Could this affect nude photography?

[cowboy]

Then if they aren't sneaking it around the partner will know and the email won't be a problem

Not to the partner but maybe to other people such as when accessed at work.


*Edit The E-Mail, not the porn.

 

[big soft moose]

A fine attempt at a diversionary tactic. We're discussing media censorship, not marital relationships.

Debating fail.

The irony of someone opposed to censorship deciding what can and can't be discussed

That aside bottom line for me is that I don't believe being asked to opt in to see something is censorship -= if you want to see it just opt in , simples

(and for the paranoid use a proxy server and an anonymiser because otherwise "they" already know what you are viewing)

Those who believe Britain is becoming a police state would do well to go check out china, or Zimbabwe, or Myanmar etc for a reality check

 

[big soft moose]

Not to the partner but maybe to other people such as when accessed at work.


*Edit The E-Mail, not the porn.

so don't sign up with your work email (which you shouldn't anyway really)

 

[Richard King]

they seem to be confusing and mixing several things up

- children accessing porn
- children being involved with porn
- what is OK for the general public as a default normal

They are 3 very different things, and 3 very different discussions

 

[Llamaman]

The irony of someone opposed to censorship deciding what can and can't be discussed

I never said you couldn't discuss a topic. I was merely drawing attention to your diversionary tactic.
Have you considered a career in politics? You have mastered the art of 'black or white' moral rhetoric quite superbly.

 

[Llamaman]

they seem to be confusing and mixing several things up

- children accessing porn
- children being involved with porn
- what is OK for the general public as a default normal

They are 3 very different things, and 3 very different discussions

Not if you're Conservative. There's 'what we like' and EVIL.
Porn = child abuse. You know it's true because a think tank said so. Probably.

 

[Llamaman]

I also have to say that I'm really struggling with the idea that any reasonable person seriously thinks that the rights of paedophiles to watch kiddie porn should be protected in case it impacts on their ability to read a book

(which outside of paranoid conspiracy ville it actually won't)

I'm struggling with the idea that pointing out why a proposed law is unworkable and needs rethinking would make someone a paedophile sympathiser.

This law doesn't just cover child porn. If it did, it would have a lot more support. But the child porn angle will be used to drive it through parliament because critics will be labelled as paedophile sympathisers.

Or we could take your route and burn all books to be on the safe side (see? I can do reductio ad absurdum too!).

 

[Yves Geza]

Those who believe Britain is becoming a police state would do well to go check out china, or Zimbabwe, or Myanmar etc for a reality check

Those who deny it, would do well to try to remember the Britain we grew up in!

Not if you're Conservative. There's 'what we like' and EVIL.

Strangely, it is the left that is more proscriptive of "other" behaviour as being "Evil" than the right! It shouldn't be, but that's what they do now!

 

[big soft moose]

I'm struggling with the idea that pointing out why a proposed law is unworkable and needs rethinking would make someone a paedophile sympathiser.

I never said it did

I was referring to this

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). ).

and the various other people who then pursued the same line of argument

How any reasonable person can think kiddie porn of any type is okay is beyond my ken

(note that the legislation referred to here is already law - and not the same as that the OP is about)

On point I agree with you that the prosed legislation is unworkable - as I said people will just use anonymisers and proxys to evade it - however I vehemently disagree that this proposed legislation is an attack on our civil liberties or that the UK is becoming a police state

 

[big soft moose]

Those who deny it, would do well to try to remember the Britain we grew up in!
!

I'm not as old as you , but i'm not aware of any major liberty lost since I was growing up in the 80s

AS I said to ghoti earlier - the fact you can be openly and publically critical of the govt and its policies shows that the police state allegation is hysterical hyperbole

Try that in a real police state and see how you go
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7456357.stm

 

[ghoti]

I certainly haven't said the any form of child pornography is "okay". I was simply defending the principle that we shouldn't pre-emptively criminalise people based on what they might do in the future. This was following your assertion that fictionalised child pornography should be illegal because it may lead to offending that involves actual human beings (e.g. real child pornography or child abuse).
I cannot empathise with anyone who enjoys child pornography, real or fictionalised. However, I'm forced to the conclusion that the fictionalised variety is amoral and is therefore not the business of the law.

 

[Llamaman]

I'm not as old as you , but i'm not aware of any major liberty lost since I was growing up in the 80s

Freedom of assembly
Habeus corpus

AS I said to ghoti earlier - the fact you can be openly and publically critical of the govt and its policies shows that the police state allegation is hysterical hyperbole

Except that guy who got arrested on anti-terror laws for heckling Blair. Or the friends and family of Stephen Lawrence.

 

[Richard King]

I certainly haven't said the any form of child pornography is "okay". I was simply defending the principle that we shouldn't pre-emptively criminalise people based on what they might do in the future. This was following your assertion that fictionalised child pornography should be illegal because it may lead to offending that involves actual human beings (e.g. real child pornography or child abuse).
I cannot empathise with anyone who enjoys child pornography, real or fictionalised. However, I'm forced to the conclusion that the fictionalised variety is amoral and is therefore not the business of the law.

and the guy from Ceops agrees with you. He was basically;y saying "get more resources and chase these people down"

 

[big soft moose]

I certainly haven't said the any form of child pornography is "okay". I was simply defending the principle that we shouldn't pre-emptively criminalise people based on what they might do in the future. This was following your assertion that fictionalised child pornography should be illegal because it may lead to offending that involves actual human beings (e.g. real child pornography or child abuse).
I cannot empathise with anyone who enjoys child pornography, real or fictionalised. However, I'm forced to the conclusion that the fictionalised variety is amoral and is therefore not the business of the law.

So you aren't saying its okay , just that it should be legal How is that not saying its okay ?

I agree we shouldn't pre-emptively criminalise people for what they might do in the future, we should criminalise the dirty noncing barstards for the actual offence they are committing now - ie possession of child porn :bang:

My core point was that such an offence was not an example of crimethink because it relates to an actual action not a thought

 

[Dave *]

Hell lets sling in page 3 of the sun

Camoron wouldn't want to upset some of his core supporters

He specifically OK'ed the Sun Page 3.

Speaking on the BBC’s Jeremy Vine programme, Mr Cameron said what would be included in the filters would evolve over time. “The companies themselves are going to design what is automatically blocked, but the assumption is they will start with blocking pornographic sites and also perhaps self-harming sites,” he said.

“It will depend on how the companies choose how to do it. It doesn’t mean, for instance, it will block access to a newspaper like The Sun, it wouldn’t block that - but it would block pornography.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...e-will-be-problems-down-the-line-8726991.html

 

[Richard King]

Camoron wouldn't want to upset some of his core supporters

He specifically OK'ed the Sun Page 3.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...e-will-be-problems-down-the-line-8726991.html

for some P3 of the sun is too much. This is a slippery slope where the loudest minority controls a democracy. personally. I cant stand page 3 of the sun, but each to their own

 

[big soft moose]

Freedom of assembly
Habeus corpus

We still have the freedom of assembly - my mates and I were practicing it the other day

And habeous corpus is still in force

So you are zero for two so far

Except that guy who got arrested on anti-terror laws for heckling Blair. Or the friends and family of Stephen Lawrence.

You miss my point - if you are so sure its a police state , why do feel safe enough to be openly critical of the govt ? ( the fact that wrong doings like the harassment of the Lawrence family are investigated and reported is in fact more evidence that we do not infact live in a police state )

 

[ghoti]

So you aren't saying its okay , just that it should be legal How is that not saying its okay ?

I agree we shouldn't pre-emptively criminalise people for what they might do in the future, we should criminalise the dirty noncing barstards for the actual offence they are committing now - ie possession of child porn :bang:

My core point was that such an offence was not an example of crimethink because it relates to an actual action not a thought

There are a lot of things I don't like that I don't think should be illegal.

But you're getting a little circular in your reasoning there. You've agreed that the fictionalised stuff is victimless (as it obviously is, in itself) but are saying the the material should be illegal because it may lead to consumption of the real material. When I argue that this would be pre-emptively criminalising people, you respond by saying it's not pre-emptively criminalising them because possessing the fictional stuff is an offence. So we could go back to asking, well, why do you think it should be an offence? To which you, I guess, would reply because it might lead to consumption of real child porn. To which I'd respond that this law only exists, then, to pre-emptively criminalise. And you'd say it's not pre-emptive because fictionalised child porn is illegal. Ad nauseum.

The question is: what is the moral status of fictionalised child pornography in and of itself? Either you believe there's a moral problem with fictionalised material per se, independent of its effect on the consumption of real material, or you think it's okay (at least in certain situations) to pre-emptively criminalise people.

My opinion is not that it's "okay" so much as that it is amoral.

 

[Llamaman]

On point I agree with you that the prosed legislation is unworkable - as I said people will just use anonymisers and proxys to evade it - however I vehemently disagree that this proposed legislation is an attack on our civil liberties or that the UK is becoming a police state

This what I don't get - you admit the law would be unworkable yet support it anyway?
People using child porn are already on the dark net and will be unaffected by this. The people who will be affected are the users of 'normal' porn. An opt-in list is a way of stigmatising people - a form of censorship without banning it outright. And it won't even touch the issue it claims to be about!
This is about social engineering, not child protection. They should just come out and say it.

 

[big soft moose]

This what I don't get - you admit the law would be unworkable yet support it anyway?
People using child porn are already on the dark net and will be unaffected by this. The people who will be affected are the users of 'normal' porn. An opt-in list is a way of stigmatising people - a form of censorship without banning it outright. And it won't even touch the issue it claims to be about!
This is about social engineering, not child protection. They should just come out and say it.

Where did I say I supported it ?

What I said was that all the stuff about censorship and social engineering, and being a way of stigmatising people etc etc was a load of conspiracy theorist rubbish which undermines any credence opposition to the law might otherwise have

Remember Occams Razor - the simplest explanation is usually correct - my view is that this is what it appears to be , the govt trying to be popular by proposing something they think the electorate will like without really thinking it through

Its not a sinister Orwellian conspiracy to undermine your right to watch porn and get you on the Sonderfahndungsliste ,

 

[Dave *]

We still have the freedom of assembly - my mates and I were practicing it the other day

I think you are being a little "Devils Advocate" here , there are many cases where freedom of assembly would now be curtailed, think of kettling at many marches, or that odious little EDL man and his cavemen who wanted to gather in Woolwich a week or so ago.

Think what would happen if you tried to organise a "White Pride" march or rally in London for next Saturday. I'm pretty sure your freedom of assembly would be curtailed quite quickly when you attempt to gather in Trafalgar Square...

 

[Llamaman]

We still have the freedom of assembly - my mates and I were practicing it the other day

Except when you don't. See Criminal Justice Act.

And habeous corpus is still in force

Unless you've been extraordinarily rendered and tortured in a secret/foreign prison.

You miss my point - if you are so sure its a police state , why do feel safe enough to be openly critical of the govt ? ( the fact that wrong doings like the harassment of the Lawrence family are investigated and reported is in fact more evidence that we do not infact live in a police state )

You confuse me with someone else! I've never said Britain is, or is becoming a police state.
I was challenging your bold assertion that we've never had it so good.

It's worth bearing in mind that the Lawrence case, Hillsborough etc are only being investigated because of media reporting and the IPCC are compelled by embarrassment. b****r all would have happened otherwise.

 

[big soft moose]

I think you are being a little "Devils Advocate" here , there are many cases where freedom of assembly would now be curtailed, think of kettling at many marches, or that odious little EDL man and his cavemen who wanted to gather in Woolwich a week or so ago.

Think what would happen if you tried to organise a "White Pride" march or rally in London for next Saturday. I'm pretty sure your freedom of assembly would be curtailed quite quickly when you attempt to gather in Trafalgar Square...

Yeah but I said I couldn't think of any major liberty I had lost since I was a kid - in that time (and indeed a lot longer) its never been okay to assemble with the express intention of inciting riot or racial hatred. Since I have no intention of doing either this doesn't really concern me

(the riot act of 1714 allowed local authorities to declare a group of more than 12 people unlawfully assembled - That was some several hundred years before I was born)

 

[big soft moose]

Except when you don't. See Criminal Justice Act.

- see my post above about the riot act (and its supeceding Criminal Law act 1967 .

Unless you've been extraordinarily rendered and tortured in a secret/foreign prison.

But I haven't, nor do I know of any british national who has (most of the ho ha about rendition related to allowing US rendition flights to land here to refuel - ) Again I could really give a **** about the rights of terrorists imo they forfeited their right as a combatant when they started deliberately targeting civilians

You confuse me with someone else! I've never said Britain is, or is becoming a police state.

No that was jon , but i'm not just replying to you, such is the nature of internet fora

It's worth bearing in mind that the Lawrence case, Hillsborough etc are only being investigated because of media reporting and the IPCC are compelled by embarrassment. b****r all would have happened otherwise.

Exactly - none of which would have happened in a true police state like China or Iran - thus demonstrating that we do have a free press and this isn't 1984

 

[Phil V]

We still have the freedom of assembly - my mates and I were practicing it the other day

If you want to prove you have freedom of assembly, take 20 of your mates to the Palace of Westmibster, where you'll be breaking the law.

A law created as a knee jerk reaction to someone the prime minister needed to get rid of. Sledgehammer to crack a nut.

 

[SLRUser]

.



"I’m fairly sure if they took porn off the internet, there’d only be one website left, and it’d be called BringBackThePorn.com!" - Dr Perry Cox (Scrubs)



.

 

[big soft moose]

If you want to prove you have freedom of assembly, take 20 of your mates to the Palace of Westmibster, where you'll be breaking the law.
.

I was there with several hundred people and a petition against the reform of the planning act last year - the day passed off pretty smoothly with the petition presented at downing street , and no problems with the police who were friendly and courteous throughout (probably because we didn't go with the intention of having a ruck with them)

 

[Richard King]

off topic a bit

 

[sponner]

there is nothing to stop you and 1000 mates all deciding to lobby your MP on the same day though...........

 

[Laudrup]

Didn't think the government could come up with something dumber than the pasty tax, but bravo.

 

[rssmrry]

ahh hobbit porn

Rule 34 - no exceptions!

But yeah, stupid 'vote winner' - I don't think it will win votes. The great thing about the internet is the lack of censorship. If governments start to censor what they happen to find unpleasant (bear in mind they're talking about legal pornography here), you have to wonder where they'll stop. Also as it stands, current ISP blocks don't stop people accessing torrent sites so all it takes is one kid who knows how to (and any idiot can find out how!) and they'll tell their friends and then the block is useless entirely.

If you don't want your kids to watch porn then do something about it; put the computer in the family room and check what they're doing! I remember we had parental controls on my PC when I was a kid and I think I was able to get past it really easily (within a few minutes). And I was pretty useless with computers then! NB: I was bypassing them to play MMORPGs - not to view porn! Dunno which would be more embarrassing!

Responsibility should be with the parents not society.

And the idea that guys who watch legal pornography are then gonna go onto illegal stuff and then abuse/kill children is absurd. A vast number of men (and women) will watch legal pornography and to tar them all as potential paedophiles etc is ridiculous and frankly that's what Mr Cameron is suggesting.

Stupid, pointless, cheap stunt but very difficult to argue against because the trump card to anything you say is 'think of the children'.

Absurd.

 

[sponner]

there is a lot of stuff about "freedom" on this thread, I wonder how many of the bravehearts have witnessed the serious harm that inappropriate access to graphic imagery can do at first hand?

 

[rssmrry]

there is a lot of stuff about "freedom" on this thread, I wonder how many of the bravehearts have witnessed the serious harm that inappropriate access to graphic imagery can do at first hand?

I can't say I have but I would suggest that parents have a responsibility to protect their own kids from viewing such things. I think if you're gonna do something it should actually work. This will not work, give parents a false sense of security and kids will still be able to view inappropriate content online! Surely this is worse than doing nothing? This isn't the internet's problem, so why is censorship of it the answer?

 

[Phil V]

I was there with several hundred people and a petition against the reform of the planning act last year - the day passed off pretty smoothly with the petition presented at downing street , and no problems with the police who were friendly and courteous throughout (probably because we didn't go with the intention of having a ruck with them)

For which you needed a permit. Or you were breaking the law.


It's no good telling us you were free to assemble and were good boys. That's irrelevant. You don't have a legal right to assemble freely within a mile of the Palace of Westminster without prior permission, and that's a relatively new law. As I said, hastily written.
You keep saying your rights haven't been eroded during your lifetime but frankly that just makes you ignorant of quite a few laws.

 

[boliston]

I think the bottom line is that censorship requires "snooping", and I do not want my ISP "snooping" on my web activity any more than I want the Royal Mail opening all my letters to "snoop" on them to check their content.

 

[big soft moose]

For which you needed a permit. Or you were breaking the law.


It's no good telling us you were free to assemble and were good boys. That's irrelevant. You don't have a legal right to assemble freely within a mile of the Palace of Westminster without prior permission, and that's a relatively new law. As I said, hastily written.
You keep saying your rights haven't been eroded during your lifetime but frankly that just makes you ignorant of quite a few laws.

or those laws don't affect my life - because they are aimed at controlling the activities of criminals and terrorists and such, and as I am neither they are an irrelevance.

If I want to assemble within a mile of Westminster, i'll apply for a permit - which won't be withheld because I'm not planning a riot - since we never had the right to assemble and have a riot anyway where's the harm

 

[ghoti]

I think the bottom line is that censorship requires "snooping", and I do not want my ISP "snooping" on my web activity any more than I want the Royal Mail opening all my letters to "snoop" on them to check their content.

To be fair, it doesn't require any more snooping than ISPs are currently capable of. They just add an automated filter between you and the internet.

 

[sponner]

http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/have-your-say/lobbying/

just organise a mass lobby, afaik it circumvents the assembly law.

 

[boliston]

To be fair, it doesn't require any more snooping than ISPs are currently capable of. They just add an automated filter between you and the internet.

I would definitely avoid an ISP that decides what I can and cannot access - people should be given a certain level of responsibility in a free society.

 

[Laudrup]

there is a lot of stuff about "freedom" on this thread, I wonder how many of the bravehearts have witnessed the serious harm that inappropriate access to graphic imagery can do at first hand?

Any examples?