Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK Proposal To Restrict Internet Pornography Sparks Row

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the i've-got-that-song-stuck-in-my-head-now dept.

Censorship 561

An anonymous reader writes "The BBC reports on the row over proposals by the UK Government to criminalize possession of 'extreme' porn. The bill, published last week, would include the prohibition of fictional depictions of violence and images of acts between consenting adults. The law would also apply to screenshots taken from a legal film, if the screenshot was made for erotic purposes. The goal is to prevent disturbed individuals from accessing content online that would trigger violent behavior. From the article: 'Labour MP Martin Salter, who has worked closely ... in pushing the legislation, rejected the BDSM community's claims their civil liberties were being undermined. He said: "No-one is stopping people doing weird stuff to each other but they would be strongly advised not to put it on the internet. At the end of the day it is all too easy for this stuff to trigger an unbalanced mind."' The bill follows from plans initially announced last August."

cancel ×

561 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Prehaps instead.. (5, Insightful)

Tainek (912325) | more than 7 years ago | (#19758859)

Prehaps it would be smarter to spend resources finding and providing care for unbalanced people, rather than banning anything (which means pretty much everything) that sets them off, No?

slippery slope here, very slippery

Re:Prehaps instead.. (3, Insightful)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 7 years ago | (#19758917)

smarter to spend resources finding and providing care for unbalanced people
But, but, if we had gotten speech therapy for Cho Seung-Hui when he was a kid so he wouldn't spend the rest of his life being laughed at every time he opened his mouth, how could we ever assign blame for him shooting up a school to guns/games/doctors/teachers/etc?

Re:Prehaps instead.. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19759181)

I live in the UK and I'm thinking of just cancelling my internet/TV, because I don't think it would be possible to follow this law (think Hostel II promo-shot popping up as Quicktime loads).

In fact, I might just leave.

Re:Prehaps instead.. (0, Flamebait)

Richard McBeef (1092673) | more than 7 years ago | (#19758929)

"Prehaps it would be smarter to spend resources finding and providing care for unbalanced people"

I'd rather have them ban some porn than spend resources "finding unbalanced people". I think that is a much more slippery slope.

Re:Prehaps instead.. (4, Funny)

Intron (870560) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759041)

It's because they are standing on that slippery slope that they are unbalanced. Maybe find them a level place and their balance will improve.

Re:Prehaps instead.. (2, Insightful)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759139)

I'd rather have them ban some porn than spend resources "finding unbalanced people". I think that is a much more slippery slope.

Yes, this is a good point. In some sense, the issues are very much related anyway - the question would be how do you define an "unbalanced person", and the idea behind these laws is presumably that anyone who views "extreme" porn must be "unbalanced", who needs dealing with in some way.

But the problem is over THERE (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19758951)

I agree.

The problem is not that an imbalanced mind sees extreme porn. The problem is that the mind in question is imbalanced. Denying all minds access to extreme porn will not solve the problem...the mind in question will still be imbalanced.

And the mind in question will still be likely to cause harm.

All this law will do is create another subjective standard by which some people can be arbitrarily criminalized.

I love these unsupported theories.... (3, Insightful)

Lord Balto (973273) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759395)

I love how politicians raise unsupported theories of criminal etiology to the level of fact simply because they sound reasonable to them or support their pre-existing misconceptions. From what I've seen on this subject, it is the lack of a socially acceptable form of release that often leads to the acting out of such fantasies. But then, the law has never been about preventing crime. It is about control freaks who enjoy telling people what to do and their sadistic pleasure from enforcing draconian punishment. The Spanish Inquisition comes to mind, as well as the Nazies, and particularly our present simian executive who reportedly laughed uncontrollably every time someone asked for clemency when he was governor of Texas. Unless of course you happen to be a former employee of the big Dick.

ok answer this question. (0, Redundant)

Brigadier (12956) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759411)



Few members of my family including my x have worked for social services and thus have helped me realize a few impossible facts that you should be aware of before you start getting so fervently ideological. You have a child who was raped continuously growing up, cps come in throws the parent in jail and puts the child in foster care. The only problem is now this child has been programed to act on warped sexual impulses in very violent way. he rapes and kills the dog and tries to mulest mom. The child is no longer able to be in foster care and now grows up in a a juvi home with other like him. This child now turns eighteen where according to law they must now let him go into society and there is nothing that can do about it. Simply because all his crimes were committed as a juvenile he has served his time and he record was expunged at 18 years old. So they let him go hoping for the best knowing full well with a few years he will act on said impulse and end up in prison in the psych ward. So how do you propose to fix this problem, you can't hold them againts there will. you cant' force them to seek treatment, they are jsut sitting there like a time bomb just waiting on teh right stimulus to explode.

Re:Prehaps instead.. (5, Insightful)

JordanL (886154) | more than 7 years ago | (#19758973)

It's very easy to pick on the BDSM community... they aren't what you would call the most upstanding citizenry in most people's minds... but isn't that kinda the point?

A real free society cares about the rights of the people they don't like too.

Re:Prehaps instead.. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19759325)

It's very easy to pick on the BDSM community

How true. They are always getting beaten, whipped and slapped around.

Re:Prehaps instead.. (2, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759013)

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

    But that means WORK! Whereas banning means REVENUE! Violated the ban? 30 days in jail (which amounts to nothing because of your "get out of jail free if not a violent offender" card) and a fine of XXX pounds.

      But you propose actually training people to help others with their problems? And what happens when those people STILL have problems (after all, "unstable people" and "terrorists" are limitless)? That's political suicide. Much easier to draft a short, simple law that is completely meaningless since you can't ban the internet, however is extremely useful when you want to apply it arbitrarily to your political enemies or the "enemies of the state"; whoever they happen to be today.

Re:Prehaps instead.. (1)

Nos. (179609) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759083)

Maybe its different in the UK, but in Canada, there's no way the fines and/or jail time would anywhere near paying for the expense involved in prosecuting someone... even if they plead guilty.

Re:Prehaps instead.. (4, Funny)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759129)

How cool is it that in Britain, pornography related offenses have a fine of XXX (30) pounds?

Re:Prehaps instead.. (1)

fbjon (692006) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759193)

No, the fine is literally XXX. Payment in Porn.

Re:Prehaps instead.. (1)

Brigadier (12956) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759205)



yea good and obvious counter point. This is also making the assumption that nothing is being done. quick search on google would suggest otherwise. I understand the ACLU perspective on this and not infringing on human rights and all, but we are creatures capable of common sense and my question why would you want video out there of people pretending to rape another. I guess the natrual reaction then is what about violent movies ? The truthful answer to this is what is the intent and perspective. you show such an act as a part of telling an over all story. however filming a depraved act purlry in and of it self is to serve no better purpose than to derive pleasure directly from that act for which quite frankly I believe there is no justification.

Re:Prehaps instead.. (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759379)

Good thing for us, people generally have to prove why government should prohibit something. The onus is not on the people to prove why it is needed.

Re:Prehaps instead.. (1)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759407)

It's a sad day when "role-playing", one of many ways to keep the spice in an adult sexual relationship, is suddenly illegal because some ninny can't wrap their head around it...

I'm not saying that simulated rape is "right", "appropriate", or "desirable"... I am pretty sure that anything that consensually happens in my neighbor's bedroom isn't anyone else's business, however...

As for helping keep unbalanced minds stable? What a crock. Someone THAT mentally ill could easily focus on Barney, the Beatles, or Bonzo. It's somewhat like a 20 foot stack of china plates without glue.... Whether the plates weren't stacked right or whether a breeze happened to knock 'em over, you still have a mess of broken plates.

Next.. (5, Funny)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 7 years ago | (#19758863)

....next I hear they are going to ban the showing of OLD Looney Tunes.

Some unbalanced person might be pushed over the edge, and start dropping anvils on people heads.

Re:Next.. (1)

bladesjester (774793) | more than 7 years ago | (#19758957)

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

Re:Next.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19759269)

Dead anvils? Or are you implying people are heavy and expensive?

Re:Next.. (1)

bladesjester (774793) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759385)

Dead anvils? Or are you implying people are heavy and expensive?

A dead anvil is one with an internal fracture. They're not really any good for doing work with anymore.

Re:Next.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19759381)

You may jest, but people in the UK will acknowledge that ever seen the rise of the current Labour goverment, Looney Tunes cartoons have dissapeared from terrestrial TV. Why?

Too violent for the kids. Apparently.

Hmmm (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19758871)

You'd think they'd be working on the muslim problem instead of this.

Re:Hmmm (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#19758925)

You'd think they'd be working on the muslim problem instead of this.

      But they ARE working on the Muslim problem. Perhaps if the UK bans everything and adopts the Sharia, the Muslim problem will go away. Allah u ackba

Re:Hmmm (1)

mroberts47 (1073802) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759123)

Yes...they are working on it...just not in the right way.

Parliament News? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19758879)

The goal is to prevent disturbed individuals from accessing content online that would trigger violent behavior.
The BBC can no longer cover the actions of Parliament or the PM?

Re:Parliament News? (4, Informative)

Valdrax (32670) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759315)

The BBC can no longer cover the actions of Parliament or the PM?

Heh. You know, it's becoming less and less surprising that one of the UK's biggest objections to the EU charter has been the idea of signing up to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. [bbc.co.uk] It's probably things like this and their anti-terror laws that they don't want to give up.

No wonder British SF is so obsessed with the idea of their country becoming a fascist state.

Re:Parliament News? (4, Interesting)

richie2000 (159732) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759371)

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

everything else (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19758887)

ok...so that means they also have to ban aggressive chase scenes in movies since that could trigger road rage. They have to ban smoking, drug use, alcohol use etc since that could trigger addicts to relapse. They have to ban religious scenes since that could trigger extremists to taking action against atheists...or vice versa. What a bunch of idiots. If you ban it...it'll just get distributed around all the stupid bans anyway. Some things just simply can't be governed.

At the end of the day... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19758899)

"At the end of the day it is all too easy for this stuff to trigger an unbalanced mind."

Really? Can I see some peer-reviewed research papers showing such a link? (Seriously, I don't know either way - let's see what scientists say, not politicians.)

Re:At the end of the day... (4, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 7 years ago | (#19758939)

"Really? Can I see some peer-reviewed research papers showing such a link? (Seriously, I don't know either way - let's see what scientists say, not politicians.)"

That's the trouble, we have politicians making imporant decisions that can affect many peoples' lives and lifestyles without any solid research to back it up.

Same goes for important tech related legislation by completely unqualified people.

Re:At the end of the day... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19759321)

That's the trouble, we have politicians making imporant decisions that can affect many peoples' lives and lifestyles without any solid research to back it up.
When they do claim "solid research to back it up", it is from the highly questionable "science" of Psychology/Pscychiatry. IMO, these have not earned any credibility and many of their practioners are little more then licensed drug dealers and/or practioners of torture ( how many times has shock therapy been banned, renamed and reimplemented with more bogus claims of effectiveness? ). Scientific method is obviously not understood in those fields. Again, IMO.

Labour MP Martin Salter (5, Funny)

sehlat (180760) | more than 7 years ago | (#19758903)

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

Any clue as to what the hell THIS means? (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 7 years ago | (#19758907)

From the article:

"It simply plugs a hole in the law because the Obscene Publications Act is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard as far as the internet is concerned. This new law is designed to meet the challenge of the internet."

What the hell is a chocolate fireguard and what does it have to do with the internet?

Re:Any clue as to what the hell THIS means? (2, Informative)

bcmm (768152) | more than 7 years ago | (#19758983)

It's English for a useless object. A chocolate fireguard would melt.

Re:Any clue as to what the hell THIS means? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19758989)

A "fireguard" is a mesh grid that goes in front of a fire to stop sparks jumping out and setting fire to the carpet. It is a common feature of northern european houses - remember, Britain gets *cold* (and not the snowy pretty fun kind, the freezing-rain-blowing-in-horizontally-people-dying -of-exposure kind), even new houses often have working open fireplaces (hearths). A "chocolate fireguard" is a British (and Irish) colloquialism for something that's useless, inadequately protective - obviously a chocolate fireguard would melt within minutes.

It means "useless". (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759021)

Because a chocolate fireguard would MELT in a fire.

It's just a figure of speech. Although I prefer "chocolate kettle".

Re:Any clue as to what the hell THIS means? (2, Informative)

Ajehals (947354) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759069)

A fireguard prevents things / kids / pets from falling into a fire (think fireplace), it is placed in front of the fire to perform this action. A chocolate one, whilst it can fulfil 2/3 requirements of a fireguard ( 1) be ridiculous ornate 2) be an of brown colour after many years of use) has difficulty with the last requirement, arguably the most important requirement. It shouldn't melt when placed in front of a fire.

Thereby being as much use as a chocolate fireguard, is much the same as being as much use as a chocolate teapot, (or a more modern derivative) as much use as a screen-door on a submarine. i.e. its not useful.

Re:Any clue as to what the hell THIS means? (1)

Allicorn (175921) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759071)

A silly English expression. A "fireguard" here being a small, usually free-standing shield placed infront of an open fireplace to deflect sparks that might land on your rug/feet/cat etc. Though their exact construction varies, the material used in fireguards is generally something that can withstand prolonged exposure to an open fire at close proximity.

So, were your fireguard made of chocolate, it'd be ill fitted to its purpose.

A variation on the "chocolate fireguard" expression is "as much use as a chocolate teapot" which, obviously, works for similar reasons.

Alli

Re:Any clue as to what the hell THIS means? (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759153)

What the hell is a chocolate fireguard and what does it have to do with the internet?
It's rumoured to be the code name for Microsoft's new security system.

 

Well, they're a record label... (1)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759263)

Well, they're an independent record label [chocolatefireguard.com] , but I doubt that was the reference he was going for. The Urban Dictionary [urbandictionary.com] defines it as something "completely useless", but doesn't provide any etymology. Here's an article on chocolate teapots and fireguards [upenn.edu] , which might make more sense if one knew what a fireguard was. You'd think that Fireguard Systems, Inc. [fireguard.com] might answer that question, but if they do, I can't tell where. Ah, finally New Zealand [fireguard.co.nz] comes to the rescue.

Late to the party, it would appear (1)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759313)

Well, for all those Brits, etc., who beat me by several minutes to the answer, I'll add that we in America call those "fireplace screens". I know, very unimaginative.

Re:Any clue as to what the hell THIS means? (1)

illegalcortex (1007791) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759415)

What the hell is a chocolate fireguard and what does it have to do with the internet?
It's like a cross between a Cleveland Steamer and a Rusty Trombone.

Ummm? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19758909)

Pics or it didnt happen!

Row? (2, Interesting)

Noodles (39504) | more than 7 years ago | (#19758919)

What the hell is a row?

Re:Row? (5, Funny)

SomeJoel (1061138) | more than 7 years ago | (#19758959)

It's a British word for "fight". They couldn't use the word fight because it has violent undertones which could send an unbalanced mind over the edge.

Re:Row? (1)

A Name Similar to Di (875837) | more than 7 years ago | (#19758993)

From Wordnet [princeton.edu] :
# S: (n) quarrel, wrangle, row, words, run-in, dustup (an angry dispute) "they had a quarrel"; "they had words"

They use it constantly on the BBC website.

Re:Row? (1)

thelastquestion (1090169) | more than 7 years ago | (#19758995)

think 'shouting match.' but really just an argument of any sort, it doesn't have to involve shouting.

Re:Row? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19759023)

From www.wikipedia.org: A noisy dispute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Row [wikipedia.org]

Re:Row? (1)

SEMW (967629) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759073)

A row is an altercation; it involves bickering, it can be a brawl, it is undoubtedly a dispute; it can be described as a fracas, a quarrel, a scrap, or a squabble; it is a wrangle.

Etymology question (1)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759369)

So, is that why they're called "row" houses?

Uhhh, yeah (4, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#19758921)

"At the end of the day it is all too easy for this stuff to trigger an unbalanced mind."
Labour MP Martin Salter, for one, springs to mind.

Re:Uhhh, yeah (1)

myside (679429) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759099)

For more on Salter's opinions, see his personal blog at tubgirl.com or goatse.net.

In other news... (2, Insightful)

Cr0w T. Trollbot (848674) | more than 7 years ago | (#19758923)

...the UK has announced bans on:

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

Each is going to be every bit as likely to have any effect on the world at large as this ban.

Crow T. Trollbot

CSI, Criminal Minds (4, Interesting)

MBCook (132727) | more than 7 years ago | (#19758937)

OK. I won't go through my views on what I think of violent pornography, or the idea that it will set mentally unbalanced people off if seen on the internet. I won't comment on the censorship aspect of this. I just have one honest question:

There have been various episodes of CSI (Vegas) that dealt with BDSM and such, especially those featuring Mistress Heather. There was a recent episode of Criminal Minds where the villain captured homeless people and put them in a torture maze to be sadistic.

Are those legal on TV? How about putting those episodes on the internet (say CBS did it), would that be legal under this law? Seems to me those two answers might be different.

It's OK to show a mentally unbalanced individual this on TV a show (which won't mess with their head), but if you show the exact same thing from the internet, they'll go NUTS.

Sure. If the answers to the hypothetical questions above are the same, where is the line and how long until television crosses it? Then what will the answers to my questions be.

TV is OK, but the Internet is evil. Even if they show the same exact content.

Re:CSI, Criminal Minds (4, Informative)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759249)

According to the bill, it would count if it was produced for the purposes of sexual arousal. It's not clear how that's actually decided, but presumably a TV programme wouldn't count (as you say, we have this logic that TV is always okay, but on the Internet it must be evil pr0n).

Also, even if it did come under the law, it would be exempt if it's a classified work (i.e., the British Board of Film Censors, er, Classification says we are allowed to watch it).

However, the really bizarre bit is that if a UK citizen makes screenshots of this legal TV programme, for the purpose of sexual arousal - even privately and doesn't distribute them - it would be illegal. Three years in prison, and slapped on the Sex Offender Register.

Sure. (1)

urbanradar (1001140) | more than 7 years ago | (#19758943)

You're free to make full use of your civil liberties... You're just not allowed to talk about it.

How comforting that today's politicians don't even understand what freedom is.

Politicians don't care about freedom. (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759387)

How comforting that today's politicians don't even understand what freedom is.
The nature of socialism is that the state takes responsibility for the care of it's citizens. Which is fine, until you recognise one thing.

Freedom and responsibility are the same thing.

If you take responsibility, you inevitably removing the freedom of the individual. It cannot be escaped. The Labour party are fundamentally a socialist party and Labour party MPs are basically socialist. Well meaning, but the inevitable result is the removal of freedom.

Something else to note. Liberalism, concerned with the freedom of the individual is fundamentally incompatible with the left, with socialism. The term "liberal left" is an oxymoron, a fundamental misunderstanding of what being liberal means.
 

Naughty MP Salter! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19758945)

Such a naughty boy...Someone needs a whipping!

But Seriously...
1) Ban Violent Porn
2) ...
3) *Fewer* instances of real-life violence?

I wouldn't be surprised if by blocking this outlet, more people decide to go out and reenact the dreams they can no longer watch at home.

On an unrelated note, I'll be back in a couple of hours.

Backlash (4, Informative)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 7 years ago | (#19758947)

More information about this law is available on Backlash's homepage [backlash-uk.org.uk] , a group opposing the law.

The guy should be arrested for libel (2, Interesting)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 7 years ago | (#19758949)

The honest truth is that images NOT ONCE ever "for this stuff to trigger an unbalanced mind."

One of the main problems that prudes have is that any fair study of this disgusting filth shows that people that view it are LESS likely to commit crimes, whether violent or not.

This is in dinstinct difference from peopel that view kiddie porn, who are in fact more likely to commit crimes.

Apparently it seems that smart people like getting hit, not hitting on children.

Re:The guy should be arrested for libel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19759089)

This is in dinstinct difference from peopel that view kiddie porn, who are in fact more likely to commit crimes.
Correlation or causation? Just saying...unless there's a study that compares groups of pedophiles, and shows that those who viewed more child pornography were more likely to commit related crimes, that's an essentially meaningless statement.

Re:The guy should be arrested for libel (1)

Brian Ribbon (986353) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759135)

"One of the main problems that prudes have is that any fair study of this disgusting filth shows that people that view it are LESS likely to commit crimes, whether violent or not.

This is in dinstinct difference from peopel that view kiddie porn, who are in fact more likely to commit crimes.
"

That's untrue and I'd appreciate it if you could cite a source which states this.

Many people do claim that possessing child pornography leads to the abuse of children. This claim is based on statistics which claim that x% of people who sexually assault children also possess child pornography. This is often interpreted to suggest that x% of people who possess child pornography also sexually assault children, which is a gross manipulation of the statistics. Clearly, people who possess child pornography and sexually assault children are much more likely to be caught than people who only view child pornography, a fact which flaws the statistics commonly used to back up such assertions.

Re:The guy should be arrested for libel (2, Informative)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759213)

OK, I checked my source and I was misremembering and misquoting. The actual source said "People arrested for child abuse were more likley to be arrested again for other crimes than other people arrested".

But my main point was in fact correct. People that view BDSM are less likely to commit crimes, not more.

The Biggest Porn Site: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19758961)


is the BushCo War In Iraq [whitehouse.org]

British TV... (1)

SoapBox17 (1020345) | more than 7 years ago | (#19758979)

Ever watched a British Soap opera? That is the kind of stuff that will "trigger an unbalanced mind." *shutter*

Re:British TV... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19759185)

WTF has a window covering got to do with British soap operas?

Re:British TV... (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759201)

Actually, a British soap opera unbalances a balanced mind. Hence the concern for triggering minds once they are unbalanced.

A Normal Workday Triggers an Unbalanced Mind (1)

joe_n_bloe (244407) | more than 7 years ago | (#19758985)

Geez, hasn't anyone in the UK heard of "going postal"?

Re:A Normal Workday Triggers an Unbalanced Mind (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759357)

hasn't anyone in the UK heard of "going postal"

As someone in the UK, can I be the first to say I have no idea what "going postal" means!

Ahem. (5, Interesting)

Khaed (544779) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759007)

I'm going to get moderated to all hell for this, but I don't care: After arguing in three or four threads in the last few weeks about how "it's not just the US" doing things like this, I'd just like to say a few words:

I TOLD YOU SO.

Politicians the world over love this do-nothing regulation of the things that "offend" their poor widdle voters and their sensibilities. "Violent porn? How dare they!" What's next, scat? Then what, facials, because they're degrading and might encourage men to treat women like objects? Yes, this is a slippery slope argument, but the reason cited was that these sorts of things trigger unbalanced minds. I could care less about violent porn, it's not my bag. I've been hearing for decades that porn causes rape: Apply the argument against violent porn to regular porn, and it won't be long before some bright MP suggests banning all internet porn because it might trigger someone to rape.

Which is a load of bollocks, because if everyone who looked at porn committed a rape, well... all of slashdot's readers would be making license plates right now and desperately clinging to the soap.

If someone is bent enough that seeing images is going to cause them to act on their fantasies, why is it only violent porn that will trigger them? What about violent media in general? Whose to say they won't catch an episode of the BBC's Spooks and act on the Plot of the Week? There are always going to be loons out there and we can't really effectively ban everything that might set them off without turning the world into a very damn boring place. They also make up a small percent of the population, so why are we going to let them ruin things for everyone else?

the fallacy of modifying your behavior (3, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759017)

to avoid repercussions from crazy people:

crazy people will do crazy things. very little will set them off, and if it isn't bdsm images on the internet (really?) then it will be something else. so basically, you can't alter your behavior in such a way that prevents crazy people from doing crazy things. all you do is limit the activities of noncrazy people, and the crazy people still do crazy things. it's just something you have no control over that sets them off instead

likewise, you can't alter your behavior to prevent terrorist attacks. if the west acceded to every demand from violent jihadists, would violent jihadist become pastoral sheep farmers? no, they would go right on with their bloody agenda, they would just find some other lame excuse, because the root of their motivation is not the behavior of the west

it's a common fallacy, actually, that has parallels in childhood psychology: when parents divorce, children often blame themselves for their parents getting divorced. of course, it's crazy to blame the child, and no one does, except the child himself. but it is a common human psychological response to violence: when violence is committed against them, or their society, the first thing people do in their pain is blame themselves, or their society. then they think they can do something differently, and they won't be victimized anymore. no: you have to blame the perpetrators, not yourselves

the biggest believers of the blame the victim mindset is often the victims

a society or individual will always wonder why they are victims of violence when they did nothing wrong. it is trying to rationalize that which can't be rationalized

you can't change the behavior of crazy people, you can only identify them and limit their actions. that works far more than altering society itself to fit the needs of crazy people, when all you really do in such a situation is inconvenience noncrazy people

Re:the fallacy of modifying your behavior (1)

Nos. (179609) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759165)

"but it is a common human psychological response to violence: when violence is committed against them, or their society, the first thing people do in their pain is blame themselves, or their society."

Funny, I thought the most common first reaction was to hurt them back. Look at two kids on the playground. If one takes a toy/hits the other, the reaction is usually the same thing. Take the toy back or hit the other child. Look at the US reaction to 911. It sure wasn't "what did we do wrong", it was find the bastards who did this and hurt them.

people look to control that which causes them pain (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759327)

you are correct, some people flail out, but most put too much blame inwards

If the images lead to unbalanced minds becoming (1)

xlurker (253257) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759019)

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

Are they put under surveillance?

Following this (well meant yet broken) logic, it would be only a small step...

/ Visit the UK: a CCTV at every corner and on every bedpost

Re:If the images lead to unbalanced minds becoming (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759299)

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

Are they put under surveillance?

Following this (well meant yet broken) logic, it would be only a small step...

Visit the UK: a CCTV at every corner and on every bedpost

Yes, but the police are only allowed to send the tapes that don't feature BSDM to their buddies over the internet.

The First Three Music Videos To Be Banned (1)

Cr0w T. Trollbot (848674) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759049)

  • Pat Benatar's "Hit Me With Your Best Shot"
  • John Couger Mellencamp's "Hurts So Good"
  • Devo's "Whip It"

And don't even get me started on the Castle Anthrax sequence from Monty Python and the Holy Grail...

Crow T. Trollbot

Re: The First Three Music Videos To Be Banned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19759323)

Why do you (and others) feel the need to end your post with your username? It's right there under the title if we want to see it. Seems like a waste of space and a wee bit pretentious.

Anonymous Coward

I*m gonna cry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19759061)

There*s too many sparkling wiggles too!! :(

You think this only applies to the UK? (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759063)

Reciprocal extradition treaties

Ho ho ho isn't the world becoming an interesting place to live.
 

Martin Salter's comments... (2, Interesting)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759095)

"No-one is stopping people doing weird stuff to each other but they would be strongly advised not to put it on the internet." ...which is a silly thing to say, since the law says it applies to possession, not publication. Even if you kept it on your hard disk private, surely it would be illegal under this law?

He insisted the law did not ban anything which was not already illegal under the Obscene Publications Act. "It simply plugs a hole in the law because the Obscene Publications Act is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard as far as the internet is concerned. This new law is designed to meet the challenge of the internet."

Well, I give him some points for using the term "chocolate fireguard", but otherwise, this doesn't make sense - after all, if the law criminalises an image extracted from a legal film, we have the situation that the image is illegal even though it was clearly legal to publish in the original film. (Plus, I thought the OPA requires the jury to believe that the image would "deprave and corrupt" those who viewed it, while the new law just bans categories of images based on their content.)

Another point - if it doesn't cover already illegal material, why does the bill need an exemption for "classified works"?

"These snuff movies are other stuff are seriously disturbing. Many police officers who have to view it as part of their job have to undergo psychological counselling."

Heh, OMG Please Won't Somebody Think Of The Police Officers!!!

Really though - snuff movies? Have they actually discovered some snuff movies, after all these years of it being an urban myth? Strange how they never seem to show evidence for these snuff movies...

Three cheers for correlation! (2, Insightful)

Xelios (822510) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759125)

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

General law shouldn't be based on extraordinary cases.

Lets avoid all fair and unbalanced material (1)

Sunshinerat (1114191) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759127)

"No-one is stopping people of doing weird stuff to each other but they would be strongly advised not to put it on the internet. At the end of the day it is all too easy for this stuff to trigger an unbalanced mind."

or...

"No-one is stopping people of communicating weird stuff to each other but they would be strongly advised not to put it on the internet. At the end of the day it is all too easy for this stuff to trigger an unbalanced mind."


Whether we are talking about pron, microsoft, music, politics or My Little Pony; it can all trigger and unbalanced mind.

Has V for Vendetta been release in the UK? (1)

Desmoden (221564) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759143)


Do they realize how they are making a movie come to life?

will never ne past as law (1)

zakeria (1031430) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759157)

the UK are very liberal minded people and also smart enough to know that this is not the cause or pre cause of sexual violence. It will rage on for quite sometime then be squashed.. After all many of those barristers are wearing suspenders under those gowns!

The UK (1, Insightful)

falsified (638041) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759159)

Is quite quickly becoming the creepiest democratic country in the world. At least here in America we try to blame our arbitrary government interference on security concerns. The UK just appears to be doing all this out of boredom at this point.

I don't follow British politics closely enough - once the Liberal Democratic Party supplants Labour, are they going to be doing more of this, or less? Any Brits out there wanna educate me?

Great Idea (3, Insightful)

ObiWanStevobi (1030352) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759163)

I can't think of any better approach to a percieved problem than banning any depiction of that problem. Banning pictures of pot leafs on shirts in school sure cleared up all the drug problems, right? I heard everone quit smoking and drinking once advertisements for them were pulled. It's an excellent solution, I think...only this could really go much further:
  • Ban all pictures of food, then no one will be triggered to over-eat.
  • Ban all pictures of children under 18, who knows what sicko needed just that picture to set them off.
  • Ban all pictures of senior citizens, their appearance might make them appear like easy targets and trigger a robbery.
  • Ban all pictures of women, best not take any chances of triggering any sexual thoughts in a rapists head.
  • Ban all pictures of men, these days, you never know what could happen, maybe a gay or even a female rapist may be triggered.
Imagine all the problems that could be solved by banning pictures. It's these darn pictures that cause this behavior. No rape or violence used to happen before cameras and the internet came around. If there was, it was certainly the fault of painters and those scantily clad stick figures on the cave wall.

Oh really? (5, Funny)

DreamingReal (216288) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759207)

At the end of the day it is all too easy for this stuff to trigger an unbalanced mind.

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

what (5, Funny)

Desullen (1124361) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759239)

There goes 4chan

The easiest ban to circumvent (1)

Stu101 (1031686) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759245)

Well being a fetishist and living in the UK I can tell you that this law, if passed, wont stop anything.

It is a short easyjet flight from here to Amsterdam. There you can get all manner of really screwed up fetish porn there.

Want an example, my ex GF used to live in Amsterdam and we were both kinksters so we went video shopping. We bought some beastie videos, some extreme SM (By extreme I mean real extreme) etc and I brought it back to the UK. Didnt get stopped at customs, there wasnt even a cop on duty.

So what difference is this going to make, when a real hardcore person wants get some of the most extreme porn round? Not much, just get an Easyjet flight for $100 or so and visit some of the backstreets and get more than most (note I said most) sites offer and at better quality and not just short movie clips but over 1.5 hours of extreme HD porn.

Did anyone else read the bill? (5, Funny)

Odiumjunkie (926074) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759257)

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


Maybe this is just one of those WTFs brough about because IANAL, but seriously - any data which is capable of conversion into an extreme image?

Who wants to be the first to convert the text of the bill into an ASCII goatse?

Re:Did anyone else read the bill? (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759365)

Maybe this is just one of those WTFs brough about because IANAL, but seriously - any data which is capable of conversion into an extreme image?

I think that's to cover things like obfuscation/encryption(?) though I don't know how this works in practice. Of course, if you used encryption to hide such images from prying police officers, they'd just throw you in prison for being a suspected terrorist instead...

Re:Did anyone else read the bill? (2, Funny)

Ruprecht the Monkeyb (680597) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759389)

So, basically 1's and 0's. We're boned.

Thought Police (4, Insightful)

cc_pirate (82470) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759259)

I knew it would only be a matter of time before the Brits, conditioned to a life of surveillance by their ever present CCTVs began fully implementing Big Brother.

Government censorship is evil, whatever the reasoning given for its implementation. Since this idiotic law would not apply outside of the "daddy knows best" government of the UK, the next step would be for the UK to implement filtering nationwide to stop these "unbalanced minds" from getting access to these images from other, less "enlightened" countries with more freedom[^H^H^H]access to filth...

Speaking as one of the disturbed minds in question (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19759295)

I am quite delusional, and a bit insane, but despite my BDSM porn habbits, I've never had the slightest urge to go out and act any of it out on unwilling women. Not even fantasy. Some of the tamer stuff has creeped it's way in to the bedroom, but that is fairly normal anyway.

In fact, the thought of acting any of it out on an unwilling participant is physically repulsive to me. BDSM is all about instinctive sexual dominance relationships, and sadistic violent acts are completely unrelated.

On the rare occaisions vindictive people might immitate BDSM during their crimes, it is hardly because their repressed lust overcame them and they just couldn't hold in their urges to tie unwilling women up and rape them any longer.

Politicians who resort to shit like this should be dragged behind trains. It's no different than discriminatory legislation against any other misunderstood or demonized minority.

Guess what people? Everyone is one such minority in one way or another, and the more they deny that fact, the more issues they really have.

Light relief (ooer) (5, Funny)

MythMoth (73648) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759345)

I used to know a masochist who liked to have a cold shower every morning.

So he had a hot one instead.

Why does this surprise anyone? (2, Interesting)

Brian Ribbon (986353) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759347)

Okay, it is frighteningly absurd that the government are proposing a ban on such material, but honestly, the UK doesn't really care about whether or not people are being abused, it merely supports protecting "proper thoughts" from "deviants" who aren't protected via government schemes to enforce "positive liberty."

Anyway, I recently wrote an article, copied and pasted below, about the criminalisation of the possession of child pornography. I know that most people will automatically disagree with the decriminalisation of the possession of child pornography, but the government and its supporters make similar assertions about the possession of child pornography and the possession of violent pornography, so much of it is relevant to this particular act of censorship.

Note: This article does not condone illegal activity; it suggests a change in child pornography legislation.

Should the Possession of Child Pornography be Illegal?

I have discussed this issue with many friends, including those who have been convicted of offences involving child pornography, as well as those who are old enough to remember a time when child pornography was legal and was as available as adult pornography. They have discussed the issue in great detail in order to aid me in writing this article, explaining the motivations for producing, distributing, trading and possessing such material. I feel this gives me a reasonale level of insight into the issue, without taking the risk of engaging in criminal activity.

This article will focus on UK laws against child pornography, however I feel it is relevant to other jurisdcitions which prohibit the possession of certain images depicting children.

UK laws against child pornography are governed primarily by the Protection of Children Act (1978), which was amended by the Criminal Justice Act (1988), the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994) and the Sexual Offences Act (2003). There are other acts which amend sentencing and search protocols, however these will not be discussed here.

The amended Protection of Children Act states that:

1(1) It is an offence for a person -

  • To take, or permit to be taken, or to make any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child; or to distribute or show such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs; or to possess such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others; or to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the
    advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, or intends to do so.'

    Section 160 of The Criminal Justice Act of 1988 made the simple possession of indecent photographs of children an offence."



I should state that, when I refer to "possession" in this article, I am also referring to "making" when it applies to simply downloading images from the internet.

At this point, it's important to explain how "indecent" is defined.

The definition of indecent under UK law is rather vague, however case law and sentencing guidelines allow one to interpret the term more accurately.

According to case law such as that of R v Stamford and R v Graham-Kerr, indecent can be defined as anything which does not comply with the "recognised standards of propriety."

It is a mistake to assume that indecent is absolutely synonymous with "pornographic," as this is not the case. People have been imprisoned for naturist images (see O'Carroll, Stamford, Graham-Kerr), suggesting that any full frontal nudity is illegal. According to sentencing guidelines [sentencing...nes.gov.uk] , clothed images which depict children in "erotic poses" are also illegal.

There are several levels of indecency under UK law, which range from mere naturism to images which would clearly be harmful to children.

Doesn't possession harm children?

Does possession of child pornography actually harm children and would the decriminalisation of possession increase production?

It is often claimed that possessing indecent images of children is harmful to children; many people refer to supply and demand theories. When child pornography is purchased, this claim in undeniably true - purchasing child pornography will increase the supply - and if the images purchased/"demanded" are abusive, then the purchaser is contributing to the abuse of children. I am not arguing against criminalising the purchase of child pornography.... I believe that such actions should be illegal in the case of Level 2 indecent images and above. The problem with applying the supply and demand theory to people who possess but don't purchase is that they are not contributing to demand, because the supplier is not interested in producing images for people who are effectively "stealing" them by downloading them for free, for the same reasons that artists don't record music for people downloading it from file sharing networks. Supply and demand is an economic theory which applies to commercial sale, not products being used for free. Producers of any material do not want their material to be used freely, so an increased interest in freely available pornography is going to harm them. People will be less likely to purchase child pornography if viewing freely available child pornography is legalised, as viewing freely available child pornography will become the safe option. Production of child pornography will therefore fall because of a lack of demand, meaning that less children will be abused by child pornographers.

Many claim that possessing child pornography leads to the abuse of children. This claim is based on statistics which claim that x% of people who sexually assault children also possess child pornography. This is often interpreted to suggest that x% of people who possess child pornography also abuse children, which is a gross manipulation of the statistics. Clearly, people who possess child pornography and sexually assault children are much more likely to be caught than people who only view child pornography, a fact which flaws the statistics commonly used to back up popular assertions.

Child pornography - for some people - is a way of relieving sexual urges without engaging in sexual activity with children. In these cases, viewing child pornography prevents the abuse of children. By prohibiting the possession of child pornography, the government is unintentionally encouraging the abuse of children, because such laws criminalise a legitimate release. The question is, considering that some people do have weak levels of control, would you rather someone view a nude photograph of a child or teenager, or would you rather them actually sexually abuse minors?

So how can child pornography legislation prevent the overall levels of childhood sexual abuse?

Producing, selling, distributing, or trading child pornography is often harmful to children. In cases where child ponography involves abuse, the people involved in those activities should clearly be punished. This should not detract from the fact that, as previously mentioned, the people involved in said activities are not being encouraged by people who view child pornography without purchase or trade, as it provides no benefit to the abusers. Decriminalising the possession of child pornography which is not purchased will encourage people to view images without purchase, when they may otherwise purchase images. This reduces the level of "funding" for people who are producing child pornography.

The aversion to allowing people to view freely available images does not protect children, rather it criminalises and therefore discourages legitimate releases for paedophiles with weaker levels of control. There is no true evidence that the possession of child pornography encourages a person to abuse children, either.

The best way to prevent the sexual abuse of children is to decriminalise the possession of child pornography, while imprisoning people who produce, purchase, sell, distribute or trade the material.

The Tick had it right... (1)

AetherBurner (670629) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759383)

Isn't sanity really just a one trick pony anyway? I mean, all you get is one trick...rational thinking! But when you're good and crazy...ooh hoo hoo hoo...the sky's the limit!-The Tick But then, when correctly viewed, everything is lewd. Here again, it's the gun that kills people, so say the Brits. I say, it is not the gun, but the person that pulled the trigger.

spell this out in a law (1)

SolusSD (680489) | more than 7 years ago | (#19759403)

I'd like to see how they spell out exactly what cross the line and what is acceptable.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>