This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.
| 8 Dec 08, 4:10 PM spirifer UK, 6 yrs  |
Admittedly I haven't trawled the whole of the IWF website (or perhaps the search tool isn't very good), but I cannot see any reference to the CJIA on it. Surely the IWF is aware of the new law? I wonder why there's no reference to it? The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation - Pierre Trudeau | ||||
| 8 Dec 08, 4:11 PM sirguym UK(HR), 6 yrs |
Which is exactly what the government want - "its not our responsibility!"
Which is why the UK is being lobbied so hard by the christian censorship lobby behind the scenes. They see pornography and expressions of alternate sexualities as subversive of their fundamentalist values, and I think they are quite correct in that. I would be entirely unsurprised if the reason that the Longhurst trust did not publish their accounts was because much of the money was raised by evangelical US churches, and/or spent on expensive lobbying firms. If they can turn the tide back here, they can get the momentum going throughout the rest of the world.
Exactly why I did not! My position is that I do my best to comply with the law, especially when I think it Draconian and/or daft; to do otherwise would make me even more vulnerable. 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, 4:15 PM Lord_Kitty_Lemon UK, 11 yrs  |
This is why I did what I did; my apologies for not having made my intention clear....
Ridiculous Lucky Captain Rabbit King! Lucky Captain Rabbit King Nuggets are for the youth! | ||||
| 8 Dec 08, 4:19 PM redcat 9 yrs |
maybe becuase it doesn't alter their remit they are there to have obscene content reported to them anyway..and isn't that what the gov guidelines for the CJIB said.... if you find any content you think may be obscene inform the IWF?
Then they pass whatever you report to the police who decide whether to bust the publisher under the OPA or go for the possessor (ie the person who rang up and reported it) They are very well aware of the new law. | ||||
| 8 Dec 08, 4:25 PM spirifer UK, 6 yrs |
I was surprised because they quote chapter and verse on other relevant legislation, as well as case law. I was surprised that they weren't rubbing their metaphorical hands in delight in anticipation of 26 January 2009, since there'll be more stuff they can block. Very good point though about the person reporting the EP then getting charged if there's a record of it on their pc. It would be hilariously ironic if the first EP test case involved an internet do-gooder reporting EP to the IWF... The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation - Pierre Trudeau | ||||
| 8 Dec 08, 4:27 PM redcat 9 yrs |
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/08/wiki_cen... latest from El Reg looks, from the quote they have from the IWF today, that there certainly is some sort of complaint procedure underway. | ||||
| 8 Dec 08, 4:34 PM redcat 9 yrs |
This girl isn't at all sure they will be gleefully anticipating the influx. Fistly in the governments consultation on the CJIB they stressed that for them to cover extreem porn in their remit would cost extra dosh.... ... not sure they have had their money upped though. And secondly (until yesterday) they were the 'good guys' beyond reproach...anti child abuse image heros of cyberspace etc etc... and thats mostly becuase child porn is child porn is child porn (its porn...its got kids in it...lets ban it) We find today that actually its not so easy to tell child porn from a slightly dodgy album cover...and if THATS child abuse they have lost a fair amount of public support...them the police and the government! But anyway... extreem porn is ever more difficult to qualify (as we all know too well).... they are going to come under alot more public scrutiny and criticism for some very very duff judgements no doubt in the coming months... Virgin Killer is just the start. | ||||
| 8 Dec 08, 4:35 PM Sirebel UK, 5 yrs    |
"The IWF does its work in good faith, interpreting current legislation on behalf of industry and the public." I don't want someone to do this interpreting for me thank you very much. I'm perfectly capable of making my own mind up. I'm guessing either the IWF are going to retract the ban or will be forced to face off with the retailers. Amazon and Play are fine but what are HMV going to do about the hardcopies in store? Madness takes a troll | ||||
| 8 Dec 08, 4:37 PM skyfox UK(EH), 4 yrs  |
I'm in the US right now and I can see the wiki page. ::terrified for the UK:: The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. | ||||
| 8 Dec 08, 4:48 PM wonderer UK, 5 yrs |
Yes - that's what I was saying. Censorship existed before the Internet, then suddenly there was this new unregulated medium, but censorship is beginning to infiltrate the Internet now. The last couple of decades were a brief respite in which we had an important medium free from censorship. As commercial and political interests take root, the Internet becomes more regulated. However I do think society as a whole has a right and indeed responsibility to make moral and ethical judgements and impose them on each other. It's called the rule of law. It would in my view be fatuous to suggest that government can't impose moral judgements (such as "rape is a punishable crime") on us all. The key thing is that they only impose moral judgements which are reasonable, and don't pick on people who do safe, sane and consensual activities just because of some bereaved mother who suffers from the "something must be done so she didn't die in vain" syndrome and has a flair for publicty.
|
