CJIA: The chill begins? (11)

This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.

Wed 4 Jun 08, 7:52 PM
backlash_uk
UK, 2 yrs
From the Torture Garden myspace page: Gallery Shots - we have moved them
Sorry but we have now decided to remove all out TG gallery shots due to having a few deleted by Myspace.
As most of you know, myspace can and do delete profiles for little or in some cases, for no reason at all, and we wish to give them as little as reason as possible.
Also with the change in the law in the uk regarding pictures that contain violent and bdsm imagery (whether in a performance or between consenting adults) we have chosen, as there is no recourse with myspace management regarding loss of profiles, etc to just run these pictures via our own website www.torturegarden.com .
i hope you understand our postion and see you at www.torturegarden.com
anyone seen any other examples?
Edited Wed 4 Jun 08, 9:30 PM by backlash_uk

4 Jun 08, 8:55 PM
strictlynormal
UK, 3 yrs

??????
What's Torture Garden's gallery got to do with backlash? Wrong log-in perhaps?
==================================
Growing old is unavoidable but growing up is optional
Croydon Munch Hades LAM

4 Jun 08, 9:07 PM
littlenic
UK(KT), 2 yrs

<snip>
Also with the change in the law in the uk regarding pictures that contain violent and bdsm imagery <snip>
An over-dramatisation - the law doesn't cover violent and bdsm imagery, just violent bdsm imagery *sigh*.
Or maybe that's just a stray, misplaced "and"...
"If you don't, I will..."

4 Jun 08, 9:25 PM
fuschia
UK, 8 yrs

strictlynormal wrote:
??????
What's Torture Garden's gallery got to do with backlash? Wrong log-in perhaps?
BL are quoting from TG's myspace page, by the look of it.

Currently throroughly fed up with all the moaning.
These are my favourite sites:
www.londonfetishscene.com & www.unfettered.co.uk & www.backlash-uk.org.uk
but anything outrageous I say is my own opinion!

4 Jun 08, 9:45 PM
emark
UK, 5 yrs
littlenic wrote:

<snip>
Also with the change in the law in the uk regarding pictures that contain violent and bdsm imagery <snip>
An over-dramatisation - the law doesn't cover violent and bdsm imagery, just violent bdsm imagery *sigh*.
Or maybe that's just a stray, misplaced "and"...
The sentence seems correct to me - I read it to mean that the law covers images which are both violent and BDSM. A picture that contains violent and bdsm imagery must contain both - to get the other interpretation, they would have to say "or".
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/extreme-images/ - Petition against "extreme porn" law!
See http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ and http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_... for more details.
Edited 4 Jun 08, 9:47 PM by emark

4 Jun 08, 10:38 PM
littlenic
UK(KT), 2 yrs

emark wrote:

littlenic wrote:

<snip>
Also with the change in the law in the uk regarding pictures that contain violent and bdsm imagery <snip>
An over-dramatisation - the law doesn't cover violent and bdsm imagery, just violent bdsm imagery *sigh*.
Or maybe that's just a stray, misplaced "and"...
The sentence seems correct to me - I read it to mean that the law covers images which are both violent and BDSM. A picture that contains violent and bdsm imagery must contain both - to get the other interpretation, they would have to say "or".
I disagree. As written, the sentence also covers images that are either, but not necessarily both.
But like I say, it could just be a misplaced "and"... It's either wrong, or badly written. Neither of which is helpful.
And yet again, I comment against the grain on an Activism thread and get immediately pulled up on what I've written. I shall return to the ranks of the silent dissenters forthwith.

"If you don't, I will..."

4 Jun 08, 10:50 PM
TheMan_InBlack
2 yrs
emark wrote:

littlenic wrote:

<snip>
Also with the change in the law in the uk regarding pictures that contain violent and bdsm imagery <snip>
An over-dramatisation - the law doesn't cover violent and bdsm imagery, just violent bdsm imagery *sigh*.
Or maybe that's just a stray, misplaced "and"...
The sentence seems correct to me - I read it to mean that the law covers images which are both violent and BDSM. A picture that contains violent and bdsm imagery must contain both - to get the other interpretation, they would have to say "or".
I agree with littlenic here....
My understanding is that the law is about 'violent bdsm' not just any violent picture or any bdsm pictures. The way TG has written it (and apparently interpreted it) is wrong but maybe their just playing 'very' safe....??

5 Jun 08, 6:58 AM
emark
UK, 5 yrs
littlenic wrote:
And yet again, I comment against the grain on an Activism thread and get immediately pulled up on what I've written. I shall return to the ranks of the silent dissenters forthwith.
I could say the same for me - once again, I comment against the grain on an Activism thread and get immediately pulled up on what I've written.
I'm not sure what "grain" there is. Atm, there's two people saying the sentence is wrong, and only me say saying it reads fine to me. Perhaps I should return to the ranks of silent dissenters, because "Activism" clearly isn't allowing me to have my say...
This is a discussion forum. You say what you think, I say what I think, other people say what they think. It is very unlikely that all 100,000 members of a website are going to agree on a particular grammatical issue. Playing the "Activism doesn't allow people to disagree" card when someone doesn't agree with what you post is all very well, but by doing that, that itself just discourages people from disagreeing with you.

Now, if I may be allowed to dissent, and continue the discussion:
I think the sentence is fine, albeit perhaps could be read ambiguously. There's not an easy way to briefly state what will be covered, without having some inaccuracy, unless you quote the law in full.

TheMan_InBlack wrote:
My understanding is that the law is about 'violent bdsm' not just any violent picture or any bdsm pictures. The way TG has written it (and apparently interpreted it) is wrong but maybe their just playing 'very' safe....??
I presume they don't interpret it that way, otherwise that'd mean films like Terminator would be illegal. I agree the sentence could perhaps be better worded.
And just to add: Feel free to disagree with me. I don't mind if either of you, or anyone else, disagrees with me over the issue of how a particular sentence written by someone else is worded. I'm not going to accuse you of pulling me up on what I've written - the whole point of entering a discussion is to hear what other people have to say.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/extreme-images/ - Petition against "extreme porn" law!
See http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ and http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_... for more details.
Edited 5 Jun 08, 7:11 AM by emark

5 Jun 08, 8:58 AM
mcncirce
UK(BH), 6 yrs
backlash_uk wrote:
anyone seen any other examples?
I've removed the Friends and Personal Galleries from http://mcncirce.com but have left in place all the photos in what I class as the more eductational areas.
The Photo Galleries will go back up after I have weeded them - that's if I can work out which pics are "hot or not" with regard to the law.
Michelle
Trussed UK ~****~ Thoughts on BDSM
London Fetish Fair ~****~ SWAMP

5 Jun 08, 9:36 AM
spirifer
UK, 3 yrs
Were the images on the TG website really of such a nature that they must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal?
And grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character?
*And* portrayed, in an explicit and realistic way, an act which threatened a person's life, or an act which resulted, or was likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals, or an act which involved sexual interference with a human corpse, or a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive), and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real?
Wow.
The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation - Pierre Trudeau
You ever been rohypnoled by a swan, woke up in Cancun? Well, I have! And it ain't purty!

5 Jun 08, 9:38 PM
The_Hogfather
UK(NG), 6 yrs
Y!

backlash_uk wrote:
CJIA: The chill begins?
From the Torture Garden myspace page: Gallery Shots - we have moved them
Sorry but we have now decided to remove all out TG gallery shots due to having a few deleted by Myspace.
As most of you know, myspace can and do delete profiles for little or in some cases, for no reason at all, and we wish to give them as little as reason as possible.
Also with the change in the law in the uk regarding pictures that contain violent and bdsm imagery (whether in a performance or between consenting adults) we have chosen, as there is no recourse with myspace management regarding loss of profiles, etc to just run these pictures via our own website www.torturegarden.com .
i hope you understand our postion and see you at www.torturegarden.com
anyone seen any other examples?
Not yet, but I'm not surprised this happening already. It seems at the moment unless there is a legal challenge, or a last minute change of heart by the government CJHIA 2008 will be with us from January 2009.
I personally wouldn't like to be the first test case so if I had any images that came even close to be possibly being illegal I would withdraw them asap. I may object, but I can not afford to be a martyr.
Edited 5 Jun 08, 9:42 PM by The_Hogfather

Next page


	©1997-2009 Informed Consent