Could this affect nude photography?

But as you can opt in , your right to view porn isn't being infringed so who cares
 
Hedgehogfromhell said:
Whilst I find myself completely irritated at the nanny state telling me what I can and can't view... I do agree with the founding idea that certain material (children/abuse) should be blocked. Not via the ISP (where it can be circumvented), but at source, with removal of the offending articles and prison time for the individuals hosting.
Click to expand...
This is already the case though! Child pornography is already illegal and is already blocked by both search engines and ISPs where it is found. Where possible the content is removed. And the hosts are found and can be held accountable, they are. This has been the case for years and years.
There's nothing new in that approach at all.
 
But as you can opt in , your right to view porn isn't being infringed so who cares
Click to expand...
+1

I have doubts about how effective any measures will be, however, I do think that the easy access to hardcore porn for kids needs to be addressed.

We have a generation of kids who regularly look at full on images and videos from a very young age, although most will get over it it cannot be healthy.

I'll put up with the hassle and just opt in if it stops me viewing anything I want to view, I hope that legislation does force the ISP's into providing a meaningful opt in.
 
Just can't see how this would work, sites would have to be manually checked surely :thinking: As simply running a software to flag sites by keywords, won't sites like this forum get flagged? Well look at some of iffy words in this thread!
 
sponner said:
+1

I have doubts about how effective any measures will be, however, I do think that the easy access to hardcore porn for kids needs to be addressed.

We have a generation of kids who regularly look at full on images and videos from a very young age, although most will get over it it cannot be healthy.

I'll put up with the hassle and just opt in if it stops me viewing anything I want to view, I hope that legislation does force the ISP's into providing a meaningful opt in.
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced that it is necessarily unhealthy. There are numerous places across Europe where sex and sexuality are not hidden from children (why should it be? It's perfectly natural) and they don't suffer "corroded childhoods" or grow up warped. The difference is that, in Britain, we're terrified of talking to kids about sex. If we can explain to kids that porn is just sex in movie, and, like all movies, it's all a bit over the top and not how it works in "real life", I fully believe most normal children will take it in their stride.
All this "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" just makes it a forbidden fruit.

I'm far more worried about the effect ubiquitous violence in the media will have on my kids than them seeing people having sex. In fact, I think it's downright weird that we take depictions of violence and grisly deaths in our stride but are horrified by expressions of sexuality. We Brits are an odd bunch.
 
Exactly. If you really want to help the children then address parental issues, exercise, diet and so on - all things that will definitely have an impact on their lives.
 
I don't think sex and sexuality should be hidden from children, I just think sharing video clips of "teen slut anal gang bang" etc. in the playground is healthy.
 
ghoti said:
I'm far more worried about the effect ubiquitous violence in the media will have on my kids than them seeing people having sex.
Click to expand...

Hollie McNish studies this topic in her poem - 'Willies are more dangerous than guns" - LINK NSFW
 
sponner said:
I don't think sex and sexuality should be hidden from children, I just think sharing video clips of "teen slut anal gang bang" etc. in the playground is healthy.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's healthy but I don't think it has to be unhealthy either. What makes it potentially unhealthy is kids thinking it's a window into a secret adult world. If adults are just open with them about it and put in the correct context (i.e. It's OTT, like a movie, not real life) then the appeal or confusion or any misapprehension that emulating such behaviour is appropriate or something they should be doing is diminished.
 
unplugged said:
The "Think of the Children" method is sadly a slippery slope to get a method of blocking introduced with full public backing and taxpayer funding and anyone who objects is clearly a perve. It's then a slippery slope to ANY sites or a subject being blocked that the government don't like for political or legal reasons. You start seeing sites blocked from the *yes highly illegal) so petty things such as "how to I get out of a speeding fine" it's no different to censoring the press.

Once the wheels are in motion these taboo subjects get pushed further underground just like piracy where such activities become harder if not impossible to detect while average joe then has to then phone his ISP and has for his porn back just to view sites that have been incorrectly categorised.
Click to expand...

:agree: Absolutely this!

Without invoking Godwin's Law, Hitler wrote the political reality in Mein Kampf, that you can persuade people to give up many of their freedoms and civil liberties by telling them it's for the good of their children!

Little by little, slice by slice, independent thought is prohibited. I'm thinking more of unplugged's "politically unacceptable" ideas rather than sexuality - although, let's face it, sexuality has also changed hugely in the last forty years; think of the reversed social stigmas of paedophilia and homosexuality, since the 70s and indeed religion in that time - but once another slice of liberty has been taken away, none ever seem to be given back.

big soft moose said:
But as you can opt in , your right to view porn isn't being infringed so who cares
Click to expand...

I don't require the State to have me on any list of preferences, interests or beliefs. They do not need to give me permission for my sexual habits and desires and, one step further down the line, I don't require any future Government to have me on a list of rabid Trots who want to access The Guardian or swivel eyed loons who want to be allowed to view The Telegraph!


Yv said:
... we are obviously a dirty nasty little house that wants to spend 12 hours a day looking at pornography of the most depraved variety... *rolleyes*
Click to expand...

Be fair, it's seldom TWELVE hours! :whistling:
 
Yves Geza said:
:.
I don't require the State to have me on any list of preferences, interests or beliefs. They do not need to give me permission for my sexual habits and desires and, one step further down the line, I don't require any future Government to have me on a list of rabid Trots who want to access The Guardian or swivel eyed loons who want to be allowed to view The Telegraph!
Click to expand...

To be fair if the state gave a toss (which it doesnt, this isnt 1984 or V is for vendetta ) you're already be on a list for those things

a quick look at your credit card and bank records would show which papers you subscribe to, and come to that which porn mags

being 'on a list' with your isp for opting in to look at adult material is no different to your credit card knowing about your subscription to "hot hobbit action"
 
It's all going to fall flat on it's face.......

There will be a mess of false positives, wrongly banned sites, businesses suffering, porn sites that get around the filters, people/children using proxy sites, etc etc.

This isn't about online porn OR about protecting children, it's about winning votes from "the stupid" and primarily it's about introducing a precedent for internet censorship.

They're deliberately splitting the public opinion all in all sorts of directions, because they can't introduce this stuff with the entire nation against it and small fragmented groups don't have the numbers to stop it.

So for example.... If they ever ban photography in public places, it'll be by turning enough people against us and then splitting us into smaller groups (ie photojournalists v professionals v amateurs) by giving exceptions to one and not the other.
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
To be fair if the state gave a toss (which it doesnt, this isnt 1984 or V is for vendetta ) you're already be on a list for those things
Click to expand...

Have you re-read 1984 recently? Blair's view of Britain [Eric's] which was written as a sature or a fable, has proved to be shockingly, terrifyingly, prescient of Blair's view of Britain [Tony's]. Of course, Orwell chose the date as a joke and it took a few years longer, but I never imagined when I was growing up that Governments might impose penalties for Thought Crime!
 
Yves Geza said:
but I never imagined when I was growing up that Governments might impose penalties for Thought Crime!
Click to expand...

and you'd have been correct - that kind of hyperbole just makes the line of argument ridiculous
 
Who are the most advanced on Computers ? The Kids of today no matter what filters , blocks etc. They will find a way around so in my View the plans are pointless just another step towards a nannie state (1984 springs to mind).
 
Thought I'd better show my face, seeing as V was mentioned!

^Groan for Jonathon too :)

Prohibition caused more problems when it was introduced.
I really can't see this censorship being introduced. Censorship of sex and violence has changed tremendously over the last 40 odd years in movies and TV. Will adult TV stations be censored as well?
Next, they'll be introducing minimum prices for alcohol!

I'm against blanket censorship, but I do believe some extreme content should be dealt with in some way.
 
I have two objections to this proposed legislation;

1. It won't work. Children are remarkably tech savvy these days, and will get around filters with consumate ease. The filters therefore do not good, but have a risk of also doing harm in the sense that they create a sense of false security for less tech-savvy parents and teachers.

2. It will be abused. History has shown that governments will use a bogeyman to encourage us to give us our rights and extend them privileges, and then abuse those privileges. Example: anti-terror laws being used within days against a heckler at Labour party conference.
The method is straightforward. The legislation passed by parliament will be "enabling" legislation that delegates the detail to Statutory Instrument. This then allows the minister to change the law without recourse to parliamentary debate and scrutiny. A lot of our tax law has been written this way, and that's why it's often not fit for purpose.
 
Lyonspride said:
This isn't about online porn OR about protecting children, it's about winning votes from "the stupid" and primarily it's about introducing a precedent for internet censorship.
Click to expand...

and as the stupid are the majority you can see the appeal to the politicians. The more intelligent who can see straight through politicians and the ineffective political system will also see straight through this.
 
big soft moose said:
and you'd have been correct - that kind of hyperbole just makes the line of argument ridiculous
Click to expand...

We have thought crimes.

See section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (you have to also read section 65, lest you think this applies to actual real children having been abused). There was an failed attempt in the last parliamentary session to extend it further to include written works (So Nabakov would have been in trouble, if he wasn't already dead).
 
onomatopoeia said:
We have thought crimes.

See section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (you have to also read section 65, lest you think this applies to actual real children having been abused). There was an failed attempt in the last parliamentary session to extend it further to include written works (So Nabakov would have been in trouble, if he wasn't already dead).
Click to expand...

How is the 'possession of child porn' a thought crime - it reffers quite clearly to the act of possessing the material

you can be a dirty noncing barstard in your head without penalty if you really must ( I'm using you generally here, not suggesting you aactually are) , you only commit the crime when you commit the act
 
If there was punishment for thought crimes I would be doing a long stretch in prison for many of my darker thoughts...
 
big soft moose said:
How is the 'possession of child porn' a thought crime - it reffers quite clearly to the act of possessing the material
Click to expand...

The statute I referred to is specific to cartoons. Most people would (I believe) consider "child porn" to be images showing the abuse of actual children, itself an illegal act and so the images are also rightly illegal.

For example, someone drawing Bart Simpson (not a real person) engaged in a sex act with Lisa Simpson (not a real person) has created an image that is illegal to possess under that legislation. The justification is what? It's a thought crime. No children have been abused. No-one has been harmed, unless you count theatrical pseudo-outrage at the very idea of two fictional cartoon children having sex as "harm".
 
That is an indecent carton crime, once it leaves your head and is put on a medium for others to see it is no longer a thought crime.
 
onomatopoeia said:
The statute I referred to is specific to cartoons. Most people would (I believe) consider "child porn" to be images showing the abuse of actual children, itself an illegal act and so the images are also rightly illegal.

For example, someone drawing Bart Simpson (not a real person) engaged in a sex act with Lisa Simpson (not a real person) has created an image that is illegal to possess under that legislation. The justification is what? It's a thought crime. No children have been abused. No-one has been harmed, unless you count theatrical pseudo-outrage at the very idea of two fictional cartoon children having sex as "harm".
Click to expand...
This is true, yes. Child pornography legislation covers drawings, cartoons and CGI. Which is absolutely crazy if you think about it.
 
The Internet has already made crime around illegal porn a more serious offence than the intended laws when written.

Possession of such porn being (rightfully?) a lesser crime than 'making' it. But then some judge decided that when you download an image you're creating a copy.

So in the Internet age, people who have never actually been involved in the creation of such imagery, are now actually guilty of 'creating' it, which is a more serious charge.

The public never cared enough to have the guidelines redrawn because 'a nonce is a nonce'
 
onomatopoeia said:
The statute I referred to is specific to cartoons. Most people would (I believe) consider "child porn" to be images showing the abuse of actual children, itself an illegal act and so the images are also rightly illegal.

For example, someone drawing Bart Simpson (not a real person) engaged in a sex act with Lisa Simpson (not a real person) has created an image that is illegal to possess under that legislation. The justification is what? It's a thought crime. No children have been abused. No-one has been harmed, unless you count theatrical pseudo-outrage at the very idea of two fictional cartoon children having sex as "harm".
Click to expand...

not so - there is a clear line drawn in what meets the acid test (from the CPS website reference sect 62 which deals with cartoons, manage, computer generated images etc)

In order for an image to be a "prohibited image", there are 3 elements that must be satisfied. An image must meet all 3 of the elements which are:

1. That the image is pornographic;
2. That the image is grossly offensive, disgusting, or otherwise of an obscene character; and
3. That the image focuses solely or principally on a child's genitals or anal region, or portrays any of the following acts:

the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with or in the presence of a child
an act of masturbation by, of, involving or in the presence of a child
an act which involves penetration of the vagina or anus of a child with a part of a person's body or with anything else;
an act of penetration , in the presence of a child, of the vagina or anus of a person with a part of a person's body or with anything else;
the performance by a child of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary);
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.
Click to expand...

As all three must be met a quick clip of bart and lisa doing the hokey pokey would not qualify as a prohibited image.

This legislation is clearly aimed at stopping nonces sharing images of children being abused - just because its a drawing it does not make it okay to look at that kind of stuff in civilised society

so in short its not a thought crime - if you like the idea of children being abused and imagine it (you're a sick **** but) you arent commiting an offence - when you take the action of possessing prohibited images then you cross the line so its the action thats the crime not the thought !

Surely i'm not the only one who doesnt think its okay for images like those described above to be freely circulatable just because they are drawn rather than photographed ?
 
Last edited:
ernesto said:
That is an indecent carton crime, once it leaves your head and is put on a medium for others to see it is no longer a thought crime.
Click to expand...
Yes it is. Thought crime as commonly understood includes the sharing of ideas with others. Which may well involve writing them down (or drawing them).
 
ghoti said:
Yes it is. Thought crime as commonly understood includes the sharing of ideas with others. Which may well involve writing them down (or drawing them).
Click to expand...

nope

from wiki (my bold)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime

In the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, thoughtcrime is the criminal act of holding unspoken beliefs or doubts that oppose or question the ruling party. In the book, the government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects. To entertain unacceptable thought is known as crimethink in Newspeak
Click to expand...

Thoughtcrime has nothing to do with sharing ideas with others - its about what you think, which is why the allegation that we have thought crime is bonkers hyperbole
 
big soft moose said:
not so - there is a clear line drawn in what meets the acid test (from the CPS website reference sect 62 which deals with cartoons, manage, computer generated images etc)

As all three must be met a quick clip of bart and lisa doing the hokey pokey would not qualify as a prohibited image.

This legislation is clearly aimed at stopping nonces sharing images of children being abused - just because its a drawing it does not make it okay to look at that kind of stuff in civilised society

so in short its not a thought crime - if you like the idea of children being abused and imagine it (you're a sick **** but) you arent commiting an offence - when you take the action of possessing prohibited images then you cross the line so its the action thats the crime not the thought ?
Click to expand...
So where do you draw the line? Is it okay for people to be excited by fictional depictions of other heinous crimes? If fictionally depicting violent and horrific crime is illegal you're going to have to throw out half of popular culture.
Fictionalised child pornography - or any other crime - is completely amoral. It cannot be said to occupy a space on the spectrum of morality.
 
big soft moose said:
nope

from wiki (my bold)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime

Thoughtcrime has nothing to do with sharing ideas with others - its about what you think, which is why the allegation that we have thought crime is bonkers hyperbole
Click to expand...
That was the original meaning as expressed in 1984. It is commonly used now to refer to criminalisation of ideas in general.
From the very same link:
"The term "Thought Police", by extension, has come to refer to real or perceived enforcement of ideological correctness."

Even if you wanted to stick with Orwell's definition, it arguably applies. Since the fictional image itself can be said to be truly victimless it must be the interpretation of that image in the mind of the accused that is the problem. Thought crime.
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
Yes it is. Thought crime as commonly understood includes the sharing of ideas with others. Which may well involve writing them down (or drawing them).
Click to expand...

No, it quite simply is not. The clue is in the word 'thought' and unless you are sharing ideas via a Vulcan mind meld type of process that isn't really thought crime either.
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
That was the original meaning as expressed in 1984. "."
Click to expand...

Indeed - that is what Jon and I were discussing

On the wider point its still coblers - we don't have either a thought police or thought crimes - we have incitement crimes , asnd we have various possession and action crimes, which the police try their best to stay on top of.

The very fact that we can have this disccusion shows that we don't - if this were the third reich , community russia, or 1984 you could expect to have your door kicked in at 3am by the SD/KGB/thoughtpolice for expressing the idea that the state isnt right (as could marcel for allowing you a platform to do so)
 
ernesto said:
No, it quite simply is not. The clue is in the word 'thought' and unless you are sharing ideas via a Vulcan mind meld type of process that isn't really thought crime either.
Click to expand...
A thought can be expressed. As pointed out in the article BSM linked to, the meaning has expanded to refer to general criminalisation of ideas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top