UK 'bad' pics ban to stretch? The government could be planning to up the ante when it comes to material it doesn't approve of - it may become illegal to even look at images, not merely possess them. Some odd, ambiguous remarks by Keir Starmer, Director of Public Prosecutions, raise this gruesome possibility. Evidence for it emerged from an elliptical …
So, say I have a shock site hosting an image that has now become illegal. Can I trick people into visiting, and then forward their IP's to the police?
Could I, in fact, spam people over and over with illegal pictures from outside of the UK until everyone in the country is a criminal?
Since when did our NuLabourian Overlords let a little thing like that stop them.
Create the 'crime'.
Develop the 'detection'.( Whether flawed or not)
Persecute the unbeliever!
Sorry, of course I meant "Prosecute the lawbreaker".
Anybody think that they'll stop at 'bad' pics & vids.
Me neither.
All dissent will be quelled with the "those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear" call to the sheeple.
Just put it all in a "thought police" bill and be done with it.
I like many others, am fed up with this steady drip drip drip of poorly thought out legislation that is eroding every aspect of common sense.
Most people are good. Lets just be clear on that.
Legislating for a small minority causes harm, there must be existing laws for criminal activity, and there must be proper debate on issues.... UK 2009 is looking more and more like the church run dictatorships of the dark ages, 500 years ago.
We only need one new law, that is to have to make a provable case for need, as so many of our new laws are not exactly justified.
Just assume that everyone in the country is/was/will-be guilty of some sort of imprisonable offence. By-pass the judicial system completely and incarcerate everyone, possibly under a 42 day "because we say-so" law (and keep rolling it over ad-nauseam). Declare the whole of GB as one, big open prison. We already have the level of monitoring and restrictions in place, so there won't be much change needed.
If possible, encourage other countries to prosecute brits under their own laws and to imprison them overseas, at their own expense - thus outsourcing part of the legal system. Even go so far as to charge them if the things they are accused of aren't illegal in the UK. Make it known that the british government won't make it difficult (in fact, will probably even help) to extradite people who are even suspected of anything, without asking for any evidence to be presented.
This sort of process will also allow the govt to collect DNA "evidence" from everyone, to further their aim of knowing everything about us, without having to bother with any nasty new laws that people who obviously have things to hide might object to. By using ever smaller and more dubious quantities of DNA for matching, it should be possible to connect someone with pretty much any crime (if the level of confidence is reduced far enough).
Even better, since prisoners are not allowed to vote, the next government can be elected by a landslide of the only people who won't be in jail: the MPs themselves!
...the next step is now to censor violent imagery, including cartoons and comic books, since anyone who enjoys looking at violent imagery is obviously on a slippery slope to committing a violent act?
Seriouly though, looking at images of children can act as a sexual relief for those who are unfortunate enough to suffer from the mental illness that is paedophilia.
When the penalty for looking at an image is so high, they have less to lose by actually abusing a real, live child.
Make the punishment for looking at cartoon drawings the same as for looking at real images of abuse, and there's no disincentive for those of that mind to progress straight to the more severe crime.
The next step, no doubt, is to make it illegal to *THINK* about children. Expect compulsory brain implants as part of the National ID Card scheme.
"If someone is watching streaming images online, there would be no actual copy on their computer, so they would not technically be in possession."
There would, temporarily. Streaming videos are cached on hard disk usually, and there would always be a copy in RAM, otherwise the image wouldn't be able to be displayed.
Depends on how possession is defined really. Maybe they'd stretch it to the copy that is stored in your brain's memory?
'He also confirmed that the law should catch "any pornographic image scrawled on a piece of paper": even, presumably, an image that an individual created for their own use and no other.'
So no more CDCs anywhere. Thats B3TA stuffed.
And will all the copies of the Simpsons movie now be recalled?
I seem to recal possession is defined as a factual state of ownership. Streaming simply doesn't fit in that catagory.
I can foresee several eminent judges dribbling at the idea of sticking this one back up the rectums of the ignorant House with vigour and speed. And yet more of my money is wasted on redundant laws I see little point of in the first place.
Tossers.
Wouldn't that mean that in order to 'detect', investigating police would have to 'commit'? Can I make a citizen's arrest, or does it only apply to the plebs? In which case, by extension would murder not be murder if the police did it?
Paris, because soon looking at her bedroom shenanigans maybe be too naughty for the lunatics that 'run' our country.
I'd write something here but I'm now too worried that it would get me on a special watch list of some sort.
However
There is no evidence to support the governments opinion, and it is almost unbelivable to think that now not only staged acts of extreme pornography, but also drawings of loli will become the equivellent of own child pornography, and seen as the bar is so low on indecent images (I'm pretty sure having a catalogue of child clothing could land you in the slammer.)
Oh well, it was always going to happen, this government wants to be seen to be doing things about nothing whilst ignoring very real problems. But here's hoping some extremists succeed where the voters have failed and remove the Labour front bench from the world.
So as we move all our activities more and more online, with less reliance on static, locally held data, this is going to prove to be some serious fun proving that you did or did not see said image.
Prove I saw that image on a PC screen through a neighbour's window?
Bring out the brain scanners and dream recorders! This smells like the work of Wacky J proving once again that she has the technical ability of a two year-old child!
Utter crap!
I can see where the DPP is coming from. This example is an edge case, and that's better left to the courts than handled hurriedly by confused MPs.
Never mind that the Government treats MPs like mushrooms.
But it's stupid. It was prosecutors and judges who decided that downloading an illegal image was "making" an image. It makes the guy with a computer difficult to distinguish from the active predator with a camera.
Anyway, I mess around with CGI. There are all sorts of subtle cues I recognise. They wouldn't want me on a jury.
Besides, they might be coming after me for that image of Anubis and Bastet...
A little while back I left our local pub and as I was passing an alley way I heard a noise. Looking down the alley I saw the waitress fellating a lucky customer. I wandered on not wishing to destroy a romantic moment.
Now if that same thing happened today am I now a criminal for merely viewing this action? Im pretty sure public sex is still a bit dodgy legally, so does being an unwitting witness make me a criminal? What if, god forbid, the guy was sexually assaulting the young lady....would witnessing a violent sexual attack make me a criminal now?
Does also viewing an image still count if you dont own the thing making the image? Occasionally at work someone will say 'have a look at this' and show you something funny/dodgy/pornographic on their phone. If that image is illegal am I now a filthy sex offender because I saw it even though I had no prior knowledge of its contents?
My job often takes me into peoples homes. People have photos on their walls, screen savers etc. What if someone has a picture of their kids playing on the beach naked (like a photo my sister has on her wall). Am i now instantly a deranged peado for seeing it? People have been prosecuted for taking photos of thier own children like that to get processed.
What about shit they show on TV? if, like during the american superbowl, a TV station was to broadcast porn by mistake, would everyone watching instantly find themselves up before the beak if it was considered to be extreme porn?
The list of situations could go on ad infinitem. The fuckers just want to criminalise us all. And nobody starts spouting the 'if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear' bullshit. If this law could be enforced as suggested you dont actually NEED to have anything to hide, simply SEEING could make you a criminal.
How I despise these fucking morons.
He also confirmed that the law should catch "any pornographic image scrawled on a piece of paper"
So, presumably, any image scrawled on 'not paper' as well?
So, presumably this will include those ill drawn graphic images found on doors and walls inside most public toilets which depict genitalia and some of their uses.
Can I therefore conclude that scrawling "Mandy is a great shag" on the wall is perfectly acceptable but any pictures added for the hard of reading will contravene the act and render the artist liable to prosecution?
You would of course need CCTV footage to prove anything........
.......or will the local Council be liable as they own and maintain the building?
The whole notion that cartoon images are in anyway like real images is utter shit.
They don't look anything like real people, it's bulls--- made by stupid ----ing pencil pushers who want to make it look like they have a clue.
These people are ----ing retarded, I don't know a single lolicon who has any interest in real children, they have no evidence, no facts, just bullshit and a few studies rushed together by a bat shit crazy woman who probably wants all men castrated at birth.
http://53rg10.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/nanoha-fly.jpg Look like a real girl to you? Ever seen anyone on earth who looks anything like that? No! Well ---t that's a ----ing suprise.
GOD DAMN IT~~~~~~~~~
And they keep making up bulls--t laws that target people who are in the least likely catagory to commit crimes of any nature.
Most adult rapes are commited by friends and people the victim knows, not some random guy who beats off to extreme porn in his bed room.
Most children are abused by parents, family members and close family friends, again not random guys beating off to lolicon in their bed rooms.
But hell no ---- it lets make something illegal that'll make no difference at all to the real world just so we can look good in the newspapers that feed shit to the retarded masses that vote.
Jesus christ I hate them so much that the rage is almost blinding.
And I hate society for being so f---ing lame.
If looking at disturbing images makes you disturbed then surely the Police and people who do jury service are really messed up?
The internet was a real liberator years ago. It will soon be censored, filtered and highly commercialised (it's getting there, just needs big corps to effectively own parts of it).
Does anyone really think that once a government has such a power that they will be satisfied with it and never expand it? Here in the States, the Democrats who are now in power are pushing what they call the "Fairness Doctrine", although it is anything but. Apparently, the Democrats are none too happy that only Republican radio stations are successful. So, instead of letting the market decide like a good capitalist should, they rather do the communist thing and control what is said and call it "fair". Oh, they are pushing it hard. But here is the thing, it won't stop there. They will expand it. "And many strokes, though with a little axe, can hew and fell the hardest timbered oak", wrote Shakespeare. It is one of my favorite quotes. If all the rights were gone overnight, people would notice and stop it. But little by little, they chop away at the rights, until they are gone and nobody noticed.
We are witnessing the beginning of the end. If these laws pass, write that date down. Because that will be the date each country traded freedom for oppression.
Scene: police interview room.
Knuckles: You got nothing on me, copper!
Officer: Oh yeah? Take a look at this, Knuckles. (he puts a child porn photo on the table in front of Knuckles)
Knuckles: (looks) Oh you slaaaaaag!
Officer: Ha! Bang to rights! I am charging you with viewing child porn. Take him to the cells! And bring in that suspect who was heckling the Home Secretary next!
You could expand this to movies, TV shows, and books about people commiting crimes - not only could they incite people to commit crimes, but also teaches them how to do it to avoid getting caught. So, using their thinking those should be banned, too.
It looks like the UK is becoming a far worse place than the US under Bush ever was.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyvPeAkMc8c&feature=related
and
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_w_h__0_5?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=kiddy+grade&sprefix=kiddy
certain seans in the vid will defentley be caught in the law but they are BBFC ed and on sale??
did anybody point that out to our glorious parliamentary overlords?
Actually I think we're seeing the End of the Begining, in the UK at least, they've gone from CP to Photorealistic CP to Extereme Porn to Drawn Loli and I expect to drawn extreme porn. Also at the same time possesing or providing information that may be of aid to terrorists. Gathering data that may be of use to terrorists, and detention without charge. Also extordinary rendition, and reducing benefits for those who don't spend money in a way the government sees as sensible,
That I feel is the end of the begining, we're well onto the wedge now, I suspect next will be hardcore porn, violence involving children and exposing children to images of an extreme violent nature.
Maybe they'll take a look back at getting ammendments to the laws around insulting religion again see if they can't get their origonal version through (making it illegal to say anything bad about another religion, including both satire and intelligent criticism.)
Again, taking action on rubbish whilst ignoring the real problems.
We're at the end of the beginning they have alot more to do before they're satisfied that society is safe from itself.
Life without risk is no life at all, and a life in a place of perfect safety is no better then a life in a cage.
Hit and run is bad, but catching the driver is difficult. So let's arrest the witnesses to a hit and run, they are easier to prosecute. That way we've satisfied our election pledge that every crime will be punished and the victims mum in her emotional state will have someone to blame. Bad witness to a crime, bad!
Yeh, because, seeing something is the same as doing something, even if that something is fiction or even not a crime, or even a fictional cartoon of not a crime.
See a murder on a crime show? You bad person, go to jail. See a murder on a cartoon show? You bad person, go to jail.
Thus we protect the UK from evil people like you.
well firstly, in order to view the image in the first place, surely it helps for the image in question to be downloaded to a computer, at least to ram, y'know, so you can fking see the thing?!? these people seem to think I can obtain digital images from a web server, without actually downloading them....?, news to me, i must stop paying for an 'unlimited' connection to the internet when i can use the net without even needing to utilise my bandwidth, amazing!! I had no idea!!
secondly, if its streaming, and I didn't have to do anything to request that specific image, who's to say I actually wanted to see it? are you seriously suggesting the equivilent of arresting me because someone flashed a picture in front of my eyes, what if I found the image just as offensive as anyone else? Surely the crime is the fact it was shown to me without my prior consent (if someone streaks at a football match do you arrest the streaker or the crowd?!, ERM DUH!!!!!?? W.T.F)
If this kind of thing continues to get out of hand it is going to bring about an EXTREME state of unrest in society until everyone in the whole country just gets together in the middle of london and gives them all a nice big collective F-OFF
... which is not good law-making practice"
Since when has *that* stopped this bunch of Nanny State idiots?
@Doesn't this make...
Good idea: create a new form of RickRolling whereby we trick MPs into clicking on a link that leads to an "illegal image", then, as soon as they do, we log their IP address and call the Police!
We could call it Prick Rolling...
Meanwhile, of course, building on a law that has no legitimate basis, our Control Freak Government wants to extend that to make it illegal to look at anything not "State Approved" and another precious Civil Liberty is whittled away a bit further :-(
> He replied: "It would be for the courts to interpret the meaning of possession. We would
> proceed on the basis that there should be no such loophole."
>
> Mr Starmer’s reply can be interpreted in two ways: (from the article)
I would like to offer up a third interpretation. What I believe Mr Starmer is actually trying to say is - "We're the Government, we only make-up the laws, we leave it to the Judiciary and the CPS to actually write the laws and make all the important decisions".
Much of our law is written in case law and there have been occasions in the past a single Magistrate (district judge) has made a ruling which contradicts the intent of the legislators (which can be seen by leafing through Hansard to see the debates they had and the changes they made when drafting the legislation). Take for example http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1998/385.html
I just wonder what the hell the goverment is smoking sometimes and how these stupid idea's get carried forward after said idiot has dreamed it up, as it seems if a flashers exposese himself to anyone not only does he get arrested but the victim also gets nicked for seeing the obscene act in a public place.
If this is all they do to justify there jobs then I have a job suggestion - Anyone who has access to or is thinking about buying a pen, pencil, pot of paint, paint brush, paper, computer, camera, scanner, TV, video camera or is even married can be arrested for the potential production of hard core illegal pornographic material. Where the hell will this bullshit stop!
Black helicopter as it will soon be banned as it could be flying over a house were people are having sex.
we really need a change of how the internet is policed and it should not be done by independent governments, as the internet pays no attention to lines in the sand that we call international borders.
Where is our current government leading us ....into a fascist state that dictates to it's people, add this in with the stupid anti terror laws , I have got why don’t we all go back to radio it was a lot safer then!!
I am with Monty Brewster "NONE OF THE ABOVE” what is the point of my vote if it only can choose which twisted group ner-do wells dictate my life to me, representation by these morons is not democracy and never has been,
Democracy is where i get to vote on the laws that effect me and stop these glorified lobbyists which seems to be what politicians are these days.
We the people......
'He also confirmed that the law should catch "any pornographic image scrawled on a piece of paper": even, presumably, an image that an individual created for their own use and no other.'
Does that mean every child (or adult) that doodles boobs or a penis etc. would be a sex offender?
Here is a check list for our overlords that should protect everyone:
1) ban sex education ('pornographic' images in text books), in fact lets ban sex altogether (we will reproduce via test tubes)
2) ban health education ('pornographic' images in text books)
3) ban medical training ('pornographic' images in text books)
4) ban pornography/smut altogether in any medium
5) ban art that contains any part or whole of a human body
7) ban thinking about sex/human body
8) blind everyone at birth
There, that should cover it.
That for "looking at a dodgy image" to be an offence the prosecution would have to prove intent.
Still a stupid law building on stupid laws by stupid people trying to get the Daily Mail vote.
Personally I don't like violence themed porn, I like my naked women to look like women and I have no interest in cartoons / graphic novels of any type, but even I can see the slippery slope to puritanism.
THE HEGELIAN PRINCIPLE: It's a simple principle. It has only three steps:
* Step one: CREATE A "PROBLEM": Create it or take one that does exist and build it up out of all proportion to its real importance;
* Step Two: PUBLICIZE THE "PROBLEM": Make sure a story about this problem appears in the news media each and every day, in newspapers, news magazines, radio, and television. Hit it again and again in a "steady drumbeat" that soon has people who don't pay real attention to politics (which is the majority of them) clamoring for a "solution" to the problem;
* Step Three: OFFER A "SOLUTION": A solution that takes away one or more of our rights and further undermines the constitutional protections we all are supposed to enjoy. One that involves higher taxes (to pay for this "solution," of course), and one we would not have allowed them to do without this previous conditioning of the public.
If you happen to be an MP or sit in the lords, I assume you'll have a free pass or something that means you're exempt for being punished for such things?
Ya know in russia during the stalin period the sight of a womans figure, even dressed in anything other than a boiler suit. Was considered counter revolutionary and not promoting the right communist message. The fact that you even attempt to associate a womans body with communist ideals shows how warped you must be to even say that.
These people are complete muppets. They should be removed from power forcibly if necessary for the good of the nation. No need to wait for an election.
A law that the police wont understand, a file sent to a CPS who wont understand it, to be decided on by a Director who wont understand it, arraigned before a judge who wont understand it and tried by a jury who will think "pervert" and convict on sight.
No wonder it has to be an offence of strict liability!
Which for me is more sinister than all the CCTV and databases in the world. Strict liability seems to be an increasingly common short cut for the government (and I haven't been paying attention to see if the Tories did it as well) to pass broad sweeping and poorly thought out legislation.
As for streaming/possession my interpretation would be that while the stream was being viewed the viewer is possessing it, even as pixels on their screen. But then you're talking about viewing and possessing being the same res gestae - "two bites of the cherry" which unless the burden of proof is different, i.e. viewing for the purpose of gratification versus the strict liability of possession its a bit moot.
If the law was such that the CPS had to prove an INTENT to produce the images for the purposes of sexual gratification then that would make sure it was used only in the most severe and appropriate cases and would, in one simple step, protect those who are genuine artists.
"Can I therefore conclude that scrawling "Mandy is a great shag" on the wall is perfectly acceptable but any pictures added for the hard of reading will contravene the act and render the artist liable to prosecution?"
Actually, it's getting damned-near close to criminalising anyone who uses that cubicle and makes the mistake of glancing at the poorly-drawn sketch.
"Number two was it, sir? If you wouldn't mind stepping this way. Mind your head..."
>"Mr Starmer expressed the view that there will be no issues in respect of artistic works, because, he argued, this law will be aligned very closely with the existing law relating to indecent images of children."
So what we need to do now is answer that most elementary of questions (c/oRudyard Kipling): "But is it Art?"
No room for ambiguity there, eh?
"We are being asked to choose between two conflicting world views: on the one hand, there is a belief in the 'slippery slope', that looking at images habituates individuals to the actions involved and can increase the risk to children; on the other it is argued that these images act as a release and actually reduce the incidence of harm."
So, a choice between maybe causing more people to suffer or not causing more people to suffer. Sounds like a no-brainer to me. Don't make more people suffer. Vote against it.
Hooray for Jenny Willott, MP!
I'm so glad there's someone in the Commons who's tackling this.
During the second reading debate, another MP, Sir Paul Beresford (Conservative) (Mole Valley), had some worrying things to say.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090126/debtext/90126-0004.htm#0901264000001
Firstly, he wants written material to be made illegal as well as images. When it becomes a crime to simply write the wrong kind of stuff down on paper, we know we're no longer in a free country. I wonder how many teenagers will have to burn their diaries?
Secondly, he wants similar penalties for drawings as for photographs. (Seems he doesn't care much at all about whether the children and abuse are real or not. That suggests he's just a paedo-basher, rather than someone genuinely concerned about protecting children.)
Thirdly, he's got a Private Members' Bill going through the Commons, the Protection of Children (Encrypted Material) Bill 2008-09. The purpose of it is to deal with the problem of paedophiles hiding material in encrypted files so as to get away with lighter sentences when they refuse to disclose the keys.
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2008-09/protectionofchildrenencryptedmaterial.html
Second reading of his Bill is on 20th March 2009.
Now, if simply looking at an image on paper is a crime... who's with me on the quest to send an image to every single member of UK gov't and every UK judge? Just cost you each a stamp.
Then at least we'll all know the place is being run by a bunch of criminals in robes. Can they arrest and detain each other then? WILL they arrest and detain each other?
Just curious - the new law about comic art and cartoons is undoubtedly one of the craziest laws I think I've ever encountered, and terrifying in that it has no basis in any kind of legal fact or research. Did wonder though, in the consultation documents that preceeded the bill there was no mention of text stories, or audio recordings. Are these both legal then?
for a Prosecutor to argue that the possession was completed when the images appeared on the screen being used to watch whatever it was. The fact that it was "possessed" only in a form that
could not be captured onto the computer would not, I dont think, stop a Court interpreting it that way IF THEY WANTED TO. On a related subject ,I hate it when I see them charge someone with "...making indecent images of children...." because most joe public would think that they had actually taken the photos NOT that it was "made" simply because it was viewed and cached.
This is highly misleading and unfair.
"So, say I have a shock site hosting an image that has now become illegal. Can I trick people into visiting, and then forward their IP's to the police?"
Yes. And I think it's already happened in the US in a case I read about. Well, the person posting the links didn't forward them to the police, the photos were on some "sting" site. The INITIAL links were put on by the feds on the seediest forums on the internet where they figured paedos hung out and made it pretty obvious what kind of photos were being linked to. But then people LATER posted links to this "sting" site from regular forums with very generic description like "here's some photos", not making it clear at all what KIND of photos they were. One click, bam! Here comes the feds. I don't know if they got convicted but they were charged at least. And of course the feds stole their computers -- they don't seem capable of making forensic copies, they just sit on machines until they are entirely obsolete, if they ever give them back.
yes, that's right. everything we know, understand, study etc are due to our perception of things.
perception that includes 'seeing with our eyes'. unless we are able to see into the future, how do we know what will present itself to us? and so how do we know when not to look?
then there's the issue of, how exactly is the law going to prove that you actually saw something. just because something 'unfolded on a screen' doesn't mean you saw it. a person can always argue that they were looking the other way. this in itself is 'reasonable doubt' to me..
there is also the matter of how much we can control what we see. has anyone out there not had the unpleasant experience of unwanted and unrequested things popping up?
and so in closing... with such a new law in place, it's completely feasable that if i don't like someone i can sneakily send them something, or put up an 'illegal to see' picture on their front door... then hand them over to the police saying they broke the law... and who's to say that this isn't exactly what our disgusting leaders have in mind for us all?
you will be a criminal. no matter what.
do you know all the laws? all hundreds of thousands of them? you don't huh? well that's no excuse. (unless you're a lawyer of course).
Wade,
Show any verifiable evidence of the Democrats pushing for changes to the "fairness doctrine." Any. No, not Republicans or Rush or Sean or Bill making the claim. An actual Democrat.
Do you know what the point of the fairness doctrine is, anyways? The idea is that the airwaves belong to the public and commercial enterprises may use them. BUT they must allow for opposing views to be heard. I don't know if you are old enough to remember, but people used to get a few minutes to go on the TV news and disagree with the presentation of a story or some editorial content. It was a way to keep media outlets honest. It was very democratic. It was in the spirit of the dissenters and pamphleteers that helped bring about the very existence of the USA.
If it were still in place perhaps someone would have come on Fax and called "BS" on the story you were watching where you were misinformed.
...if I look out the window and witness Steven Bigby and his (pri)mates rape a disable girl and throw acid over her then I will be locked up too.
Luckily NuLabour's "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" policy of letting sick rapists out on bail worked for once enabling some good citizen to stab the c***.
I still won't bother to vote at the next election because where I live the Tories have a 12,500 majority so I will stay in and keep the doors locked.
Not anoymous becasue if anyone has a problem with this post I'll glady put them in their place.
I think it's important remind everyone who is actually behind all this bullsh*t legislation and every new 'thought crime' that slithers out of Parliament in connection with these issues. It's not actually the politicians, surprisingly. Politicians, being the supine, populist freelancers they are, take 'advice' about issues like this from advocates - from 'agencies' who have a particular agenda to peddle (and budgets to defend).
There is a common tendency to blame idiot politicians for these kind of bad laws - I suggest you redirect your ire to the likes of CEOP, NSPCC and IWF. Who do you think the government takes it's advice from in all those 'consultations' it undergoes? These are the kind of organisations with a narrow remit and a very focused agenda - to get the law changed at every possible opportunity to suit their business models, consequences be damned. It was CEOP, in part, who have been urging this government to classify sexual drawings of wholly fictional children (or CGI, or cartoons) as punishable in exactly the same way as photographs or videos of real children. Please do not underestimate the zeal of these people to criminalise at every opportunity. Proof of CEOP's preferred sentencing around this area can be found in Parliament's own consultation report, where they are noted as one of the agencies pushing for the strongest possible penalties.
Politicians know nothing of the injustice they cause, but are daily beset by lobby groups calling for them to 'think of the children!' and scaring the bejesus out of them with all kinds of sensationalist rhetoric. It's a form of bullying (and a highly emotive one at that), and while I won't ask you to feel in any way sorry for our poor, put-upon ministers, I would ask you to appreciate the kind of relentless pressure these people face from very insistent advocates, day in, day out.
The problem with the paedogeddon and all the issues around it is that we have now arrived in a place where common sense has long since left the stage. Which means the only people left occupying it are the vulnerable, the ignorant and the bullies.
There has long been the argument that the police shouldn't waste their time going after drug users because the problem rely lies much further up the supply chain. The idea being if you can stop the supply before it gets into the country then the problem of the users goes away.
This obsession with going after the users of "extreme" porn seems to directly contradict that.
And I thought our cousins in the UK were more educated then us hillbillys in the US of A. Why is it that all of the news about UK government policy that I read about points directly to a hard core police state? And no, we aren't far behind in that reguard. Why haven't I heard about massive demonstrations in front of Parlament? I guess leathargy is a common thread we all have these days.
Unfortunately all my keyboards have Is and Os next to each other, which is clearly sexual. And the B key looks quite provocative.
The % symbol is suspiciously like a soapy titwank, too. And let's not even mention * or ! or (worst of all) the interfering J.
In short, they've all been nabbed by the cops so I'm writing on the completely black keyboard I made when I was 17.
"Wouldn't that mean that in order to 'detect', investigating police would have to 'commit'? Can I make a citizen's arrest, or does it only apply to the plebs? In which case, by extension would murder not be murder if the police did it?"
It only applies to us, like how they can film us but we can't film them. As for murder- ask a brazilian.
Hi dickhead,
The government are making drawings and fantasy illegal. Yeah I have a problem with that - and if you don't then I have a problem with you too. I tend to take people right to think and fantasies as they please pretty ----ing seriously.
They're making looking at pictures that have been made up via someones imagination illegal, what the hell kind of fascist state does that kind of thing?
They don't have any evidence to back up any of their claims, except a few poorly researched pieces of junk written by a woman who'd happily see all porn destroyed as it's demeaning to woman.
But you're obviously too stupid and too warped to understand any of this so just go plant yourself in the garden you ----ing vegetable.
The point of this badly worded, badly drafted law/bill is NOT about criminalising pr0n watchers.. or kiddie fiddlers or the weirdos who get their rocks off on S&M
It is badly worded for a reason, in that the various interptations of the law and how its applied can be argued ad nausum by the lawyers while racking up a huge bill.
By a very strange coincidence, 95% of MPs are lawyers as well... ........
Mind you statistically speaking 1 in 10 people in the UK suffer from some form of mental illness, another interesting fact is that there are 655 MPs
type of issue, as well as Child porn, is that no one dare speak out for fear of being labelled a paedophile or pervert, as they authorities and police well know. This means they can introduce any crap laws that they wish to and no one speaks out. This Government has spent 11 years wrecking all the good things of this Country and we now live in a shell of a Country that is, im sorry to say but its true, full of TOO MANY FOREIGNERS !. The Govt are happy as long as they can sponge loads of expenses of taxpayers for their 2nd and 3rd homes, or live in plush mansions owned by the state etc etc etc. The Government would not care if we all took a hike and they replaced us all with cheap immigrant labour and turned all the factories into sweat shops BECAUSE at end of day they would still draw THEIR salaries and expenses no matter what.
As someone reading from the former colonies I'm continually astonished by the actions of the UK.gov. Leaving these kinds of laws so vague and broad with what appears to be no real intent of defining it is an even slippery slope. It appears as though you are indeed coming upon a time of "Thought Police" and for that I fear for the state of the UK and it's citizens. Best of luck for those of you fighting the good fight.
Dump your perfectly legit porn (avi torrent files are legit right, right?) , because if the girl in it might possibly be deemed to *look* under 18 to some copper/lawyer etc then you are going to jail,
It doesn't matter from what I read that she is 18+ and the porn company has all the correct paperwork on record, if she *looks* underage that is all they need, you are going to get screwed harder than the girl in the vid.
This of course applies to to the cartoons, comics or graphic novels even more as there would be even less proof of age for a fictional character. I have some old manga (not hentai even) wallpapers archived somewhere on disk that I rather suspect *might* fall foul of the law as they are suggestive, with it being cartoon/manga style there is no guessing what age they are, you could probably argue them both ways which probably means I need to find them and destroy them, just to be safe as no-one has a clue where the line is gonna fall on this law :[
1. get a bunch of Illegal to view pictures
2. tape them all over your body
3. Rob bank
If its illegal to even look at you, then how would people be able to identify you as the robber if it would be illegal for them to look at you, you could also have the bank, security guards, investigators, etc arrested for now having these images saved on their computers, VCRs or what have you.
That's right, folks. they took the part they "half thought-out" and threw it away and kept the other part they didn't really think about. Now you know how laws are made.
The solution: Find the name of every idiot who voted for this. email them so that it looks like spam and include a good half-dozen "illegal" pr0n piccys. Email is sent to their spam and maybe even "deleted", but most likely on their harddrive. Call the coppers and turn them in for having illegal pr0n on their computers and make sure you tell them it's "hidden"...you'll have to look around for it because you understand they hide it..... take a day off work to go to the trial
Mr. Starmer and the wacqui one sound like a good place to start..
Too bad you gave them away. This is a classic sign of the control freak communists that eventually turn to torching and killing for fun. Cambodia...
You people better start a violent revolution before this gets out of hand. At the current rate you are loosing freedom in 2 years you will no longer have the option to revolt.
I only just started getting into Japanese culture less than a year ago, and now it looks like I will have to get rid of a fair amount of my collection of anime and manga to be sure that I am not harbouring any "illegal art".
It's such a shame, I had barely started reading Rika-chan's House, there is a new OAV of Kodomo no Jikan coming out soon, and the latest Comiket (manga festival) was full of aesthetically pleasing Toradora/Strike Witches/Kannagi/Moe-tan doujinshi.
Despite all of the above titles being highly non-realistic artwork, most depicting only characters of age, presumably they are all now potentially illegal. Weak.
...pictures take *you* (to jail).
Christ am I ever glad I left the UK a few years back. Orwell's calendar was only about a quarter century fast.
Right now you or I may not possess or watch anything which falls foul of the law, but this is just the thin end of the wedge. How long before the vaguely worded laws suffer some scope-creep and now BAM, you're a pervy law breaker? How big a jump is it from "sightcrime" to "thoughtcrime" anyway?
Got an open wireless router? Better get it secured fucking right quick, hadn't you? For a laugh, just imagine how many people you could make into criminals merely by DNS cache poisoning some high-profile UK-based website to point to a pageful of prohibited images.
This is how civil liberties are destroyed, one small piece at a time, with the most objectionable material leading the way. I'm glad my granddad isn't around to see this slide into the sort of fascism he got wounded fighting against. How soon we forget.
Reminds me of the good old times where Miss Teacher somehow hot ahold of my 10-year old extreme porn doodles which went missing during the break but somehow made the rounds, resulting in stern punishment and a sealed letter to the parents, probably outlining my imminent way into hell or something. I still carry that around.
Goggles icon because we need those which automatically turn to nuclear-blast-level filtering mode whenever government-unmandated flesh scenes become apparent so as to keep us all innocent and fluffy forever.
> Streaming is already covered
There is *NO* offence of "making extreme pornography", unlike the offence of "making child pornography" (which is just a weasel clause in itself that makes for better headlines).
PS @ J
"Fine and dandy. Do something, then! Bunch of Internet whiners..."
How do you know? FYI I've been a member of Backlash http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ since this so-called "Extreme Pornography" nonsense started and have written to and e-mailed MPs, Lords, Newspapers and many forums. Now I'm a member of the Consenting Adult Action Network http://www.caan.org.uk/
I only regret that, due to work commitments, I'll be unable to visit the Convention on Modern Liberty on the 28th http://www.modernliberty.net/ but you can be sure I'll be seeing what comes out of it (which will be a lot more sensible than what comes out of our Government, I have no doubt)
I'm sure, however, that a lot of posters on here have also, in their way, put their shoulders to the wheel of protest against this law, so dismissing people as "internet whiners" without any evidence seems pointless.
I strongly disagree.
An essential, core part of the job of every MP is to stop bad policy and law-making by subjecting proposals to proper scrutiny. It's their job not to be easily swayed by the lobbyists and pressure groups. They're legislators precisely to make sure, on our behalf, that bad, ill-founded laws don't get made. It's the whole, effing point of having democratically elected legislators in the first effing place!
You're basically saying: don't blame the politicians for failing to do exactly what they're paid to do, exactly what they're elected to do.
I most certainly blame the politicians. It's they're job to stop these bad laws getting rammed through parliament, but they're just not doing their job.
To be fair, though, it's not all politicians who have been failing to stop these bad laws getting pushed through. In the House of Lords, it was the Lib Dems who tried to stop the "extreme porn" law. And it's a Lib Dem MP, Jenny Willott, who's daring to challenge the "cartoon porn" proposal now. The Lib Dems are generally anti police state, anti totalitarian, though, due to their underlying political philosophy.
The Tories, sadly, are more inclined to sit on the fence, as they did in the Lords when abstaining from voting on the "extreme porn" sections of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
Basically, it's New Labour MPs who are particularly to blame. Not all of them, as there are some rebels who do try to do their job. But there are enough bad New Labour MPs that the government generally manages to just keep on pushing these bad laws through.
I'd blame the voters, but it's not like we have a sufficiently democratic electoral system for such blame to be entirely reasonable. Guess who I'll be voting for at the next election (if Brown doesn't cancel it)...
You may not have noticed but the states already has a law regarding computer generated and drawn images.
Why do you think all the girls in various games are stated as being 18 when they're obviously not?
So it's actually to late for the Americans to whine, however the law is a rather good example of how poorly these things are enforced - basically only pulled out when the filth happens to find something.
Is that they made protesting within a mile of Parliament illegal unless you have the permission of the police.... and you can bet that the police are not going to give the ok to a form that says
'We the people plan on turning up with flaming torches and pitchforks to oust this ridiculous, self-serving, undemocratic, fascist, holier-than-thou, corrupt, and above all incompetent collection of people from Government. Oh, and we'll be there till they're gone."
Which, lets face it, nicely sums up the Government of the day. We need things to get significantly worse before the common or garden citezen (like me!) decides that ignoring the Law, and going to make an illegal protest is worth it. I wouldnt be surprised if it happened before Gordon Clown calls an election - he'd do anything to keep power (because he doesn't realise that he hasnt actually got any).
"How can a drawn image have an "age" ?"
I'd ask how can a fictional child in a drawing, or a cartoon or a cgi render be classed as a 'victim' of a 'sex crime'? If the subject in the drawing is purely fictional, isn't the crime alleged to have been committed against them also fictional? How can the artist or an individual in possession of said art be classified as a 'sex offender' - who - exactly - has he/she committed a sexual offence against? Can the 'victim' be brought to Court and presented before a Judge and Jury? Can forensics provide evidence of a sexual crime have been committed?
My God, there is such a wide reality gap in this whole shabby prospect that I find it quite utterly staggering that anyone is taking it seriously... and shame on those who, for whatever reasons, are actually doing so. What a ship of fools.
>Ya know in russia during the stalin period the sight of a womans figure, even dressed in anything other than a boiler suit. Was considered counter revolutionary and not promoting the right communist message.
I didn't know that and if it was so then it must have been damned hard to police. My nearest colleague is Russian(*), you could dress her in anything from treacle to galoshes and there'd be no mistaking that she has anything less than a female figure.
(*)I'd ask her if it was true but I tend to dribble profusely when talking to her.
...that the emerging situation as-outlined clearly cries out for:
http://www.kopbusters.com
It's the running howto-laden and practical-minded re-start of Genuine Justice Done Right from Heaven that has arisen from the grass-roots of the Hell on Earth that Texas became from the deadly sneering Bush/Gonzalez malgovernance era forward. One pissed-off (because he is a Good Man at heart) plod's own Moral Compass was slammed up against the wall of a senseless, lawless and false-based drug conviction of an innocent young woman of his acquaintance; the officer himself has quite apparently indeed decided that enough is enough is enough. His make-um-right action is now online.
http://www.kopbusters.com <== Click here and REJOICE.
One could do worse than to follow the general line of action illustrated in practical plodbarassment tech there, I think. I also think a little correspondence is still possible. From the contactus page on-site:
Kopbusters
P.O. Box 809
Tyler, TX 75710
Phone: (01)1-903-841-0127
Email:i nfo@nevergetbusted.com
Hours: Noon - 8:00pm Central (US) Time, Tuesday-Friday
Find a sympathetic solicitor, my friends, and adapt the moves+tech as needed to fit a Brit legal framework nice and tight. Turn that Wacqui Jaquoff high-hand and all of its high-tech snoopy-tools against itself thereby forthwith!
Best get crackin'. That two-year timeframe for the full strangle-grip to throttle all life off the Island to corpse status that another commenter in this thread mentioned might be a bit generous, as it looks from here.
So who here wants to viddy on a man's house getting busted on a false-contrived warrant for Evil Pot when it's a really a couple of Devout Christmas Trees a-baskin' under the lights, while the live streaming cams just do their job right in realtime? Then why are you still reading this shite from ME?
http://www.kopbusters.com. Because some people still care for the Things that are True, and that is what SUSTAINS LIFE.
I do dearly hope that this tidbit helps. Civil Liberty is a terrible thing to waste while we still have a little of it.
I expect that soon simply watching videos expressing anti-religious sentiment or anti-Western sentiment will also join this list. If making multimedia content comparing Islam to National Socialism is worthy of censorship, or if making internet videos telling people to kill Westerners in the name of God is illegal, then presumably so is watching them.
Actually, why not include all videos that could inspire acts of violence against the British government (as judged by Jacqui Smith)?
If the government has good evidence to show that viewing the about-to-be banned material is harmful to the viewer, or to society as a whole, then fine. If (and I suspect this is the real truth), the government is merely banning media content because it doesn't like the topics covered, then there is no reason to expect the censorship to stop at extreme pornography.
As this is a democratic nation, the electorate has a right to know on what basis the government is passing its laws. Exactly why is some content to be made illegal (ie that which involves sexual violence) whilst other potentially harmful content (eg that which involves promoting drinking alcohol, glorifies non-sexual violence or advocates religious homophobia) is deemed acceptable? And exactly what checks and balances are there to stop a government undermining our freedom of speech by banning important ideas just because they are threatening to the government's belief system?
In the modern internet age, freedom to create and view multimedia content is supposd to be a major part of our liberal and secular democratic culture. Should we allow the nature of British censorship to be determined by the personal sensibilities of a handful of idealogically partisan, and in some cases deeply religious, Ministers?
The UK is not like an open prison, it is one.
There are more cameras and authority figures the the open part than there are behind the bars. Logical really since when someone is locked up they can get up to less mischif.
In Essex our Traffic Wardens are now Civil Enforcement Officers and wear black uniforms with stab proof vests with refective yellow signs with blue writing on them.
The POLICE (comunity support) officers wear black uniforms with stab proof vests with refective yellow signs with blue writing on them.
The (real) POLICE officers walk arround with the plastic ones and wear black uniforms with stab proof vests with refective yellow signs with blue writing on them.
They also carry Tazers and threaten to Tazer me.
The BLUE icon because I miss the days when we were protected by the men in blue rather than armed fascists in BLACK uniforms.
Unless you piss them off by not cowering to their superiority then you're OK. (Yes officer, I am sorry officer, please don't taze me) Unless that is they are trying to meet targets, then they are likely to get you for whatever crime is in fashon that month.
What is the cartoon age of consent anyway? Is an 21 year old cartoon breaking the law when it has sex with a 17 year old in the privacy of it own cartoon house? or only when it's caught on cartoon film? What about when a 15 year old cartoon sends a naked picture of their cartoon body to their cartoon friends? What about cartoon bestiality? Could shaggy shag scooby? Hmm, few dogs live til 18 so probably not. But scooby doo was made from 1969 til 2002 so he's in his 30s now right?! In which case what about Scrappy-doo? 2009-1980 would make him nearly 30 too. If they're both of legal age could they shag each other? As there's no humans involved is it even obscene? It certainly seems a bit wrong but is it legal? Gah!
It's like religion, once you accept a fucking ludicrous premise there's an infinity of questions that are very hard to answer?
I'm pretty sure this is illegal by these definitions - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartman_Sucks
"Is this obscene? How about now?" - Chris Morris, Brass Eye.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
