Forum - View topicNEWS: Virtual Child Porn Ban Bill Goes to UK House of Lords
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SongstressCela
 Posts: 615 Location: Pennsylvania |
|
|||||||||
The fact that even one person is so blatantly defending such an asinine maneuver is horrifying to me. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
CCSYueh
 Posts: 2707 Location: San Diego, CA |
|
|||||||||
Actually, I grew up in a pretty religious setting (Mormon) & Goku's little "pat-pat" was a bit naughty (this was before I got into yaoi & all). I recall a news article a year or so after I got into DB of Wal-mart in some southern state cloaking nude lawn statues to protect their more sensitive cusomers which means someone had to complain they were offended by nude lawn art.
Really? Because this would be "comic books", an art perceived as less worthy than "real literature" (novels). I also seem to recall a rather lengthy list of "classic" literature that's banned in various areas of the United States. Tom Sawyer, for one. I also understand the UK has tougher standards than the US on many of these issues.
Isn't banning stuff a way from preventing it from beeing seen & thus discussed?
Best intentions still leaves room for all thoses classics I mentioned which are recognized as classics to be banned in various areas.
I would think there wouldn't be ban-worthy stuff in those classics that have been banned in various places. Obviously Mr. Handley didn't see any issue about the manga he ordered. These things are rarely applied universally. Someone's usually more over-zealous than someone else. Look at what some have said about the Handley case-authorities found the one boy looked pretty feminine & "appeared" to look underage. I mean, who'd think one needs to censor the Bible or Shakespeare? My school teachers did (turned the lamp off & just played the sound on the bedroom scene of Romeo & Juliet). |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
abunai
Old Regular
 Posts: 5463 Location: 露命 |
|
|||||||||
Who indeed? - abunai |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
nicomorr
 Posts: 127 Location: London, UK. |
|
|||||||||
Absolutley Ojisan -everyone has been bowdlerised - nice one 
One of the classic non-literary memes, is the 'wee free' religionists in Scotland covering up the udders of cows in the fields ... and of course we have the frilly skirts for Victorian piano legs. The list of sexual prudery is endless & depressing - it's an Anglo-Saxon thing .... this is one of the reaons I admire & study the Japanese, though I'm not saying they are perfect either. Less depressed of Wandsworth, Nico M London UK |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
GATSU
Posts: 15317 |
|
|||||||||
|
In other stupid similar news I stole off Crooks and Liars, a girl got arrested for child pornography, because she uploaded underage nude pics of herself.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
walw6pK4Alo
 Posts: 9322 |
|
|||||||||
what? I don't even know what to think of that. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
mufurc
 Posts: 612 |
|
|||||||||
Yes, that's why I said some would disagree - there are prudes everywhere. However, somehow I doubt that the bill was specifically drafted and would be enforced in a way to satisfy the most extreme prudery.
No, it wouldn't. It's just that to me adapting a story like Fritzl's as porn would be sick and tasteless and I wouldn't care if it was banned. Just my opinion.
Would you have your children watch or read loli/shota porn to start off discussion about child molesters or whatever? Would you use Kodomo no jikan to educate children about sexual predators? Again: this is about images "produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal." Read this post.
But we're not talking about classics, unless you consider stuff like Kodomo no jikan or Boku no Pico classics (I'm sure someone does).
Mr. Handley was arrested under American law. A different law. Again: I'm not defending the bill but for chrissakes, there's no need to overdramatize it. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Mohawk52
 Posts: 8202 Location: England, UK |
|
|||||||||
|
I'll add that this only pertains to material that has not been rated by the BBFC for anime, or licenced for legal sale in the UK for GNs. If someone is a prolific drawer of virtual child porn, but never show it to anyone, that person will have nothing to fear. That's where the "publication" argument came in. However if one has been naughty, and bit-torrented illegal, and unrated material and gets caught, you're nicked. BTW it's only Clause 49 that is anyway pertaining to Virtual CP. This is one of those sneaky moves where they stick something into a bill that has nothing to do with what the bills' title says in order to get it on the statutes, the slimmy eels. Still just because its gone to the Lords doesn't mean it's as good as passed. If they don't like it, or even have too many other bills to debate, it can simply be talked to death. as all bills must be voted on before the end of any one session. If that doesn't happen, it's considered dead, and either must be re-introduced in the next Parliament, going through the whole readings process again, or forgotten about. They could also send it back to the Lower House for ammendment, by rejection, and seeing as both Houses are in a bit of a squabble at the moment, because of the Lower House pushing through unpopular reforms to the Upper, they will be looking for any opportunity to stick one in the Lower Houses' eyes. You see the House of Lords is a non-elected body. It's a gift of privilege, or more recently money paid in, hence the reforms
Last edited by Mohawk52 on Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:14 am; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
CCSYueh
Posts: 2707 Location: San Diego, CA |
|
|||||||||
I had it explained to me in Honors English in High School that the only real dif between the "classics" & modern literature one buys from WaldenBooks is the "classics" have stood the test of time. They were the popular lit everyone was reading so that it stuck around & wasn't forgotten. Who's saying it's porn? Different people have different standards. I was totally shocked when my mother-in-law asked me about a type of sex she heard them talking about on Young & Restless (think Bill Clinton) & as soon as I told her she said "That's disgusting". What if the author felt the need to show the father's actions to heighten the horror of his deeds went further than some readers felt was good taste? Some readers might see it as a thin excuse to draw porn. The author claims it's art so does that make it art? Some of the guys doing layouts for Playboy are pretty damed good photographers & the spreads can look very nice. Where is the line between an artistically photographed nude & porn?
You denying Parents around the world Time-honored tradition of broaching a sensitive topic after the child has been exposed to it? Do you think I discussed sex of the manner as the rape scene in Ninja Scroll with my then 12 yr-old before we crossed the scene in the movie? I had discussed the birds & the bees in a general sense, but we really didn't get down to positions, trust me. Kodomo no Jikan is really stuck up your craw, isn't it? I also find it icky, but those who have read the manga DO insist it's not just a fanservice title, that the author portrays the girl's precociousness as a result of her childhood. Does this make it not porn? That's exactly why I brought up Fritzi. Someone could make something very much like Kodomo, but then say "No, there's a story to it". I can't think of how many interviews I've seen with porn stars where they excuse their art as "liberating" viewers so they can fully express their love. All justified & ok, right? Actually, my daughter was 4 when the Oklahoma Federal Bldg was blown up. I didn't stop watching the news reports to protect her delicate psyche no more than my parents did (stop watching the news when I was in the room as a child.) WHen the famous shot of the fireman holding the dead child appeared on screen, she asked me if the child was ok & I told her I believed the child was dead. When she asked why, I said a very bad man blew up the building with a bomb & that was that.
See above.
See first comment break. Lolita. Ulysses Jurgen, A Comedy of Justice Actually, I don't know about Japan, but it seems a lot of our domestic satire runs a certain sexual content, maybe because sex is still one of the last major taboos. Yes, it's hard, but yes, we're also seeing some insane prosecutions over crazy stuff. I was in my 20's for the McMartin Preschool thing & like most Americans, I did believe the press in the beginning, but then the stuff started falling apart & I saw the horrors of overprotecting our youth. The world isn't rated G. Not even PG. thanks abunai. I was too lazy to look him up again & I always want to spell it with a "au" & not "ow" |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Zin5ki
 Posts: 6680 Location: London, UK |
|
|||||||||
Unless they get caught in possession of their drawings, I assume. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Mohawk52
Posts: 8202 Location: England, UK |
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
CCSYueh
Posts: 2707 Location: San Diego, CA |
|
|||||||||
What you posted does suggest "publishing", including putting it up on the net so, yeah, this is forcing it into the back alleys again. If someone prints up copies to share, he'd be nailed, (she. let's not be sexist). But if the person draws 1000 volumes of porn for themselves they should be ok. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Aoi_Sekai
 Posts: 19 Location: UK |
|
|||||||||
|
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/tp.htm#Channel__the_New_Daily_Mail_4813
It's stuff like (Channel 4 show and the Teachers) this that causes further unnecessary 'Moral Panic'. Blaming media and the accessablilty just show how low some people in this nation has fallen. I've said this many times already, if parents aren't taking responsibilites for their own child, why bother having one in the 1st place? As many people have already explained this has way too many problems, heck many others all over the Web too have said the same thing. For one of the latest comments made by Dr. (pfft yeah right) Zoe Hilton of the NSPCC, finding a correlation does not mean causation Dr... Article here: http://politics.co.uk/analysis/culture-media-and-sport/comment-we-need-to-ban-these-images-$1283060.htm Banning such things would not decrease child abuse in anyway either, if anything it would backfire. Targeting imaginary characters is not going to protect children, targeting actual molestors/abusers will. But as many others have said 'It's a soft target'. It's much easier targeting this rather than actually targeting child molestors/abusers. Which really makes you think where the hell they got their priorities. Another stupid thing to do is to associate other variable objects you find in correlation as a cause. Any person can see problems of doing so. For e.g. Murderer's have most likely watched an Action/Horror film, what if they have South Park collection too or Lord Of The Rings Novel? Does that mean it too should be banned? We're losing more and more freedom of speech and expression, liberties and people criminalized for thought crimes ever since we got New Labour (not like the Conservatives are that much better). Like Darryn Walker getting prosecuted for 'Obscene Writing' not long ago over here. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Mohawk52
Posts: 8202 Location: England, UK |
|
|||||||||
|
I think you a bit OTT there. This clause says nothing about taking freedom of thoughts away. People can think all the disgusting thoughts they want, and they even can put those thoughts down on paper. Just don't get caught using those on children, and be careful who they ever tell, or show it to.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Hayami
 Posts: 38 |
|
|||||||||
Since there's no technology yet that would allow to read thoughts, "thought crime" refers to criminalizing of speech/expression that is not proven to be harmful. Wiki seems to agree:
Before someone brings up the example with screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theatre - I'd exclude speech/expression with intent to deceive from free(protectable) speech/expression. Certainly there's no need to criminalize every attempt to deceive (otherwise we couldn't even celebrate April Fools' Day), but speech with intent to deceive that is likely to cause immediate harm can be banned if the risk is too great.
"Using those on children" is already illegal, that's not what this new law is about. Also, no one should force others to view any kind of hardcore erotic material. And I'm sure there's a law that covers it already. Be it a website or a book - one should always include an appropriate warning. However if you criminalize distribution and even possession of fantasy texts/images that are even not based on real persons/events simply because you want to suppress an idea represented by these media [represented by these media from your point of view], you do create a thought crime. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group