Rather worrying.... (95)

::shudders::

judy

I think people are mainly worried about the same thing happening to BDSM sites with pictures of consenting adults, at the stroke of the censor's pen with no appeal and no explanation. Look at the way the posts have focussed on the process not the image in question.

Regards,

Tanos

www.tanos.org.uk
www.bridgewood.org.uk

Edited 7 Dec 08, 8:34 PM by Tanos

Then maybe a different, more appropriate example should have been used. I can't believe that people are advocating child porn pics to defend BDSM sites.

judy

I'm also pointing out that since even mainstream sites can be blocked if they are potentially illegal, without a court ruling, this will have implications if the same thing happens for potentially "extreme" material.

I presume you wouldn't mind if Nevermind was banned for sale, along with all images of the cover, due to the depiction of a naked baby on the cover?

Secondly, that's not what people are advocating - that's a straw man argument.

Thirdly, the only more relevant examples will be when it actually happens. However, since we know that the IWF will be handling "extreme" material, and since we know that both types of material will be treated as illegal, it is not unreasonable to extrapolate that extreme material will be handled the same way. If you want to wait until it actually happens before you will discuss it, that's up to you, but other people are capable of discussing how existing censorship systems will be used for new laws, without thinking it means that child porn and adult porn are the same thing.

I don't understand why people can't comprehend any argument that uses how potentially illegal child images are handled as a precedent. It doesn't matter that we know the images aren't the same - what matters is that the IWF, the Government, the law will likely consider them to be treated the same, since they will both be illegal from January.

Sign the statement against criminalisation of possession "extreme" images. See http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ and http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_... for more details.

Edited 7 Dec 08, 8:46 PM by emark

http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.249.htm

Sign the statement against criminalisation of possession "extreme" images. See http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ and http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_... for more details.

I think this should be the subject of a concerted campaign.

At the minimum we should require:-

1) No bans without notification to the site owners except in the case of certain specified material (the most serious categories of child porn for example) where an emergency "injunction" style ban could be used. 2) A right to reply and to have that response considered by a person or tribunal other than that which made the original decision. 3) A right of appeal to a court.

The worry is that all it needs is one set of dodgy photos to get past the site's censors or, more likely, an objectionable post made, even by an agent provocateur, and this entire site could be shut down overnight.

The allusions to 1984 no longer appear as exaggerated as they used to do. Is there a genuine agenda to crush personal freedom by people within the state ?

S.....x.

I started the thread based on the fact that extreme porn is going to be going through the IWF along with child porn.

The government have chosen to link it that way through IWF not me.... The article is about the IWF and how they are categorising sites for ISP blockage.

Also lets please remember that the extreme porn bill got linked to child porn many a time and it is how lots of people see it.

The IWF should be accountable to the public if it has this sort of power.... IMHO for no matter what.

There are child porn images that people shouldnt have access to but this should be administered in the proper way with accountability not through the IWF.

We are ment to have a legal system and a country where its innocent until proven guilty.

We have a public accountable body for that.

J

First, and above all other rules,Do No Harm
Stronger, harder, worth more than that

Edited 7 Dec 08, 9:14 PM by Jenis

I'm with BT

------ Come to the dark side - we have cookies!

Though as stipulated earlier its their lack of accountability, to the people of this country or the govenment thats alarming. Though i have my susspitions that it is a govenment body or was at least set up and partialy funded by them. The reason being they are not still affiliated to the govenment is the Fredom of Information Act. Which would alow you to gain access to the list of websites that they deam inapropreate.

Though with the likelyhood that they are to also have a say on the websites that fall within the extream porn legislation, all it would need for them to start censoring them is for one or two people to make a complaint about the content of the immages. There is nothing to stop some anti-bdsm porn people sitting down and lodging 100's of complaints about all the websites that have images on that you could say fall in to a grey area in this legislation. Which from what i can see is a Huge area, and hey presto a lot of websites become blocked from being able to be viewed from certain ISP's.

Some people say i am evil, i have no idea why they think that.