IWF as a legal advice service (36)

This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.

10 Dec 08, 11:04 AM
extremophile
UK, 20 mths
For the reasons stated by xjames and littlenick, I suspect that this would be a bad idea. Also - on the question of flooding the IWF with images, bear in mind that the IWF classified 35,000 images this year alone - and if only four people are doing it, they might have to expand their staff slightly but nothing they couldn't cope with.
I have what I think is a better idea. Submit large numbers of images from wikipedia, Amazon, film sites, fashion sites - anywhere you see potentially "extreme" images OUTSIDE of the BDSM community. That will establish the guidelines without risk to us. It may also serve to educated the IWF about what is and isn't "extreme". We can but hope.

10 Dec 08, 11:42 AM
littlenic
UK, 3 yrs

Tanos wrote:
That would be a really counterproductive thing to do to BDSM sites, yes.
However, asking the IWF's opinion of the legal status of content on, say, Flickr, Wikimedia Commons or Youtube seems like a perfectly reasonable thing for a concerned BDSM person to do.
That's fair enough, and to be honest, what I thought you were getting at - I just wanted to clarify that sending them links to sites might not be the wisest idea, for the *ahem* hard-of-thinking out there.

Don't hit my maidie!

10 Dec 08, 12:10 PM
emark
UK, 6 yrs
extremophile wrote:
I have what I think is a better idea. Submit large numbers of images from wikipedia, Amazon, film sites, fashion sites - anywhere you see potentially "extreme" images OUTSIDE of the BDSM community. That will establish the guidelines without risk to us. It may also serve to educated the IWF about what is and isn't "extreme". We can but hope.
Yes, I was thinking this too. And if they do block the sites, there'll be far more people kicking up a fuss about it, and those sites will be more likely to try to take action against it.
Bonus points to anyone who finds a potentially extreme image posted by someone who was in support of the law (you know, the ones who post such images in order to say "OMG this is disgusting", I'm sure I've seen that in the past...)
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 10 Dec 08, 12:12 PM by emark

10 Dec 08, 2:03 PM
Degenerate
UK(M), 3 yrs
INTERESTING! Daren't say more
[Tanos] IWF as a legal advice service
One of the issues that has come up with the new Extreme Pornography law is getting straight answers about the legality of specific images depicting consenting adults doing BDSM that might be covered.
During the recent controversy about the IWF blocking a page on Wikipedia it was spelt out that in practice the IWF consists of four police-trained analysts who interpret the sentencing guidelines for relevant offences, and add URLs to an automated blacklist that goes out to ISPs. UK sites are reported to the police and the ISP gets a takedown-notice.
If they are still going to apply the Extreme Pornography legal tests next year (as they've said they will), then those four police-trained analysts will be the most influential group of people applying the law.
Consequently, anyone worried about images being "Extreme Pornography" could just report them to the IWF. People worried about the legality of their own images, which it could be legal to possess as participants, could even upload them to sites like Flickr and then report them, and in effect get a determination about whether other people can possess them.
There have been suggestions during the current controversy that people should flood the IWF with reports. On the face of it, both that idea and the idea of using the IWF to assess images might seem to take time away from their other job of dealing with images of child abuse. However, the IWF system requires that you classify your report (Child / OPA / Racial / Child-chat).
So if the IWF chooses to go ahead with targetting our images of consenting adults, then presumably they will add another option or expand the OPA option. Either way, reports focusing on "Extreme" Pornography involving consenting adults will be clearly identifiable. Even if the queue of reports about images of consenting adults is clogged and prevents them from blacklisting BDSM images, that shouldn't interfere with their ability to get on with checking images of child abuse.
And of course, this would all be paid for by the ISPs that are members of the IWF and are collaborating with its new programme of banning some BDSM images involving consenting adults.
That's if the IWF decides to open the can of worms of enforcing the new law, despite yesterday's climb down.
Regards,
Tanos
[/quote]
Sign up to CAAN's statement - http://www.caan.org.uk
Sexuality - strong and warm and wild and free, Sexuality - your laws do not apply to me (Billy Bragg)
Edited 10 Dec 08, 3:10 PM by Degenerate

10 Dec 08, 8:18 PM
Silent_Storm
UK(M), 4 yrs

I can smell a publicity stunt in the air!!
Some nice ideas
**Choose Freedom** Sign up to http://www.caan.org.uk

10 Dec 08, 8:23 PM
sirguym
UK(HR), 4 yrs

To me the key misconception is the idea that it should be criminal to merely possess any picture of adults 'because it is obscene in any context'.
After all if I am depraved and corrupted I cannot be depraved and corrupted any further.
If I were not depraved and corrupted before, but became depraved or corrupted by the picture, then I am the 'victim' of whoever published it.
(I don't think this is possible, but let's assume it is for the sake of this thesis.)
The reason that I now have the picture (and maybe others like it) is because I have become depraved and corrupted through no fault of my own.
Therefore punishing me for possession is blaming and punishing the victim; a thought crime, as thoughts come unbidden.
Having said that the flaw in the OP's plan is as others said, if the IWF can identify the person who notifies them, then theoretically it is possible to get them raided, as it is a good bet that the image is on their computer.
So maybe what's needed is a 'whistle-blower' service where even the technically incompetent, like me, can put an image to them, and probably them alone, without leaving traces of who I am.
If I put it on eg Flickr where others can see it, then I am ratcheting the offence up a notch by publishing and distributing it.
Then the problem is for me to know what the verdict is, after having my identity shorn from the submission.
I am sure that technically it's feasible, but is it worth it?
Tanos wrote:
IWF as a legal advice service
One of the issues that has come up with the new Extreme Pornography law is getting straight answers about the legality of specific images depicting consenting adults doing BDSM that might be covered.
During the recent controversy about the IWF blocking a page on Wikipedia it was spelt out that in practice the IWF consists of four police-trained analysts who interpret the sentencing guidelines for relevant offences, and add URLs to an automated blacklist that goes out to ISPs. UK sites are reported to the police and the ISP gets a takedown-notice.
If they are still going to apply the Extreme Pornography legal tests next year (as they've said they will), then those four police-trained analysts will be the most influential group of people applying the law.
Consequently, anyone worried about images being "Extreme Pornography" could just report them to the IWF. People worried about the legality of their own images, which it could be legal to possess as participants, could even upload them to sites like Flickr and then report them, and in effect get a determination about whether other people can possess them.
There have been suggestions during the current controversy that people should flood the IWF with reports. On the face of it, both that idea and the idea of using the IWF to assess images might seem to take time away from their other job of dealing with images of child abuse. However, the IWF system requires that you classify your report (Child / OPA / Racial / Child-chat).
So if the IWF chooses to go ahead with targetting our images of consenting adults, then presumably they will add another option or expand the OPA option. Either way, reports focusing on "Extreme" Pornography involving consenting adults will be clearly identifiable. Even if the queue of reports about images of consenting adults is clogged and prevents them from blacklisting BDSM images, that shouldn't interfere with their ability to get on with checking images of child abuse.
And of course, this would all be paid for by the ISPs that are members of the IWF and are collaborating with its new programme of banning some BDSM images involving consenting adults.
That's if the IWF decides to open the can of worms of enforcing the new law, despite yesterday's climb down.
Regards,
Tanos

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

12 Dec 08, 8:52 PM
Degenerate
UK(M), 3 yrs
If we read between the lines of a couple of pieces up on the Register this week, we can spot an interesting message starting to emerge.
One of their readers went to their local police seeking advice as to whether an image hosted overseas would breach the new law.
The police were hopeless and recommended first that they talk to the IWF, second that they talk to the Ministry of Justice. The MoJ then told the Register that the woman should go to the IWF.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/12/iwf_inve...
But hang on a minute. At present, the IWF looks at Obscene material published in the UK. If its published and hosted overseas, they have no views at all.
This might work slightly with an "IWF-approved" campaign, because the logic is: the MoJ say only material currently caught by the Obscene Publications Act will be caught by the new law.
So, if its published in the UK and you refer it to the IWF and they do nothing about it - then unless the MoJ are lying (and we all know they would never do that) it cannot fall foul of the extreme porn law.
In fact, we would welcome an instance of material held not to be obscene that is subsequently prosecuted as extreme porn, since bringing the MoJ spokespersons into court and sticking them on the witness stand would be great fun.
What about extreme porn? Well: remember why the government brought this legislation in in the first place? It was to deal with extreme material hosted overseas that they could not block or ban under existing legislation. The IWF will also deal with material that is conseidered to be 'extreme porn' held or possessed in the UK - but they will NOT deal with anything hosted abroad.
So...to go back to the beginning...if Police advise individuals to take material to the IWF for guidance and you have already told the police that the material is hosted abroad, then they are talking bollocks and haven't understood how the law and the IWF work.
If you get that answer, you should point that out - politely - to the Police.
For genuine guidance, the answer remains the CPS, the Police and/or the MoJ.
Sign up to CAAN's statement - http://www.caan.org.uk
Sexuality - strong and warm and wild and free, Sexuality - your laws do not apply to me (Billy Bragg)

12 Dec 08, 9:34 PM
xjames
UK(SS), 3 yrs
The problem is that the MoJ have used weasel-words when using the OPA comparison. They've always said things like "it's not designed to catch anything that's not illegal under the OPA" or similar.
If called into court they'd merely say that it wasn't their intention to catch non-OPA stuff, but the OPA wording was flawed and they needed new wording for the CJIA. They will effectively say the OPA is weak and should be catching more - and that the CJIA is the better-worded law.
Obligatory wanky Latin tagline: Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit

12 Dec 08, 10:11 PM
Tanos
UK(M), 12 yrs
Y!

Degenerate wrote:
The MoJ then told the Register that the woman should go to the IWF.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/12/iwf_inve...
But hang on a minute. At present, the IWF looks at Obscene material published in the UK. If its published and hosted overseas, they have no views at all.
The MoJ was talking about the future, not what the IWF says it's doing at the moment.

In fact, we would welcome an instance of material held not to be obscene that is subsequently prosecuted as extreme porn, since bringing the MoJ spokespersons into court and sticking them on the witness stand would be great fun.
The problem with that kind of argument is always their weasel words ("designed" etc), as xjames has pointed out.

What about extreme porn? Well: remember why the government brought this legislation in in the first place? It was to deal with extreme material hosted overseas that they could not block or ban under existing legislation. The IWF will also deal with material that is conseidered to be 'extreme porn' held or possessed in the UK - but they will NOT deal with anything hosted abroad.
Clearly, the MoJ thinks otherwise, since they've gone as far as telling people to contact the IWF about overseas-hosted "extreme" material. Just because the IWF thinks it won't get involved, or does not now want to get involved after the Wikipedia incident, doesn't mean the MoJ agrees. If the MoJ or Home Office start leaning on the ISPs hard again, then the IWF will change course, since the IWF is the ISPs in practice. Home Office pressure is why the IWF was created in the first place.

So...to go back to the beginning...if Police advise individuals to take material to the IWF for guidance and you have already told the police that the material is hosted abroad, then they are talking bollocks and haven't understood how the law and the IWF work.
The IWF say part of their purpose is to protect people from material it's illegal to possess (so child-abuse images, but not "obscene" images), and the MoJ believes the IWF will work against overseas-hosted "extreme" material that it will be illegal to possess. It's perfectly possible that the government has a better idea of the IWF's future than the IWF...
However, from our point of view, if the IWF continues to limit its blocking of overseas-hosted content to images of child abuse (and the occasional 1970s album cover), then there's no need to bother them with "extreme" images. However, if they decide to get involved, then the logic of the OP applies, as the OP said.
Regards,
Tanos
www.tanos.org.uk
Edited 12 Dec 08, 10:25 PM by Tanos

13 Dec 08, 2:19 AM
xjames
UK(SS), 3 yrs
There is the interesting position of Scotland. If the IWF becomes involved in identification, analysis and subsequent blocking of overseas-hosted extreme porn images from 26th Jan, they will also cause the blocking of these sites and images for those in Scotland. For the scots it will remain legal to view these images until their parliament passes their equivalent law. The need to also block the scots is is due to the GB-wide nature of the ISP's networks (unless there's a McFirewall that I'm unaware of).
There is perhaps a chance for our kinfolk north of Hadrian's wall to kick up a stink about perfectly legal content being blocked. It would be a bravehearted person who would do it, and it wouldn't win the war - but it'll put a spanner in the works for a short while.
Obligatory wanky Latin tagline: Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit

Next page


	©1997-2010 Informed Consent