This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.
| 8 Dec 08, 11:12 AM Degenerate  UK(M), 4 yrs    |
BBC today programme Click latest version in full and go to 02.54 http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/how_to_listen_to_... Wiki and IWF in interview! Sign up to CAAN's statement - http://www.caan.org.uk Edited 8 Dec 08, 12:52 PM by Degenerate | ||
| 8 Dec 08, 11:23 AM sirguym UK(HR), 6 yrs |
The point of the legislation is surely to protect children? The image concerned, (I've no intention of viewing it) was presumably intended to shock, but not "wholly or mainly for the purposes of sexual arousal" in the words of the new law. Maybe it would excite a paedophile, but so would a catalogue of school uniform. If you think the legislation exists to prevent paedophiles getting stuff they can wank over, you are going to have to ban ALL photos of children, ALL photos of adults that look like children, all drawings of children and any text that mentions children, and anything spoken that mentions children. Is that really what everyone wants? The new law was often justified, "to protect women from being exploited for BDSM porn," [as if!] just as the law of possession of child porn was justified as "necessary to protect children." But inevitably the interpretation of the new law will morph in the same way, into being, "we have to protect vulnerable adults from being corrupted by viewing adult BDSM content." Then it becomes a blanket ban on all porn, not even just BDSM porn. Then to anybody who may have views different from the establishment; whether they be atheists, pagans, free-thinkers, fascists, communists, democrats, liberals ... Academy Incorporated: turning fantasy into reality, fast friendly, helpful, discreet service, with integrity www.academywear.com for retro adult school and maid uniform guy@tawse.com PO Box 135, Hereford, HR2 7WL, UK +44(0)1432 343100 [pi | ||
| 8 Dec 08, 11:24 AM Degenerate UK(M), 4 yrs |
That would be an interesting piece of activism to show up the non elected and unregulated powers of IWF BUT Don't report that one - report a page on Amazon instead http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nevermind-Nirvana/dp/B00... cos they have the money to sue the IWF While you're at it, you could report House of the Holy by Led Zep http://www.amazon.co.uk/Houses-Holy-Led-Zeppelin... Blind Faith http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blind-Faith-VINYL/dp/B00... And so on. (as mentioned in the radio piece I posted above) De Sign up to CAAN's statement - http://www.caan.org.uk Edited 8 Dec 08, 12:01 PM by Degenerate | ||
| 8 Dec 08, 11:28 AM Daddywithgirl 3 yrs  |
Absolutely! Just seen the image on google. I hardly think this is the kind of image we should be defending/complaining we are blocked from seeing on 'Informed Consent' (º•.¸(¨*•.¸¸.•*¨)¸.•º) | ||
| 8 Dec 08, 11:35 AM Degenerate UK(M), 4 yrs |
As everyone has said I dont think people care whether we can see that image or not in particular, what people are concerned about is how IWF wield their power via ISP's and how this power will be used against consensual images of adult play after January 26th. It means IWF can block pages, and even entire sites, because someone has complained, whether or not the image is actually illegal. In theory even to this site if anything has still filtered through their reassessment system which is extreme enough for someone to complain (dont forget any nonmember in the world can see this site and as someone has stated, some mobile providers have already barred IC. If anyone on any site matters to us, it's time for us all to swap email addresses just in case, as in theory any site could be victim to this - if they will take on Wiki which is 3rd or 4th most popular site on the planet., small sites like IC don't stand a chance come a tussle with IWF. By the way at least one ISP has unbanned the wiki page today, so may also agree that the IWF were being heavy handed. Other ISP's are still blocking it. And the IWF have not blocked copies of the image in numerous other websites. Both the image and the text about the album which also contains no illegal content, are blocked. The image, if you listen to the interview pasted above, whilst being poor taste, is currently legal to own everywhere in the world. De Sign up to CAAN's statement - http://www.caan.org.uk Edited 8 Dec 08, 11:53 AM by Degenerate | ||
| 8 Dec 08, 11:40 AM alandra UK(BH), 6 yrs |
Im sorry Sirguym, i do not agree with you.
The image, in my view, was sexual, the girl in a provocative pose, and that alone makes it unacceptable in my eyes. Thats without the other messages the image gives out. To me the important word is consent, she is or appears to be under the age of consent. This, to me, is unacceptable. Im not a prude by any stretch of the imagination and anything goes, as far as im concerned, between consenting ADULTS. This image is wrong and i dont think many would disagree with this.
to those that understand, no explaination is needed, to those that dont understand, no explaination is possible | ||
| 8 Dec 08, 11:43 AM Degenerate UK(M), 4 yrs |
I think this image is distateful also. However, if you REALLY think this is child abuse, will you you report your local HMV to the police http://hmv.com/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?c... (same album, same cover on sale there) If I thought a child had been abused, I would not hesitiate to call the police. Are you hesitating to call them now you know this? and if yes, how do you justify that? .. it would be interesting to see whether the police really DO think this is an illegal image, as it is on sale possibly in every HMV store in the country. De
Sign up to CAAN's statement - http://www.caan.org.uk Edited 8 Dec 08, 11:47 AM by Degenerate | ||
| 8 Dec 08, 11:54 AM emark UK, 8 yrs |
And shouldn't this be up to the courts to decide, instead of being left to speculation? I feel this is the real problem here. And this does not justify the banning of the article text. Are you now scrubbing your cache clean and hoping no one finds out? I mean, this is what I don't understand - if I downloaded child porn, the last thing I would be doing is admitting I'd seen it on a public forum... ETA: The Guardian links to the article in question at http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/dec/08... . Can anyone imagine a mainstream media article linking to a webpage with child porn on it? (I don't know if there are laws against this, OOI?) 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 8 Dec 08, 12:00 PM by emark | ||
| 8 Dec 08, 11:58 AM MasterOfMe UK(WD), 6 yrs |
When is it porn and when is it art? That it's a child cannot be denied but as many people have commented so is Nevermind...the pose is provocative...but personally I'd say more in a shocking/making you think way than a pornographic one. | ||
| 8 Dec 08, 11:58 AM Backdooruk UK(BA), 12 yrs |
I'm reminded of the case of the Industrial Records label picture: No issue was made over it while everyone thought it was just a picture of an industrial garage. However as soon as it was revealed that the picture was actually of a Nazi gas chamber it suddenly became 'distasteful'. Similarly here, there is a picture of a nude girl which in an of itself I don't think is distasteful; what makes it so is the juxtaposition of the title 'Virgin Killer'. I'm trying to get my head around the concept that a picture is obscene (and should be banned) because of the words that accompany it and what ethics that should fall under. - Chris Anyone with a brain is manipulable. Only the truly unimaginative are difficult to control. Edited 8 Dec 08, 11:59 AM by Backdooruk |
