond the fact that the person doesn`t like it.

"not being able to sing carols at Christmas in case you offend someone who isn`t a Christian"

Citation? Come on - it is not illegal to sing a carol. With all the serious issues and real laws that are being passed, it doesn`t help to scaremonger about things which are clearly not true. (And in my experience, it`s far more common that Christians are the ones offended, about the supposed "war on Christmas", use of terms such as happy holidays and winterval - it`s those who want to suppress such terms who are being PC - or things like it being difficult to buy advent calendars; not to mention other things such as atheist bus campaigns...)

I hate Harman, along with much of what Labour have done. I`m not sure that the issues are helped by claiming oppression for being white or British. It means our case looks dubious, simply by looking how unaffected most white British people are. And it ignores that non-white or non-British people will also be affected by draconian laws, whether it`s anti-terrorism law, or laws on naughty pictures and cartoons.

emark    [24852.   Posted 22-Feb-2009 Sun 07:03] View Near Messages
Re: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1033882/Pictured-Smiling-preacher-hate-Abu-Qatada-enjoying-800-000-home-life-benefits.html

Firstly, whatever human rights laws or judge rulings that apply to him, apply to us all. It`s the same laws and rulings that will help prevent things like detention without charge - or indeeed, "police state, mass surveillance, the appearance of the thought crime, wholescale abuse of the legislative process" Yes, that means even for foreigners with funny beards who say things that we don`t like.

I`m confused that the worse thing that can be said of him is that he sometimes smiles, and makes jokes. Obviously if he put on a sad serious face all the time, it would be fine!

If it`s true that he`s committing benefit fraud, then the Daily Mail should report the information and get him done for that. If he`s not, then they should stop whining.

I`m not saying that I necessarily agree with this situation - I don`t think any of us have all the facts to decide that. But I`d say the scaremongering of this sort of thing does far more to push people to voting BNP, then the original thing in itself.

ETA: Your story is out of date, anyway. He was sent back to prison ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7759837.stm ) and will now be deported ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7896457.stm ). Perhaps if this was reported as widely as the original uproar, we`d have less people wanting to vote for the BNP...

A quick look suggests that the issue is whether his conviction in Jordan was fair, or whether it relied on evidence extracted by torture. I have no idea what the truth is, but it seems odd to me to be fearful of things like police states, but then to be happy to accept it without question when it goes on in other countries.

The other point at issue is what to do with people who risk being tortured in their country of origin. I`m not sure there are easy answers here.

emark    [24851.   Posted 22-Feb-2009 Sun 06:54] View Near Messages
"PC twats like Harman actively promoting and endorsing favouritism of foreigners and ethnic minorities over white British people. It`s got to the point where I feel as though I have less rights in this country than certain minority groups have"

Do you have an example?

I also don`t see what "PC" has anything to do with this. Indeed, I`d say that trying to ban a film because it offends people is political correctness, so it`s odd that the likes of the Daily Mail brand things as "PC gone mad", when they themselves call for other things that I`d say are PC...

As for benefits - I`m sure the system can be played, but then "white British" people are capable of that too. I`ve never felt oppressed for being a white British person. There are plenty of real things that may oppress us - things like the dangerous pictures act, for example. Given that there are plenty of real issues, I`m not sure what is to be gained by playing the "Oppressed white British Daily Mail reader" card...

emark    [24833.   Posted 19-Feb-2009 Thu 17:21] View Near Messages
Can we ban Salter out the country for his hateful comments against people`s sexuality?

We could send him to Guatemala.

emark    [24827.   Posted 19-Feb-2009 Thu 04:12] View Near Messages
Indeed - and in fact, the law explicitly criminalises even images of adults, if "the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child".

As for Hentai, the consultation response had this to say:

"issues such as the prevalence of increasingly sophisticated forms of technology, the
widespread availability of foreign art-forms and genres such as Hentai, the diversity and
expectations of international culture and the increase in non-photographic images of visual
depictions of child abuse hosted by foreign or international internet servers, were commonly
raised or implicitly acknowledged by respondents from across the spectrum of opinion."

What does that mean? I raised the issue of Hentai in my response, but as something that should not be covered, yet here it seems to suggest they are raised as an issue of concern.

It later says:

"Many individuals, particularly those familiar with the material, expressed concern that the
legislation could affect possession of unsolicited images of Hentai, received unintentionally
amidst more mainstream Manga images."

Again, nothing about those responses that mentioned Hentai as something that should remain legal - hentai is here implied as something that would be criminalised, and the only concern is receiving them unsolicited.

It would be curious to see what the actual consultation responses were (have they been released? Scotland`s at least are at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/crimes/pornography/child-pornography/childsexualabuse/ConsResp ). It`s worth noting that, when replying to the extreme porn consultation, Greater Manchester police stated "Would like to see account of several child cartoon images e.g. Hentai material" ( http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Police ).

Here we are worrying if Hentai might be unintentionally caught, but it`s quite possible that, to the police and possibly the Government, Hentai is explicitly seen as something that should be illegal.

emark    [24825.   Posted 18-Feb-2009 Wed 18:55] View Near Messages
@SasaMisa: Don`t forget to check what the political landscape is like in your particular constituency. Just because the Tories are the only real alternative chance of forming a Government, doesn`t mean a Tory MP is the best to tactically vote for in all constituencies.

emark    [24815.   Posted 17-Feb-2009 Tue 17:54] View Near Messages
Liz "Longford" on Faith and suffering: http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2009/02/16/longford_feature.shtml

I`m not sure what annoys me more - the biased pro-legislation stance that this article takes (including the misleading claim that Amnesty support the law, when they stated they do not) - or the idea of how wonderful it is that she still has her "Faith". Given that they can`t even get her name right though, it`s worrying how little research must have been done for this article.

How many will suffer at the hands of this law?

emark    [24793.   Posted 15-Feb-2009 Sun 09:49] View Near Messages
Well, I don`t think the likes of The Sun are real newspapers ;) However, they do sometimes talk on political issues (e.g., The Sun supporting extension of detention without charge). I wish the tabloids would just stick at celebrity gossip...

It`s still true that I ought to be able to decide that Hitler was evil based on the facts, without being told it, and even if "evil" is appropriate in the most extreme example doesn`t justify it in all the other occurances. The point is it removes any chance of debate - if you disagree, you`re supporting someone who`s "evil" or a "pervert". It`s also an ad-hominem to spend time insulting the person rather than arguing why they are wrong. I mean, it`s the style of writing I would look down upon if it was a 14 year old writing on their blog, let alone an adult who writes for a profession.

And yes, I know it gets sales. All newspapers get sales when they scaremonger rather than report facts. That doesn`t mean I have to agree with it or think it a good thing.

emark    [24790.   Posted 15-Feb-2009 Sun 07:52] View Near Messages
"I enjoy the "Mail", as a newspaper I think it is easily the best news coverage of the "tabloids""

Best of the tabloids... Not exactly a ringing endorsement is it :/

The problem isn`t so much whether one agrees or disagrees with them, but every so often tabloids like to go on scaremongering campaign (the evils of the Internet, violent video games, etc), or use a writing style of "EVIL pervert who did SICK things" (yes, I think I can decide for myself what to think). I don`t agree with everything in the broadsheets, but I`m more likely to respect the way they put their argument across.

emark    [24782.   Posted 13-Feb-2009 Fri 15:52] View Near Messages
I wonder, would Rapelay risk falling under the proposed law criminalising all sexual images of under-18s? I don`t know what`s actually shown in the game, but I see the game is described as involving two young children who can be raped.

(Although that`s another thought in itself - a computer game wouldn`t by itself store anything like a simple image of someone having sex, because it would typically be stored in the form of 3D models and animation data - would a computer game that allows the player to simulate underage sex be illegal to possess?)

Okay, I realise this isn`t a great example anyway, as many people would say the game should be banned anyway - but criminalising possession is a long step from banning it off Amazon (not to mention the oddity that it`s the underage sex that criminalises it, not the rape).

emark    [24775.   Posted 13-Feb-2009 Fri 04:28] View Near Messages
Re: 16 and 17 year olds.

So would one have to be married to the 16/17 year old fictional character, or would it be sufficient to have a fictional marriage...?

This law is madness.

emark    [24768.   Posted 12-Feb-2009 Thu 17:27] View Near Messages
Oh I do agree - I don`t think there is any justification for criminalising any kinds of fictional images, including fictional child porn, no matter how distasteful.

I just note that, whilst the debate on "fictional child porn" usually focuses on images that were intended to depict underage sex, the law being proposed is so broad that it will catch all sorts of other kinds of images. I guess my approach is that of criticising the law on its weakest points - for example, can even those in favour of criminalising drawings of underage sex, tell us why a drawing of two consenting 17 year olds needs to be illegal? The idea that images of consenting adults will "fuel the fantasies of pedophiles" (or whatever it is that they claim in support of this law) becomes completely nonsensical...

emark    [24765.   Posted 12-Feb-2009 Thu 15:45] View Near Messages
The Coroners and Justice Bill - which will criminalise possession of all sexual images of under-18s - is currently being debated in committee.

There`s some mention at:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmpublic/coroners/090203/pm/90203s07.htm - Witnesses from the NSPCC and Barnardo`s. Jenny Willott asks for evidence that such pictures cause harm. Both witnesses say they were not there to talk about this part of the bill. There`s then some discussion as to whether viewing an image online would count as "possession", although no real answer is given. Also http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmpublic/coroners/090203/pm/90203s09.htm .

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmpublic/coroners/090205/pm/90205s01.htm - Director of Public Prosecutions. Edward Garnier asks about the good old "disgusting" etc clause. He replies "It is a familiar formula" - haha, because obviously the extreme porn law is such a good, tried and trusted law! Also an interesting point on possession: whilst this would be a matter for the courts, he claims that they would proceed as if viewing images (e.g., streamed video) counted as possession.

It`s sad that there`s no real criticism - no mention of how the hell you tell the age of a fictional cartoon character, or how the law is so broad it will criminalise far more than those images intended for pedophiles...

(See http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2008-09/coronersandjustice.html for full links.)

emark    [24634.   Posted 3-Feb-2009 Tue 15:44] View Near Messages
pbr: The wife`s buttock case was R v. Wilson. I believe that the official reason for the distinction between this, and the Spanner case, was that it was considered to be more comparable to a tattoo, and not an act of sadomasochism (although yes, I`m sure the fact that Spanner involved gay men probably played a part in the courts ruling differently, but they`d never admit to that in a ruling).

So we are still left with consensual sadomasochism being illegal, whilst consenting to assault for any other reason is legal.

Although perhaps more interesting is the judge`s comments in the Mosley case: even though this involved actual harm, and was clearly sadomasochism, the judge ridiculed the idea that it was illegal, and stated that the Spanner rule did not apply, as it "involved cruelty of an altogether different order". So even without overturning Spanner, there is perhaps hope that some S&M acts would be found legal, so long as they are milder than the acts that took place in Spanner.

emark    [24623.   Posted 3-Feb-2009 Tue 05:29] View Near Messages
I don`t think being safe under the OPA means it`s safe under the "extreme" porn law.

Firstly, not being prosecuted under the OPA doesn`t mean it`s legal. There`s no magic way to know if something is legal under the OPA without taking it to trial.

Secondly, the description of "a subset of that which is already illegal to publish under the OPA" is nowhere in the new law, and is just the Government`s opinion. The law does not have the same "deprave and corrupt" test (I would be amused to see members of the Government being called as defence witnesses, in order to tell the court that it`s only meant to cover material already illegal to publish...)

As for the site, remember it doesn`t say that spanking is illegal - I`m presuming he means that which leaves bruising. Until there have been court cases, we`ll have no idea how "serious" is interpreted. And whilst I`d hope that "anus" doesn`t include "buttocks", it`s easier to make that speculation when you`re not the one running a website.

The website Informed Consent has also tightened its restrictions on allowed photos.

emark    [24611.   Posted 2-Feb-2009 Mon 04:00] View Near Messages
Re: house prices.

If they were worried about the effect on house prices, maybe they shouldn`t have advertised the fact to everyone by arranging protests, and whining about it to the national media.

And personally I wouldn`t want to live anywhere where I might get harrassed by bigots because they don`t like what I get up to in private.

emark    [24602.   Posted 31-Jan-2009 Sat 06:51] View Near Messages
"Given all the laws lately are targeting people with supposedly `deviant sexual interests`, it seems to me that the Government, intentionally or not, is creating a public divide."

Indeed, and look at what MacAskill says:

"I want to reduce the demand for these extreme images and send out a clear message that they and the people who look at them have no place in a civilised society."

Not just the images - he clearly states that the people have no place in "civilised" society. He continues:

"Those who seek to find pleasure from other people`s pain and exploitation will find themselves prosecuted and punished."

Which might be fine, except for the fact that he is presumably including consensual participants in this.

This is why, aside from opposing the law on the grounds of censorship, I`ve thought it`s an issue as someone into BDSM. The law may only target those in possession of certain images, but the stigma is towards anyone who derives enjoyment from consensual pain and humiliation - when we have politicians saying such people have no place in society, that`s a pretty strong message of hate.

emark    [24588.   Posted 30-Jan-2009 Fri 04:33] View Near Messages
http://www.extremeporn.org.uk/ looks like a spoof of some kind to me - and I`ve heard other people suggesting the same (also see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/29/extreme_vigilantes/ ).

Note that the site`s description of the law sounds rather critical, pointing out problems.

It`s unclear what their aim is - it could be to raise awareness about the law (which they`ve achieved - there was an article in the Metro), or make people more likely to oppose the law if they think there are vigilantes taking advantage of it. If their plan is to actually do as they claim, then it could be a tactic of showing just how many people might possess such material.

In a way, I`d say selective laws are worse, as it allows bad laws to be tolerated. However, the risk with this sort of action is that the police will happily prosecute anyone and everyone reported to them.

Talking of which, see that the IWF have now updated their website to include "extreme porn" - but only under their obscene category. This means they won`t be blocking material, but only going after the publisher. And non-UK material will be completely ignored (unless uploaded by a British citizen).

Still, I think reporting any possibly "extreme" image found in mainstream media would be an interesting plan, to see what they say - either they`ll have to make a claim that the images are legal, or are they really going to report mainstream websites?

emark    [24558.   Posted 29-Jan-2009 Thu 04:58] View Near Messages
I`m slightly curious that an apparently random website posting information about the law gets covered by The Telegraph seemingly just like that, when organisations like Backlash and CAAN only got media attention after some struggle. Don`t get me wrong, I`m glad of the coverage - I`m just curious how Comic Shop Voice do it :)

No doubt the Government will just shrug it off as "Of course this law won`t affect cartoons", but then, we know now the Government will ignore any criticism of this law anyway, no matter how well argued. What`s more important is stirring up as much awareness and opposition, so this is still good (and one could argue that, even though I think the Government`s intention wasn`t to criminalise cartoons, there`s always the possiblity of an insane court making a ruling - similar to claiming that cartoons are "real people" in child porn law and so on...)

It`s amusing watching the chain of articles: Comic Shop Voice talks about the extreme porn law, but then confusingly links to a Register article on the child cartoon law. The Telegraph correctly reports the issue as being about two distinct law. Then the Spectator references The Telegraph and refers to "two bills", but then talks as if both of them are about extreme porn. To add to the confusion, they incorrectly refer to it as a bill passing through Parliament.

So yes, I`m glad of any coverage of opposition, though part of me wishes they`d listen to people who have been campaigning on this for years, and could tell them the correct information...

emark    [24557.   Posted 29-Jan-2009 Thu 04:57] View Near Messages
I`m slightly curious that an apparently random website posting information about the law gets covered by The Telegraph seemingly just like that, when organisations like Backlash and CAAN only got media attention after some struggle. Don`t get me wrong, I`m glad of the coverage - I`m just curious how Comic Shop Voice do it :)

No doubt the Government will just shrug it off as "Of course this law won`t affect cartoons", but then, we know now the Government will ignore any criticism of this law anyway, no matter how well argued. What`s more important is stirring up as much awareness and opposition, so this is still good (and one could argue that, even though I think the Government`s intention wasn`t to criminalise cartoons, there`s always the possiblity of an insane court making a ruling - similar to claiming that cartoons are "real people" in child porn law and so on...)

It`s amusing watching the chain of articles: Comic Shop Voice talks about the extreme porn law, but then confusingly links to a Register article on the child cartoon law. The Telegraph correctly reports the issue as being about two distinct law. Then the Spectator references The Telegraph and refers to "two bills", but then talks as if both of them are about extreme porn. To add to the confusion, they incorrectly refer to it as a bill passing through Parliament.

So yes, I`m glad of any coverage of opposition, though part of me wishes they`d listen to people who have been campaigning on this for years, and could tell them the correct information...

emark    [24497.   Posted 25-Jan-2009 Sun 15:27] View Near Messages
I`ve just got back home from the CAAN protest. I had my picture taking a few times too :) Not sure what the media coverage will be like - sadly, despite bigger numbers of people present, I did hear there were less media there; possibly they`re not so interested when people aren`t being led around in chains... More generally, it`ll be interesting to see if the commencement of this law gets any coverage at all.

I`d donate to a defence fund. I think one sticky point is the question of what sort of prosecution it`s used to defend. Ultimately someone such as Backlash or CAAN would have to be trusted to make a decision on that - but I fear some people saying "Oh, I only want to defend this kind of material, not that kind" (it`s not like No2ID`s defence fund, where they can make a fund specifically for people refusing to have an ID card).

Alternatively it`ll be a lot clearer to do it when someone specific is prosecuted - although there may be less time then to gather the money.

emark    [24471.   Posted 24-Jan-2009 Sat 08:41] View Near Messages
Don`t forget the "extreme porn" law protest in London tomorrow (Sunday) - any else going along from here?

(Details at http://caan.org.uk/campaigns/Action25Jan.html , http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=43670742373 .)

emark    [24441.   Posted 21-Jan-2009 Wed 11:19] View Near Messages
Well, "image" means any image, not just photo-realistic.

I did notice this too, that they don`t explicitly state it must be realistic. But I guess they don`t need to (also note the references to "imaginary" children and animals).

I agree it is very deceiving though - also note how they talk about a "child", and only later define that to include 16/17 year olds, or even those over 18 who might have features that look under-18, as well as "imaginary" children. I can easily imagine people reading the law and saying "I don`t see anything wrong with that" (much like the extreme porn law, where it`s not at all obvious that it applies to staged images, thus we have to explain the issues to anyone who reads it, and even then, they refuse to accept it).

emark    [24438.   Posted 20-Jan-2009 Tue 15:18] View Near Messages
Re: MoJ Letter on "Extreme" Porn: "WTF? Surely they had something in mind when they rammed this through?"

My thoughts too - whilst they are correct to say that they can`t say what images will or won`t be illegal, as that`s up to the court, they should be able to answer questions such as "What images did you intend to be covered by this legislation?" or "What images should the police prosecute somebody for?"

Well done to phantom for persevering at this. I hope to get round to sending them another letter myself to ask this, but I may need to bang my head against a brick wall first in preparation.

emark    [24421.   Posted 18-Jan-2009 Sun 06:17] View Near Messages
cor: I think that psychics and religions should follow the same rules as everyone else. Does accepting donations mean that any unsupported claims are not allowed in advertising? If so, sure, I agree that religions should not make unprove claims in advertising.

(And as I say, the BHA have been following these rules too, with the addition of the word "probably".)

Do you have a link for the "entertainment purposes only"? I`ve not heard that - I presume that would be *one* way of getting round the law, that some psychics might prefer, but the other way would be not to make the unprove claims in the first place, so I don`t think we`d ever see religions having to say "entertainment purposes only".

emark    [24414.   Posted 17-Jan-2009 Sat 18:32] View Near Messages
Re: hatred on grounds of sexual orientation, the Act says ( http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080004_en_33#sch16 ):

---
Meaning of “hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation”

In this Part “hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation” means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to sexual orientation (whether towards persons of the same sex, the opposite sex or both).”
---

I believe there`s another law that also defines sexual orientation solely in terms of straight/gay/bi, and explicitly mentions sadism - alongside pedophilia (!) - as examples of things that the Government doesn`t think are a sexuality. I can`t recall which law this is though.

freeworld:

"I don`t ever recall seeing religious or political "advertising" on buses, but I am short sighted and may have missed it."

They certainly exist - I`ve seen them, and this was the reason for the Atheist Bus Campaign in the first place. The response of myself was not to urge a ban on it, but just to be amused and ignore it. The response of Ariane Sherine was to run her own advert too.

Also note that the advert is actually an advert for a charity (the British Humanist Association), so one would have to be careful of how the restriction is made. But yes - I don`t think anyone would care if there are restrictions, so long as the restrictions applied to religious organisations too. But the point is that there aren`t restrictions, and nobody seemd to be demanding restrictions until the atheist advert came along...

@cor: I think the point about psychics is that they were selling a product, thus they weren`t allowed to make false claims about what they could do. That seems reasonable to me - the issue is fraud. If someone was selling a product saying "God will cure you" (or "God won`t cure you" - or whatever the strong atheist equivalent might be), then that would come under that too, but that doesn`t apply to the religious adverts or the atheist advert. Also, they say "probably" so that shouldn`t be an issue anyway (if Carlsberg can sell "probably" the best beer in the world, there`s plenty of precedent that this avoids any issues of false advertising).

emark    [24410.   Posted 17-Jan-2009 Sat 06:52] View Near Messages
"I`m in 2 minds about this bus advertising "no god" stuff. How would we view a poster on a bus paid for by a Mosque saying "Allah is great and the one true God and you are wrong if you believe differently", or a Christian fundementalist one saying "If you don`t come to Jesus watch out, you will not enjoy the after life!""

But there are religious adverts that advertise religious beliefs. That`s what started the campaign off after all - it was in response to Christian adverts, see the article that started it all off: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/20/transport.religion

It`s not clear to me why adverts on public transport are different to any other adverts in public (e.g., on clearly visible billboards)? Either way, there aren`t any rules against allowing religious adverts on them.

emark    [24406.   Posted 16-Jan-2009 Fri 15:47] View Near Messages
spoonbender: Note some Guardian CiF contributors have been arguing against this law for years (e.g., Frank Fisher). Although sadly, there have been a few who have been writing in support. The majority of commenters to these articles are opposed to the law, however.

I haven`t seen much from the Guardian outside of individual viewpoints of CiF contributors, so I wouldn`t say the Guardian was whipping up opposition, unfortunately.

emark    [24392.   Posted 15-Jan-2009 Thu 18:06] View Near Messages
Re: "Possession of prohibited images of children" - the HTML version is at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmbills/009/09009.25-31.html#j3_100a .

* I see they`ve borrowed much of the wording from the extreme porn law, because that`s obviously such a good law.

* As I suspected, the age limit for these non-existent children is 18 years. So sex with a 17 year old is legal, but draw an imaginary scene of the same thing, and get three years in prison.

* "Prohibited"? That`s very restrained of them, it makes a change from "Extremely violent disgusting images" etc. (I also note the tautology of a law that prohibits prohibited images...)

I haven`t see anything in the press about this.

emark    [24344.   Posted 10-Jan-2009 Sat 09:14] View Near Messages
Unfortunately even when MPs do criticise these laws, it counts for nothing as the Government can push through what it likes. Even the Lords are not truely independent, as many Labour lords will just follow the whips.

Some of these laws (e.g., the extreme porn law) are passed as part of a much bigger law, with the Government allowing no vote, and hardly any time for discussion, on the relevant part. (There`s also a ridiculous inconsistency in that crackpot schemes like the plans last year to give MPs control over the BBFC got most of a day`s debate, the same amount of time that was allowed for the entirety of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill...)

emark    [24330.   Posted 8-Jan-2009 Thu 17:34] View Near Messages
IanG: Well sure, in some ways it`s more restrictive than the OPA, in that it can only apply to sexual material. But that`s no consolation for anyone convicted of publishing consensual sexual material!

And I would also argue that that makes the law more unfair - sex is seen as bad, but other things are not no matter how offensive they might be.

"All that`s really clear is that `obscenity` is all in the mind of the beholder and should not be the basis of any criminal law on either side of the Atlantic. Obscenity law is and of itself an abuse of human rights."

Yes, I am entirely in agreement :)

emark    [24326.   Posted 7-Jan-2009 Wed 18:16] View Near Messages
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test for the Miller test.

I agree with cor - there`s nothing in it that restricts it to actual abuse.

emark    [23985.   Posted 9-Dec-2008 Tue 15:44] View Near Messages
BOD: "Personally after taking another look at the wikipedia page and image I think it should be barred"

I`m curious that if you really think this is child porn, you keep downloading the image, and admitting to it on a public website. Is looking at child porn okay then? And if you think it should be barred, why do you keep looking at it - surely if you want it censored, that means you shouldn`t be looking at it either?

"I`m sure you can see the young girls as yet undeveloped breasts even though her bottom half is obscured by the cracked glass very disturbing."

So it`s illegal because of as yet non-existent breasts? Are nappy adverts child porn too?

(Apologies if you were being sarcastic here.)

emark    [23964.   Posted 9-Dec-2008 Tue 04:20] View Near Messages
BOD: Do you think that text (which has also been blocked by the IWF) is likely to be illegal child porn?

Even if there is an argument that it`s better to block images rather than people being arrested, there`s several problems with what the IWF have done that have nothing to do with this (other examples being directing all Wikipedia accesses through a single IP, and faking 404 pages). Also there should be some accountability, and oversight by a court to determine if images are illegal or not, rather than blocking everything that might be "potentially" illegal.

emark    [23955.   Posted 8-Dec-2008 Mon 16:23] View Near Messages
Perhaps one reason why the Guardian didn`t show the whole image is for fear of being blocked themselves. But I agree with sergio, it shows that someone at the Guardian must have downloaded and edited the image. They also link to the article with the image in question. If this was really child porn, would any mainstream media publication dare do either of these things? No, they wouldn`t touch it with a bargepole.

I can`t help thinking - if I downloaded something I thought was child porn, I`d be deleting my cache, and hoping I didn`t get noticed. I certainly wouldn`t be admitting it on public websites! But for those people who think it`s child porn, this is exactly what many of them are doing. So either they think it`s perfectly acceptable to download child porn - or, I suspect that they don`t really consider to be the same thing as child porn at all.

People can question whether this image is "sexualised" or whatever, but I feel that no one is really treating this as child porn. Child porn is just a label they throw around because they find it offensive - and that just insults and trivialises the suffering to people who are victims of child abuse, in my opinion.

emark    [23915.   Posted 7-Dec-2008 Sun 07:27] View Near Messages
IanG: I agree. And whether or not it is child porn should be up to the courts to decide.

It also shows that they are willing to blacklist mainstream sites - well, at least they get points for being consistent I suppose (there`s nothing worse than selective enforcement) - but the point is that images that might "potentially" come under the extreme porn law have been found on mainstream non-porn sites. Now even if it may be the case that such a site would never be prosecuted, this shows that the IWF may happily censor any site that has a potentially extreme image on it, no matter what site it is on, and for what purpose.

emark    [23906.   Posted 6-Dec-2008 Sat 19:26] View Near Messages
It looks like the IWF have added Wikipedia to their blacklist: http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10009938o-2000331777b,00.htm , http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=British_ISPs_restrict_access_to_Wikipedia_amid_child_pornography_allegations&stable=1 .

The result is this is that major ISPs have blocked the filtered content, which appears to be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Virgin_Killer.jpg , due to the image depicting a naked prepubescent girl (amusingly the page is still accessable via the URL http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Killer ).

A knock on effect is that all accesses to Wikipedia (i.e., for any page) through these ISPs come through a single IP address. As a result, Wikipedia have had to disable anonymous edits via these ISPs, as they cannot distinguish between different users when it comes to abusive edits. Registered users can continue to edit.

The affected ISPs include Virgin Media, Be/O2/Telefonica, EasyNet/UK Online, PlusNet, Demon and Opal. My ISP blocks the pages - I don`t even get a message explaining why, just a fake "page not found" error.

The "extreme porn" law is far broader and vague than child porn law - since the IWF will apparently be handling this new law too (according to the guidance at http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/extreme-pornographic-images.pdf ), will we see even more pages being blocked because they are "potentially" extreme images, even without a court case to prove it?

emark    [23876.   Posted 3-Dec-2008 Wed 16:48] View Near Messages
I prefer to avoid the phrase "consensual non consent" as I feel it`s very misleading - the acts are consensual, and there`s nothing non-consensual about it. Given how keen people are to demonise BDSM, I prefer to avoid any such implication.

I think more accurate terms are "implied consent" or "blanket consent". As Spiderschwein says, the idea that consent is given until the sub says No (whether that`s explicitly, or via a safeword). This concept exists in all relationships - consider how it`s generally okay to kiss or touch someone you`re in a relationship with, without first asking, yet this would risk being sexual assault if you did it to a stranger - although it`s done to a far greater extent in D/S relationships.

emark    [23632.   Posted 6-Nov-2008 Thu 15:11] View Near Messages
Jacqui Smith `said: "I regularly have people coming up to me and saying they don`t want to wait that long."`

If she values anecdotal evidence so highly, I think we need a campaign where people write to her and tell her just how long we would like to wait for an ID card...

emark    [23615.   Posted 5-Nov-2008 Wed 04:54] View Near Messages
Which article is that linked from, OOI? ETA: Nevermind, found it at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1083001/Brand-prank-girl-confesses-How-drug-use-led-world-depravity-pornography.html (what a classic Mail article - drugs are evil, because they lead to more evil like porn).

I am rather amused at all the fetish and potentially-"extreme" porn that Daily Mail is hosting (even aside from the law, I find it funny that they host the sort of material that they demonise).

Someone needs to set up an "extreme porn" website, where all the images are links to the images on the Daily Mail`s servers...

emark    [23556.   Posted 28-Oct-2008 Tue 17:35] View Near Messages
Oh noes! We`re being monitored by the Internet police!

emark    [23552.   Posted 28-Oct-2008 Tue 16:14] View Near Messages
I`m amused that normally, Voluptua would be everything that the Daily Mail hates. But evidently that`s trumped by their hatred of the BBC...

A shame about the picture being taken down - does anyone have a link to the original source?

ETA: Someone on IC says it`s this - http://salvationgroup.com/satanic/sluts/087a.jpg - is that right?

I can`t see how that doesn`t come under the law - or rather, if it doesn`t, then I don`t see how anything else would. A shame we can`t get the Daily Mail to be the first test case :)

Does anyone have any proof of the Daily Mail posting this? This would be very useful in a court case, to show that such images are legal to publish (either that, or the Daily Mail gets done under the OPA...)

ETA2: Whilst not as mainstream as the Daily Mail, I did find another UK website still hosting the image: http://www.sinspy.co.uk/georgina-baillie-satanic-sluts/

emark    [23525.   Posted 25-Oct-2008 Sat 16:58] View Near Messages
"I don`t mind gay men. I do mind metrosexuality though. They could at least have the gallantry to openly say, "I`m straight as a ruler. But I`m willing to pose as being in touch with my feminine side. Aren`t I edgy and paradigm-challenging?" Pretending to be gay in order to score with women. It`s pathetic - and worse, boring."

I thought "Being straight whilst in touch with my feminine side" _was_ the definition of meterosexuality. Of course the latter is rather sad, but I`ve never heard of that being a definition of metrosexuality. Presumably people pretending to be gay would identify as "homosexual", not "metrosexual"... (It`s also not clear to me how many identify as the term itself, it seems to more often be a label to describe other people.)

emark    [23524.   Posted 25-Oct-2008 Sat 16:48] View Near Messages
"Nobody can demand that someone likes gays. If one happens to dislike them, that shouldn’t in itself be a hanging offence. "

Indeed, of course not. But if someone goes around expressing their view that homosexuality is sordid, should be behind closed doors, and so on, then other people equally have the right to say that that person`s homophobic.

Regarding BOD`s comments, I`m not sure that trying to polarise the argument into homosexuality versus kink is helpful. They`re on the same side here. It`s often the same people who demonise both; not to mention that many people are both gay/bi and kinky.

I`m not sure if BOD was being serious, or just saying that to make a point towards Liberty Stink. But I think he fell right into Liberty Stink`s trap, who can now claim BOD is as bigotted as those who dislike his sexual activities.

Why shouldn`t the age of consent for homosexuality be the same as heterosexuality, and homosexual relationships be featured on TV just as we have to "endure straights on mainstream TV"? If we say it`s okay for people to be treated differently if they`re not seen as normal, than we`re just playing into the hands of the people who want to do the same for kinky sexuality.

The argument that people can do what they like to each other, as long as they keep it private, sounds like just the argument that Martin Salter made for the extreme porn law in the 2nd Reading, when talking about BDSM: "If people want to do weird things to each other they still can, but I say, "Don`t put it on the internet." I do not need to see it and nor do my constituents" - http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2007-10-08b.59.1 .

Of course it`s right to point out the Government`s inconsistency in claiming to defend sexual rights when it comes to homosexuality, whilst at the same time it criminalises another group of consenting adults. But that doesn`t mean we should be making the same absurd arguments against homosexuality.

(I speak as someone who is both bi, and kinky.)

emark    [23485.   Posted 22-Oct-2008 Wed 03:58] View Near Messages
Re: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/7676738.stm

This is rather unclear - the article refers to them as "cartoon style", but also says many of them were indistinguishable from real images. I`m guessing this means he was a mixture, and he was charged for the latter. But it`s rather unclear, as they seem to imply that some precedent has been set.

It`s mad to see this being used for support for criminalise unrealistic images. He`s been found guilty, so why aren`t they happy with that? The problem here is that someone can be criminalised for fictional material in the first place.

I can`t help wondering what sort of crap they have on an "internet sex offenders treatment programme"...