"Massive surveillance? Check. Building a DNA database? Check. Laws against thought crime? Not yet, but coming very soon. The UK government is soon to pass legislation that would criminalise possession of certain types of 'violent' pornography, even if it was part of a consensual session between two adults. Lord Wallace of Tankerness pointed out an ideological schism during last week's deb
"Massive surveillance? Check. Building a DNA database? Check. Laws against thought crime? Not yet, but coming very soon. The UK government is soon to pass legislation that would criminalise possession of certain types of 'violent' pornography, even if it was part of a consensual session between two adults. Lord Wallace of Tankerness pointed out an ideological schism during last week's debate in the House of Lords: 'If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence.
... Having engaged in it consensually would not be a crime, but to have a photograph of it in one's possession would be a crime. That does not seem to make sense to me.'"
Combine laws like this with widespread computer ownership, and it makes a whole lot of (Orwellian) sense.
My first thought was, a lot of my journals involve sex in one form or another (in contrast to my old K5 "Paxil Diaries", which involved unsucessfully seeeking sex, and which were, with one or two exceptions, entirely non-violent) and could be thought pornographic by some people. Two of them involve attempted murders, and more than two of them involve the police in one way or another. My response:
UK readers banned from slashdot? (Score:0, Troll)
Lifestyles of the Poor and Obscure [slashdot.org] involves sex with a prostitute. It isn't graphic, however. But an earlier journal, NSFW [slashdot.org] does contain graphic descriptions of a sex act, although it is revealed in the story that the sex is in fact only a dream. The journal "Dork Side of the Moon [slashdot.org] concerns an attempted murder, as does Ask Slashdot: Women [slashdot.org] (which also has hookers, as do many other of my journals).
If they pass this stupid law will I have to add a disclaimer that EU residents may be incarcerated for reading my journals?
It seems that the US and the UK are in a fucktarded race to see who can become the worst police state. I pointed out in yet another journal, Police State: In USSA, cops hassle YOU! [slashdot.org] as well as a blagh on my site (down at the moment) that the US is in fact already a police state, and that any country that uses secret police (in the US they're called "undercover agents" or "plainclothesmen") IS a police state.
At leat in the UK they're not torturing people or holding them without trial, as we do in Guantanimo. But I guess given enough time, they will.
Don't try to outweird me, three eyes" -Zaphod [slashdot.org]
Anonymous Coward says
Re:UK readers banned from slashdot? (Score:1)
You mistakenly believe that EU residents, or anybody for that matter, are interested in your posts and journals. Stop screwing hookers and stop posting worthless crap.
The dictionary says
troll1 Audio Help
/trol/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[trohl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation,
-verb (used with object)
1. to sing or utter in a full, rolling voice.
2. to sing in the manner of a round or catch.
3. to fish for or in with a moving line, working the line up or down with a rod, as in fishing for pike, or trailing the line behind a slow-moving boat.
4. to move (the line or bait) in doing this.
5. to cause to turn round and round; roll.
6. Obsolete. to hand around, as a bowl of liquor at table.
-verb (used without object)
7. to sing with a full, rolling voice; give forth full, rolling tones.
8. to be uttered or sounded in such tones.
9. to fish by trolling.
10. to roll; turn round and round.
11. to move nimbly, as the tongue in speaking.
12. a song whose parts are sung in succession; a round.
13. the act of trolling.
14. a lure used in trolling for fish.
15. the fishing line containing the lure and hook for use in trolling.
[Origin: 1350-1400; ME trollen to roll, stroll MF troller to run here and there MHG trollen walk or run with short steps]
LA la la la LA la la la... ok, maybe I was singing a bit too loudly in that comment.
in early Scandinavian folklore, giant, monstrous being [sic], sometimes possessing magic powers. Hostile to men, trolls lived in castles and haunted the surrounding districts after dark. If exposed to sunlight they burst or turned to stone. In later tales trolls often are man-sized or smaller beings similar to dwarfs and elves. They live in mountains, sometimes steal human maidens, and can transform themselves and prophesy. In the Shetland and Orkney islands, Celtic areas once settled by Scandinavians, trolls are called trows and appear as small malign creatures who dwell in mounds or near the sea. In the plays of the Norwegian dramatist Henrik Ibsen, especially Peer Gynt (1867) and The Master Builder (1892), trolls are used as symbols of destructive instincts. Trolls in modern tales for children often live under bridges, menacing travelers and exacting tasks or tolls.
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
Trolls can be found under network bridges, and actually post factual information, and are kind and considerate to other posters on Internet forums. They try very hard to give people a good experience.
Because they are so nice, they are usually banned from the Internet, or at least from Conservapedia.
They often use humour and tell the truth, which upsets the pathological liars and liberal terrorists out there who believe in only lies and lying liars.
Oddly, of all these I have to say that the mods must have missed all those definitions except the uncyclopedia one!
Here's a hint to you mods: if you care about your slashdot karma you should know that if you mod someone with excellent karma as a "troll", they are very likely to come back themselves and metamoderate your moderation! When your mod is modded "unfair" you are far less likely to get mod points to abuse people with again.
Just because you disagree with a post does not make it a troll. If someone posts a link to goatse or tubgirl or malware, it's a troll, especially if it's accompanied by "you know you nerds love it". If someone defends the Sony corporation or SCO or the RIAA it is either a troll or an astroturfing corporate shill or a fucktard.
If someone defends Microsoft it is usually not a troll, it's either Bill gates, Steve Ballmer, or just a poor witless luser who doesn't know any better. Be kind to these poor souls, as if it's Ballmer there could be winged chairs.