Sockpuppet 0 #1 August 30, 2006 Violent Internet Porn Banned: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/5297600.stm What do people think over this ban? Justified or are we heading towards becoming more like China and its great firewall. How can we tell them that what they are doing is wrong when we are starting to do the same. I guess the argument comes down to the old BBFC ratings on films. Who can tell me what is and is not suitable for me to view. Plenty of things that I have done before and probably will do again could be classed by some people (think conservative christian types) as vile and horrific. Plenty of things that they do (think going to church) I classify as vile and horrific brainwashing. A quote from the article: "My daughter Sue and myself are very pleased that after 30 months of intensive campaigning we have persuaded the government to take action against these horrific internet sites, which can have such a corrupting influence" Well I've made my own list of sites that should be banned and people given 3 years for viewing, after all they promote looking to the stars and listening to imaginary people for answers: http://www.cofe.anglican.org/ http://www.muslim-answers.org/ www.baptist.org.uk/ www.watchtower.org/ See how many different people can take many different things to be many different ways. This is not a porn vs. religion debate and I DO NOT wish to see any of the porn described above as im not a sick twisted fuck, however I also dont want to tell people that the UK is a huge democracy one one hand and have the government vet what is ok for people to view on the other hand. Where will they stop? Is the government getting too much power over what we see and could they abuse this (stop anti govt. sites from being displayed labelling them as terrorists. Discuss. ------ Two of the three voices in my head agree with you. It might actually be unanimous but voice three only speaks Welsh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scoop 0 #2 August 30, 2006 I think the issue with this was the websites display rape and torture and the like. As you probably know their daughter was killed in such an act. I don't think banning that sort of stuff is wrong, I'd welcome it, but there would be a hazy problem of where to draw the line. Whats torture and whats S&M for instance. There is another point (which I don't believe) which is sex offenders claim by looking at disgusting images and videos it satisfies their desires without them having to carry them out themselves. So what... violent porn by presription? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #3 August 30, 2006 >What do people think over this ban? Get ready for your computer to be searched, and the porn on it analyzed by a gray-haired bureaucrat who will decide if it's "bad" porn or "good" porn. I can just see it now - "Ooooh, that woman is wearing scary clothes and holding a whip. If that's not suggesting violence I don't know what is." "That woman does NOT look like she's having fun. He's putting . . woah! . . .that's GOTTA be painful and potentially life-threatening." "This one shows women wrestling in mud! And one's holding the other one down! Advocating suffocation, eh? Maybe you'll have fun doing that in prison, you sicko!" >Is the government getting too much power . . . That question sorta answers itself, doesn't it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DZJ 0 #4 August 30, 2006 I think a law like this will be unenforceable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #5 August 30, 2006 >I think the issue with this was the websites display rape and torture and the like. Well: a) If the websites display real torture, rape, or murder, then they get shut down and everyone associated with it is arrested. Simple. b) If they really mean to ban DEPICTIONS of torture, rape or murder, then they're going to have a lot of mainstream movies, books and television shows to censor. c) If they just want to confine the censorship to porn, they're going to have to come up with a definition of porn that distinguishes it from everything else, including grade-B movies and comic books.* (* = went by a comic book convention once and was amazed at how much porn there is even in 'mainstream' comic books.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scoop 0 #6 August 30, 2006 True... so what will happen to our beloved Manga films then? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #7 August 30, 2006 I'm curious as to why England, who's been around forever as a unified entity, and most recently been a fairly free society (right?), hasn't written a constitution, even though the system of government is considered a "Constitutional Monarchy".So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scoop 0 #8 August 30, 2006 It pretty much does exist in seperate legislation such as the Police & Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), the Human Rights Act, common law and other hidden gems. There is no one source though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #9 August 30, 2006 QuoteI'm curious as to why England, who's been around forever as a unified entity, and most recently been a fairly free society (right?), hasn't written a constitution, even though the system of government is considered a "Constitutional Monarchy". Why would it need a new-fangled thing like that? It's had Magna Carta since 1215 and a Bill of Rights since 1689. Constitutions are for Johnny-Come-Lately places.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lisamariewillbe 1 #11 August 31, 2006 QuoteGet ready for your computer to be searched, and the porn on it analyzed by a gray-haired bureaucrat who will decide if it's "bad" porn or "good" porn. I can just see it now - "Ooooh, that woman is wearing scary clothes and holding a whip. If that's not suggesting violence I don't know what is." "That woman does NOT look like she's having fun. He's putting . . woah! . . .that's GOTTA be painful and potentially life-threatening." "This one shows women wrestling in mud! And one's holding the other one down! Advocating suffocation, eh? Maybe you'll have fun doing that in prison, you sicko!" OMG okay I know skydivers are freaks and such but whod have thunk that youd post like that.... I thought Remi was the perverted greenie? Pain is good ... but woman shouldnt use whips, they should only deliver them Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #12 August 31, 2006 QuoteI'm curious as to why England, who's been around forever as a unified entity, and most recently been a fairly free society (right?), hasn't written a constitution, even though the system of government is considered a "Constitutional Monarchy". Well, we were going to demand one....But then they took our guns awayWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #13 August 31, 2006 >I thought Remi was the perverted greenie? As you should be aware of by now, Remi knows nothing of such things. Just ask him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #14 August 31, 2006 Quote>I thought Remi was the perverted greenie? As you should be aware of by now, Remi knows nothing of such things. Just ask him. Well, now he has admitted that he enjoys wearing 8-inch-heel ballet boots... But since he doesn't pose a threat to women while wearing those, at least it will still be legal in the UK to possess pictures of him in his pervy boots. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,119 #15 August 31, 2006 >But since he doesn't pose a threat to women while wearing those . . . No, but I would suspect he'd pose a deadly threat to himself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lisamariewillbe 1 #16 August 31, 2006 QuoteAs you should be aware of by now, Remi knows nothing of such things. Just ask him I cant.... he scares me didnt he write about figs once Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites akarunway 1 #17 August 31, 2006 QuoteI think the issue with this was the websites display rape and torture and the like. As you probably know their daughter was killed in such an act. I don't think banning that sort of stuff is wrong, I'd welcome it, but there would be a hazy problem of where to draw the line. Whats torture and whats S&M for instance. There is another point (which I don't believe) which is sex offenders claim by looking at disgusting images and videos it satisfies their desires without them having to carry them out themselves. So what... violent porn by presription? A lot of it is fantasy stuff. I had one kinky ex and it all stayed in the house between her and I. No govt. need be involved in MY bedroomI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Samurai136 0 #18 August 31, 2006 QuoteWhere will they stop? Is the government getting too much power over what we see and could they abuse this (stop anti govt. sites from being displayed labelling them as terrorists. Discuss. ENGLAND PREVAILS!"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #19 August 31, 2006 QuoteGet ready for your computer to be searched, and the porn on it analyzed by a gray-haired bureaucrat who will decide if it's "bad" porn or "good" porn. ...they uh... ...they might not have to search too hard... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #20 August 31, 2006 Quote>But since he doesn't pose a threat to women while wearing those . . . No, but I would suspect he'd pose a deadly threat to himself. There are ways to keep him from hurting himself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #21 August 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteGet ready for your computer to be searched, and the porn on it analyzed by a gray-haired bureaucrat who will decide if it's "bad" porn or "good" porn. ...they uh... ...they might not have to search too hard... And hopefully you have this divided into subfolders of "good porn" and "bad porn" to help them out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #22 August 31, 2006 QuoteAnd hopefully you have this divided into subfolders of "good porn" and "bad porn" to help them out. That brings up an interesting hijack. Who would actually ever maintain a "bad porn" folder? Do they actually think they're fooling the person that finds it? If you really thought it was "bad" wouldn't you just delete it? Following the philosophy that the truth sets you free, I think a more appropriate folder name would be "/home/username/porn/I'm really not proud of this/" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,119 #23 August 31, 2006 >Who would actually ever maintain a "bad porn" folder? Otherwise known as your "email attachements" folder. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites miked10270 0 #24 August 31, 2006 QuoteViolent Internet Porn Banned: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/5297600.stm What do people think over this ban?.... Discuss. Sorry for the delay in responding. The delay had NOTHING to do with wiping massive sections of my hard drive -- 'cos I wasn't!!!" It's simply the latest example of the strange concept that: "Since I have suffered in some way, I now have the right to control the behaviour of others!" Reading the original reports of the murder of Jane Longhurst by Graham Coutts, it's evident that he already had a fixation with violence and strangulation as a fetish. It's probable that he used the "resources" of the internet to feed & explore this fetish (to educate himself?), but "violent-porn" on the internet DID NOT create this fetish in him. Still. We're at the early law-making stage of "Ministers-making-announcements". Let's see if cooler heads prevail during the actual drafting of the law - along with teh realisation that "The Obscene Publications Act already covers a major part of this, and just where the line will be drawn relative to MPs own porn collections. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites miked10270 0 #25 August 31, 2006 Apparently there is a significant backlash! In the meantime, here's some examples of the sort of SICK SHIT that'll get you 3 years jail. Near nakedness. Torture. Blood. Death. Actual event!!! Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
billvon 3,119 #15 August 31, 2006 >But since he doesn't pose a threat to women while wearing those . . . No, but I would suspect he'd pose a deadly threat to himself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lisamariewillbe 1 #16 August 31, 2006 QuoteAs you should be aware of by now, Remi knows nothing of such things. Just ask him I cant.... he scares me didnt he write about figs once Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #17 August 31, 2006 QuoteI think the issue with this was the websites display rape and torture and the like. As you probably know their daughter was killed in such an act. I don't think banning that sort of stuff is wrong, I'd welcome it, but there would be a hazy problem of where to draw the line. Whats torture and whats S&M for instance. There is another point (which I don't believe) which is sex offenders claim by looking at disgusting images and videos it satisfies their desires without them having to carry them out themselves. So what... violent porn by presription? A lot of it is fantasy stuff. I had one kinky ex and it all stayed in the house between her and I. No govt. need be involved in MY bedroomI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samurai136 0 #18 August 31, 2006 QuoteWhere will they stop? Is the government getting too much power over what we see and could they abuse this (stop anti govt. sites from being displayed labelling them as terrorists. Discuss. ENGLAND PREVAILS!"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #19 August 31, 2006 QuoteGet ready for your computer to be searched, and the porn on it analyzed by a gray-haired bureaucrat who will decide if it's "bad" porn or "good" porn. ...they uh... ...they might not have to search too hard... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #20 August 31, 2006 Quote>But since he doesn't pose a threat to women while wearing those . . . No, but I would suspect he'd pose a deadly threat to himself. There are ways to keep him from hurting himself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #21 August 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteGet ready for your computer to be searched, and the porn on it analyzed by a gray-haired bureaucrat who will decide if it's "bad" porn or "good" porn. ...they uh... ...they might not have to search too hard... And hopefully you have this divided into subfolders of "good porn" and "bad porn" to help them out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #22 August 31, 2006 QuoteAnd hopefully you have this divided into subfolders of "good porn" and "bad porn" to help them out. That brings up an interesting hijack. Who would actually ever maintain a "bad porn" folder? Do they actually think they're fooling the person that finds it? If you really thought it was "bad" wouldn't you just delete it? Following the philosophy that the truth sets you free, I think a more appropriate folder name would be "/home/username/porn/I'm really not proud of this/" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #23 August 31, 2006 >Who would actually ever maintain a "bad porn" folder? Otherwise known as your "email attachements" folder. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #24 August 31, 2006 QuoteViolent Internet Porn Banned: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/5297600.stm What do people think over this ban?.... Discuss. Sorry for the delay in responding. The delay had NOTHING to do with wiping massive sections of my hard drive -- 'cos I wasn't!!!" It's simply the latest example of the strange concept that: "Since I have suffered in some way, I now have the right to control the behaviour of others!" Reading the original reports of the murder of Jane Longhurst by Graham Coutts, it's evident that he already had a fixation with violence and strangulation as a fetish. It's probable that he used the "resources" of the internet to feed & explore this fetish (to educate himself?), but "violent-porn" on the internet DID NOT create this fetish in him. Still. We're at the early law-making stage of "Ministers-making-announcements". Let's see if cooler heads prevail during the actual drafting of the law - along with teh realisation that "The Obscene Publications Act already covers a major part of this, and just where the line will be drawn relative to MPs own porn collections. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #25 August 31, 2006 Apparently there is a significant backlash! In the meantime, here's some examples of the sort of SICK SHIT that'll get you 3 years jail. Near nakedness. Torture. Blood. Death. Actual event!!! Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
