Thread

possible petitions

demolitionred, 17 Oct 2005 16:23:35

1. We oppose government proposals to make it illegal to view or possess images of sexual violence, downloaded from the internet.

The government admits there is no evidence to link such images with violence but wants to take away our freedom to decide what images we look at regardless

This could lead to hundreds of thousands of ordinary people being sent to jail just because the government doesn't like what they choose to look at.

We, the undersigned, call on the government to stopp its nannying and get out of our bedrooms.

2. We, the undersigned, are opposed to government plans to criminalise the possession of so-called “extreme pornographic” material.

The subjective nature of the definitions, the fact that the consultation document itself admits that there is no link between this type of material and and that more resources will be turned away from fighting real crime are among the reasons we oppose these plans.

The creation and/or possession of real images created with the assistance of willing actors, or images created either from nothing on a computer or by the manipulation of existing images on a computer, should not be prohibited no matter how distasteful some might find them.

*** This message has been edited by demolitionred on 17 Oct 2005 16:28:14 ***

demolitionred, 17 Oct 2005 16:23:35

Morgarth, 18 Oct 2005 01:03:07

Author wrote:
> 1. We oppose government proposals to make it illegal to view or possess images of sexual violence, downloaded from the internet.
> The government admits there is no evidence to link such images with violence but wants to take away our freedom to decide what images we look at regardless
> This could lead to hundreds of thousands of ordinary people being sent to jail just because the government doesn't like what they choose to look at.
> We, the undersigned, call on the government to stopp its nannying and get out of our bedrooms.

Can I suggest a variation in the third paragraph of 1 which might give it more mass appeal:

> This could lead to hundreds of thousands of ordinary people being sent to jail just because the government doesn't like what they choose to look at. This will waste police and court time and drain public money away from dealing with serious and harmful crimes in our society.

Morgarth

AV8R, 18 Oct 2005 02:56:46

Author wrote:
> Author wrote:
> > 1. We oppose government proposals to make it illegal to view or possess images of sexual violence, downloaded from the internet.
> > The government admits there is no evidence to link such images with violence but wants to take away our freedom to decide what images we look at regardless
> > This could lead to hundreds of thousands of ordinary people being sent to jail just because the government doesn't like what they choose to look at.
> > We, the undersigned, call on the government to stopp its nannying and get out of our bedrooms.
> Can I suggest a variation in the third paragraph of 1 which might give it more mass appeal:
> > This could lead to hundreds of thousands of ordinary people being sent to jail just because the government doesn't like what they choose to look at. This will waste police and court time and drain public money away from dealing with serious and harmful crimes in our society.
> Morgarth

I like it. good broad appeal.

Av8r

Graham Marsden, 18 Oct 2005 03:11:41

Graham, that trobled me too.

Any suggestion to get around that?

*** This message has been edited by demolitionred on 18 Oct 2005 06:08:54 ***

zak, 18 Oct 2005 10:19:19

Original Message:
-----------------

graham graham@affordable-leather.co.uk, 18 Oct 2005 10:19:19

demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:

> 1. We oppose government proposals to make it illegal to view or
> possess images of sexual violence, downloaded from the internet.

Sorry to be picky, but I really don't like the "sexual violence" bit
because IMO it gives an entirely wrong impression suggesting that anyone
who signs up to the petition is saying "sexual violence is ok" and I
don't think many people will do that.

Cheers,
Graham.

How about "images that someone, somewhere, has unilaterally decided are
distasteful and
unacceptable". Because we need to get across that this proposal *isn't*
just about wank
material, it's about intensifying state control of the internet, and
picking on "perverts"
is just a handy place to start.

zjk

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash

To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com

Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D1

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

demolitionred, 18 Oct 2005 10:23:36

that makes the petition read like this. any other alternatives, suggestions?

If not, can someone set this up and post the link here so we can start to publicise it.

Author wrote:
> 1. We oppose government proposals to make it illegal to view or possess images that someone, somewhere, has unilaterally decided are distasteful, downloaded from the internet.
> The government admits there is no evidence to link such images with violence but wants to take away our freedom to decide what images we look at regardless
> This could lead to hundreds of thousands of ordinary people being sent to jail just because the government doesn't like what they choose to look at. This will waste police and court time and drain public money away from dealing with serious and harmful crimes in our society.
> We, the undersigned, call on the government to stop its nannying and get out of our bedrooms.

*** This message has been edited by demolitionred on 18 Oct 2005 10:53:59 ***

Lothario, 18 Oct 2005 11:22:16

If you need a Writeboard for this, you can set up one at www.writeboard.com.

--
Lothario.

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right
to stop you saying it." - Charles Clarke (attributed)

rosalee, 18 Oct 2005 12:02:18

How about

"We oppose government proposals to make it illegal to view or possess images from the internet that it has unilaterally decided are distasteful."

Ginny

----- Original Message -----

: demolitionred@yahoo.com, 18 Oct 2005 12:02:18

Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 10:23 AM
Subject: [backlash] RE: possible petitions

that makes the petition read like this. any other alternatives, suggestions?

If not, can someone set this up and post the link here so we can start to publicise it.

Author wrote:
> 1. We oppose government proposals to make it illegal to view or possess images that someone, somewhere, has unilaterally decided are distasteful, downloaded from the internet.
> The government admits there is no evidence to link such images with violence but wants to take away our freedom to decide what images we look at regardless
> This could lead to hundreds of thousands of ordinary people being sent to jail just because the government doesn't like what they choose to look at.
> We, the undersigned, call on the government to stop its nannying and get out of our bedrooms.

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash

To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com

Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D1700

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

demolitionred, 18 Oct 2005 12:13:47

Author wrote:
> 1. "We oppose government proposals to make it illegal to view or possess images from the internet that it has unilaterally decided are distasteful."
> The government admits there is no evidence to link such images with violence but wants to take away our freedom to decide what images we look at regardless
> This could lead to hundreds of thousands of ordinary people being sent to jail just because the government doesn't like what they choose to look at.
> We, the undersigned, call on the government to stop its nannying and get out of our bedrooms.

clare, 18 Oct 2005 12:30:08

Maybe: ... the government accepts that there is no evidence that the viewing of such images causes people to turn to violence ..

the existing wording is ambiguous and could refer to violence
in the making of the image as well as its causative effect.

Author wrote:
> Author wrote:
> > 1. "We oppose government proposals to make it illegal to view or possess images from the internet that it has unilaterally decided are distasteful."
> > The government admits there is no evidence to link such images with violence but wants to take away our freedom to decide what images we look at regardless
> > This could lead to hundreds of thousands of ordinary people being sent to jail just because the government doesn't like what they choose to look at.
> > We, the undersigned, call on the government to stop its nannying and get out of our bedrooms.

Graham Marsden, 18 Oct 2005 12:32:33

zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:

> Sorry to be picky, but I really don't like the "sexual violence" bit
> because IMO it gives an entirely wrong impression suggesting that anyone
> who signs up to the petition is saying "sexual violence is ok" and I
> don't think many people will do that.
>
> How about "images that someone, somewhere, has unilaterally decided are
> distasteful and unacceptable".

That's more the sort of thing, but how about something like:

"We oppose government proposals to make it illegal to view or possess
images that the Government and Home Office think we shouldn't be allowed
to see"?

Cheers,
Graham.

demolitionred, 18 Oct 2005 12:55:27

1. We oppose government proposals to make it illegal to view or posess images from the internet that it has unilaterally decided are distasteful.
The government accepts that there is no evidence that the viewing of such images causes people to turn to violence.
> The proposals could lead to hundreds of thousands of ordinary people being sent to jail just because the government doesn't like what they choose to look at.
> > We, the undersigned, call on the government to stop its nannying and get out of our bedrooms.

adrian, 18 Oct 2005 13:29:43

I think it would be OK for a BDSM audience but not for a wider one. Someone not in the scene might be happy to oppose banning things the govt has "unilaterally decided are distasteful", but then when the word violence comes up in the next sentence they will say "Hang on a minute, what IS this stuff they're talking about?". I don't want to stir up the old question again, but now we seem to have a published mission statement surely we can use that as our model.

How about "images of consensual acts, real or pretended, which it considers to be 'extreme'" ? It covers the material we're concerned with and gives a pretty good clue why we think it shouldn't be illegal.

It can go to a writeboard if it has to, but give it an early deadline.

I have a script ready to put on the site as soon as the text is agreed.

demolitionred, 18 Oct 2005 13:37:34

Persoanlly I don't like the format of the whiteboard because you can't see what changes have been made. If people explain their changes it ends up just looking like this thread.

demolitionred, 18 Oct 2005 13:39:59

1. We oppose government proposals to make it illegal to view or posess images of consensual acts, real or pretended, which it considers to be 'extreme'.
The government accepts that there is no evidence that the viewing of such images causes crime.
> The proposals could lead to hundreds of thousands of ordinary people being sent to jail just because the government doesn't like what they choose to look at and also will put unneccessary strain on already stretched police resources.
> > We, the undersigned, call on the government to stop its nannying and get out of our bedrooms

*** This message has been edited by demolitionred on 18 Oct 2005 13:44:13 ***

Graham Marsden, 18 Oct 2005 13:59:47

demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:

> Persoanlly I don't like the format of the whiteboard because
> you can't see what changes have been made.

Err, yes you can, you just select two versions and click on "compare"
and it will show what has been added (in green) and what has been
deleted (shown as strike through).

Cheers,
Graham.

Lothario, 18 Oct 2005 15:40:57

On 10/18/05, demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Persoanlly I don't like the format of the whiteboard because you can't see what changes have been made. If people explain their changes it ends up just looking like this thread.

Writeboard stores every previous version and you can use the tools in
the right hand column to make a visual comparison between any two
versions (tick the boxes of the versions you want to compare and click
"Compare"). This is its primary benefit. It shows text that has been
added in the most recent version in green and text that has been
removed in grey with a line through it.

I find that a lot easier than mentally trying to compare cut-and-paste
"versions" on a message board thread.

I have explained that there is no point leaving a comment about what
you've done on Writeboard because the system can show that
automatically. However, if you need to explain _why_ you have made a
particular change, you can leave a comment for that.

But Writeboard doesn't remove the need for communication before or
after you make changes. Nor is it the best tool for every job, or to
everyone's taste.

Deadlines are a good thing, though. They provide necessary focus and
eliminate endless trivial tinkering.

--
Lothario.

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right
to stop you saying it." - Charles Clarke (attributed)

clare, 18 Oct 2005 16:07:47

I thought it worked fantastically well. Really easy to read the amended document as a whole, and to see changes people had made.

Author wrote:
> On 10/18/05, demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > Persoanlly I don't like the format of the whiteboard because you can't see what changes have been made. If people explain their changes it ends up just looking like this thread.
> Writeboard stores every previous version and you can use the tools in
> the right hand column to make a visual comparison between any two
> versions (tick the boxes of the versions you want to compare and click
> "Compare"). This is its primary benefit. It shows text that has been
> added in the most recent version in green and text that has been
> removed in grey with a line through it.
> I find that a lot easier than mentally trying to compare cut-and-paste
> "versions" on a message board thread.
> I have explained that there is no point leaving a comment about what
> you've done on Writeboard because the system can show that
> automatically. However, if you need to explain _why_ you have made a
> particular change, you can leave a comment for that.
> But Writeboard doesn't remove the need for communication before or
> after you make changes. Nor is it the best tool for every job, or to
> everyone's taste.
> Deadlines are a good thing, though. They provide necessary focus and
> eliminate endless trivial tinkering.
> --
> Lothario.
> "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right
> to stop you saying it." - Charles Clarke (attributed)

clare, 18 Oct 2005 16:07:47

zak, 18 Oct 2005 16:13:53

Original Message:
-----------------

pearl_maude1@hotmail.com, 18 Oct 2005 16:13:53

Maybe: ... the government accepts that there is no evidence that the
viewing of such
images causes people to turn to violence ..

the existing wording is ambiguous and could refer to violence
in the making of the image as well as its causative effect.

Is there any concrete, rather than anecdotal, evidence that violence
against unconsenting
persons occurs in the making of 'extreme pornography'? Remember that
despite years of
screaming and howling about 'snuff movies' no one has ever turned up with
real proof of a
real film made, for the purpose of selling it as porn, that involved
killing a real
person...

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

clare, 18 Oct 2005 16:21:57

: pearl_maude1@hotmail.com, 18 Oct 2005 16:21:57

> Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: possible petitions
> Maybe: ... the government accepts that there is no evidence that the
> viewing of such
> images causes people to turn to violence ..
> the existing wording is ambiguous and could refer to violence
> in the making of the image as well as its causative effect.
> Is there any concrete, rather than anecdotal, evidence that violence
> against unconsenting
> persons occurs in the making of 'extreme pornography'? Remember that
> despite years of
> screaming and howling about 'snuff movies' no one has ever turned up with
> real proof of a
> real film made, for the purpose of selling it as porn, that involved
> killing a real
> person...
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .

zak, 18 Oct 2005 16:24:50

WOuld it be more - or less - useful for people who feel strongly about
particular aspects
of the proposed legislation, or who have a particular group of associates
to whom a
specific wording would be more relevant - to simply draw up their own
petitions and run
off to get them full of signatures?
It would seem to me that dozens of petitions on broadly similar lines might
also show how
much opposition there is to increased government censorship but (again) I'm
prepared to be
guided by the politically experienced on this one.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

zak, 18 Oct 2005 16:36:47

Original Message:
-----------------

pearl_maude1@hotmail.com, 18 Oct 2005 16:36:47

We might be at cross purposes? I meant that the wording of the proposed
petition was
ambiguous.

The Govt doesn't accept that no violence in the creation of the images.
There may be no
evidence of snuff, but people definitely get hurt by needles, whips,
clamps, whatever.

Yes, but is there any *actual evidence* of people experiencing needles,
whips, etc in the
creation of images who DIDN"T WANT IT TO HAPPEN as opposed to being
consenting adults/paid
performers?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

Graham Marsden, 18 Oct 2005 16:49:39

rosalee, 18 Oct 2005 18:03:31

Exactly, extreme things may be happening but it doesn't mean that they're not consensual. Unfortunately the people who wrote the consultation document don't care about consensuality.

Ginny

----- Original Message -----

: graham, 18 Oct 2005 18:03:31

Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: possible petitions

I've never heard of this.

I think the problem is that there is some stuff, especially on video,
that looks (and, indeed, is) pretty extreme, which the government can
point to and say "but do you *really* think this is consensual"?

I know I've seen stuff like that which does look that way, but the one
thing to note is that I've *never* seen the "victim" acknowlege the
presence of the camera which, were it to be truly non-consensual, when
they're begging for it to stop, they would be trying to get anyone to
help them, including the camera operator.

Because, however, we're so used to watching TV from the camera's
viewpoint, we don't tend to think about such things.

Cheers,
Graham.

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash

To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com

Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D1747

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

guy, 18 Oct 2005 18:32:32

** Reply to message from "rosalee" on Tue, 18 Oct
2005 17:57:07 +0100

> Exactly, extreme things may be happening but it doesn't mean that they're not
> consensual. Unfortunately the people who wrote the consultation document don't
> care about consensuality.
>
To a lawyer consent is irrelevant in UK law; they will cite the judgement by
Judge Rant in the Spanner case that 'nobody can consent to an assault and
thereby exonerate the assailant. All they do if they consent is to become an
accessory to the crime, and thereby also a criminal.'

He did go on to say that if the resulting injuries are 'trivial and transient',
then the law has no business getting involved, but the material under
consideration is likely to be way beyond the trivial and transient.

I would suggest too, that presuming all material is consensual is making an
unwarranted presumption; it may be so, in UK-generated material, indeed it is
in my experience, but I cannot say the same for material I have seen from the
USA and Eastern Europe.

Academy Incorporated: turning fantasy into reality
Miss Prim's Muir Academy, Muir Academy For Maids,
The Academy Club and The Tawsingham Society:
fast friendly, helpful, discreet service, with integrity
www.academy-inc.com www.muir-academy.com guy@tawse.com
PO Box 135, Hereford, HR2 7WL, UK +44(0)1432 343100

rosalee, 18 Oct 2005 18:52:21

I don't think anyone is assuming all of the material is consensual and I think we're all aware of the law after the Spanner case. However, a lot of the images that are likely to be affected are consensual and I think it's something that needs to be stressed, regardless of the law as it currently stands.

Ginny

----- Original Message -----

: Sir Guy Masterleigh, 18 Oct 2005 18:52:21

Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 6:24 PM
Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: possible petitions

To a lawyer consent is irrelevant in UK law; they will cite the judgement by
Judge Rant in the Spanner case that 'nobody can consent to an assault and
thereby exonerate the assailant. All they do if they consent is to become an
accessory to the crime, and thereby also a criminal.'

He did go on to say that if the resulting injuries are 'trivial and transient',
then the law has no business getting involved, but the material under
consideration is likely to be way beyond the trivial and transient.

I would suggest too, that presuming all material is consensual is making an
unwarranted presumption; it may be so, in UK-generated material, indeed it is
in my experience, but I cannot say the same for material I have seen from the
USA and Eastern Europe.

Academy Incorporated: turning fantasy into reality
Miss Prim's Muir Academy, Muir Academy For Maids,
The Academy Club and The Tawsingham Society:
fast friendly, helpful, discreet service, with integrity
www.academy-inc.com www.muir-academy.com guy@tawse.com
PO Box 135, Hereford, HR2 7WL, UK +44(0)1432 343100

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash

To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com

Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D1752

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

Manniq, 18 Oct 2005 19:09:45

Author wrote:

> I think the problem is that there is some stuff, especially on video,
> that looks (and, indeed, is) pretty extreme, which the government can
> point to and say "but do you *really* think this is consensual"?

I agree. I mean: have you seen that 'Saving Private Ryan' thing? How many actors got killed in the first 20 minutes?

Makes you think!

Regards,

M

> I know I've seen stuff like that which does look that way, but the one
> thing to note is that I've *never* seen the "victim" acknowlege the
> presence of the camera which, were it to be truly non-consensual, when
> they're begging for it to stop, they would be trying to get anyone to
> help them, including the camera operator.
> Because, however, we're so used to watching TV from the camera's
> viewpoint, we don't tend to think about such things.
> Cheers,
> Graham.

zak, 18 Oct 2005 20:01:29

Original Message:
-----------------

graham graham@affordable-leather.co.uk, 18 Oct 2005 20:01:29

zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:

> Yes, but is there any *actual evidence* of people experiencing needles,
> whips, etc in the creation of images who DIDN"T WANT IT TO HAPPEN as
> opposed to being consenting adults/paid performers?

I've never heard of this.

I think the problem is that there is some stuff, especially on video,
that looks (and, indeed, is) pretty extreme, which the government can
point to and say "but do you *really* think this is consensual"?

I know I've seen stuff like that which does look that way, but the one
thing to note is that I've *never* seen the "victim" acknowlege the
presence of the camera which, were it to be truly non-consensual, when
they're begging for it to stop, they would be trying to get anyone to
help them, including the camera operator.

Because, however, we're so used to watching TV from the camera's
viewpoint, we don't tend to think about such things.

GOod point. I'm really thinking of this issue as a debating point: given
that the existing
penalties for assault, rape, etc are pretty severe, is it *really* that
likely that people
will go out raping and murdering *just for the purposes of making porn*
when it's a lot
safer to get willing friends and/or paid actors to pose (or indeed act out
for real and
thoroughly enjoy) various scenarios. And if society is happy to let people
consent to play
rugby, for instance, which can involve nasty accidental injuries, then why
should
"society" interfere in consenting BDSM stuff, no matter how rough it looks..

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

zak, 18 Oct 2005 20:22:06

Original Message:
-----------------

Sir Guy Masterleigh guy@tawse.com, 18 Oct 2005 20:22:06

I would suggest too, that presuming all material is consensual is making an
unwarranted presumption; it may be so, in UK-generated material, indeed it
is
in my experience, but I cannot say the same for material I have seen from
the
USA and Eastern Europe.

What makes you say that, and can you (or anyone else, for that matter) be
sure that
material is *not* consensual? I'm not doubting you, I just want to know the
grounds on
which you make the assumption...
ZJ

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

guy, 18 Oct 2005 20:44:25

** Reply to message from "zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk"
on Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:15:48 -0400

> I would suggest too, that presuming all material is consensual is making an
> unwarranted presumption; it may be so, in UK-generated material, indeed it
> is
> in my experience, but I cannot say the same for material I have seen from
> the
> USA and Eastern Europe.
>
>
> What makes you say that, and can you (or anyone else, for that matter) be
> sure that
> material is *not* consensual? I'm not doubting you, I just want to know the
> grounds on
> which you make the assumption...
> ZJ
>
A couple of first-hand reports from people who were at video shoots, and saw
scenes which they thought went beyond consensual.

Re-reading my words, I see I phrased it very poorly; my information is via
emails and snail-mail letters, not from what I saw on the screen.

Academy Incorporated: turning fantasy into reality
Miss Prim's Muir Academy, Muir Academy For Maids,
The Academy Club and The Tawsingham Society:
fast friendly, helpful, discreet service, with integrity
www.academy-inc.com www.muir-academy.com guy@tawse.com
PO Box 135, Hereford, HR2 7WL, UK +44(0)1432 343100

zak, 18 Oct 2005 21:08:25

Original Message:
-----------------

Sir Guy Masterleigh guy@tawse.com, 18 Oct 2005 21:08:25

** Reply to message from "zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk"
on Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:15:48 -0400

> I would suggest too, that presuming all material is consensual is making
an
> unwarranted presumption; it may be so, in UK-generated material, indeed it
> is
> in my experience, but I cannot say the same for material I have seen from
> the
> USA and Eastern Europe.
>
>
> What makes you say that, and can you (or anyone else, for that matter) be
> sure that
> material is *not* consensual? I'm not doubting you, I just want to know
the
> grounds on
> which you make the assumption...
> ZJ
>
A couple of first-hand reports from people who were at video shoots, and saw
scenes which they thought went beyond consensual.

Fair enough.

zjk

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

adrian, 18 Oct 2005 21:12:46

At 11:22 18/10/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>WOuld it be more - or less - useful for people who feel strongly about
>particular aspects
>of the proposed legislation, or who have a particular group of associates
>to whom a
>specific wording would be more relevant - to simply draw up their own
>petitions and run
>off to get them full of signatures?
>It would seem to me that dozens of petitions on broadly similar lines might
>also show how
>much opposition there is to increased government censorship but (again) I'm
>prepared to be
>guided by the politically experienced on this one.

Yes it might be a good idea. If there are several different versions I can
put them all up and people can choose which they want to sign. If they are
all equally against the document, and we make sure there's no duplication,
this doesn't weaken the effect. MIGHT be better if we could all sign the
one but not if it's a weak compromise.

adrian, 18 Oct 2005 21:56:57

At 17:24 18/10/2005 GMT, you wrote:
>** Reply to message from "rosalee" on Tue, 18 Oct
>2005 17:57:07 +0100
>
>> Exactly, extreme things may be happening but it doesn't mean that
they're not
>> consensual. Unfortunately the people who wrote the consultation
document don't
>> care about consensuality.
>>
>To a lawyer consent is irrelevant in UK law;

I'd say consent is central to UK law. They care about it over rape
allegations, and over the making of a contract contract. It's not even a
difficult concept. Proof may be hard but the principle is clear enough.
Sadly it's just in this one area where they wilfully refuse to accept that
the individual has any rights.

adrian, 18 Oct 2005 22:07:45

At 18:46 18/10/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>I don't think anyone is assuming all of the material is consensual and I
think we're all aware of the law after the Spanner case. However, a lot of
the images that are likely to be affected are consensual and I think it's
something that needs to be stressed, regardless of the law as it currently
stands.

All I've seen and heard about SM porn is that any non-consensual acts are
vanishingly rare. If not all, then virtually all, and definitely all in
the mainstream porn industry from which their examples probably come.

It's not essential to our argument. But it helps if we can give persuasive
evidence that much of it is provably consensual - that, say, all of the
sites mentioned in the JLT petition are, which we might well be in a
position to do.

These are people doing something which is not illegal in their country and
which does not involve the crime or abuse which is one of the main
arguments in the document's case.

rosalee, 18 Oct 2005 22:08:04

That's so true! That last line wasn't me, btw! Not sure who it was.

Ginny
----- Original Message -----

: Adrian, 18 Oct 2005 22:08:04

Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: possible petitions

At 17:24 18/10/2005 GMT, you wrote:
>** Reply to message from "rosalee" on Tue, 18 Oct
>2005 17:57:07 +0100
>
>> Exactly, extreme things may be happening but it doesn't mean that
they're not
>> consensual. Unfortunately the people who wrote the consultation
document don't
>> care about consensuality.
>>
>To a lawyer consent is irrelevant in UK law;

I'd say consent is central to UK law. They care about it over rape
allegations, and over the making of a contract contract. It's not even a
difficult concept. Proof may be hard but the principle is clear enough.
Sadly it's just in this one area where they wilfully refuse to accept that
the individual has any rights.

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash

To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com

Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D1788

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

adrian, 18 Oct 2005 22:38:21

At 19:07 18/10/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>Personally, I think this might be a better approach a) because it stops us
wasting time debating the ultimate final answer to everything wording and
b) because we CAN'T win the numbers game (against the Jane Longhurst
campaign) - so instead go for diversity to show that there is a wide range
of groups opposing.

I'm setting up the petition with the ability to handle multiple versions.
We can go with a single version and can add versions if they seem required,
as may arise in this group. We'll have to be scrupulous in removing
duplicate votes, within and across the versions.

guy, 18 Oct 2005 22:47:17

** Reply to message from Adrian on Tue, 18 Oct 2005
22:14:31 +0100

> At 19:07 18/10/2005 +0100, you wrote:
> >Personally, I think this might be a better approach a) because it stops us
> wasting time debating the ultimate final answer to everything wording and
> b) because we CAN'T win the numbers game (against the Jane Longhurst
> campaign) - so instead go for diversity to show that there is a wide range
> of groups opposing.
>
> I'm setting up the petition with the ability to handle multiple versions.
> We can go with a single version and can add versions if they seem required,
> as may arise in this group. We'll have to be scrupulous in removing
> duplicate votes, within and across the versions.
> of

I am quite willing to accept any version, and given the broad range tactics
being pursued I am very willing to accept Demolition Red's version. I am sorry
if I gave a different impresssion.

Academy Incorporated: turning fantasy into reality
Miss Prim's Muir Academy, Muir Academy For Maids,
The Academy Club and The Tawsingham Society:
fast friendly, helpful, discreet service, with integrity
www.academy-inc.com www.muir-academy.com guy@tawse.com
PO Box 135, Hereford, HR2 7WL, UK +44(0)1432 343100

Graham Marsden, 19 Oct 2005 01:07:24

Sir Guy Masterleigh wrote:

> I would suggest too, that presuming all material is consensual is making an
> unwarranted presumption; it may be so, in UK-generated material, indeed it is
> in my experience, but I cannot say the same for material I have seen from the
> USA and Eastern Europe.

True, but "presumed innocent until proven guilty".

We would be perfectly entitled to demand proof that something that the
Home Office *claim* to be non-consensual *is* actually so, and even
then, that would be a single, specific case, not a general case for all
such material.

Cheers,
Graham.

«No Name Set», 19 Oct 2005 03:19:15

It doesn't have to be 'extreme' for harm to befall actors in
porn pics.

There are cases of actors in - "ordinary", vanilla - gay porn
videos who became HIV+ as a result of taking part in the making of
such videos, because the video makers and distributors insisted
they were not allowed to use condoms on film, thinking it would
restrict the number of people who wanted to buy - videos of hunks
going at it hammer and tongs with condoms on??

You may ask why on earth the said actors agreed to this. I
can't tell you - maybe they desperately needed the money, or
maybe they are now much wiser as well as much sicker (if still
alive). Maybe some - in some parts of the world - were coerced
or blackmailed. I don't know. I remember it causing a fuss
when this first came out.

The frightening thing is that, AIUI, this is *still happening*.

--
Rosemary

Manniq, 19 Oct 2005 09:30:34

Hmmm... you could demand, but, my guess is that the law will be drafted in such a way as to make this nigh on impossible.

On other threads I have been wittering about a long-term and multi-track strategy. After the consultation comes the real lobbying, the fight against the Bill and so on.

What we also need to do is a) up the public awareness of bdsm through PR AND direct action and b) make it clear to the authorities in no uncertain terms that the price of enacting this law is going to be high.

No. Not blowing up Tower Bridge. But starting NOW to put in place a team of bdsm friendly lawyers who will stick an oar in when the police use the law to bully. WHat they do now tends to be to use existing law to seize material and computers...and often never charge. But the material is held, the pc's moulder - and businesses go under despite crimes never being found to have been committed.

I would like the bdsm community to move to a position where, whenever such a raid goes down, lawyers are banging on the door of the Police Chief responsible next day with writs for damages in terms of loss of business. I want any and every police action to be under scrutiny. And I want the community to fight back legally to the point that the Police know that if they do try this sort of speculative bullying, it will always cost them hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Regards,

M

Author wrote:
> Sir Guy Masterleigh wrote:
> > I would suggest too, that presuming all material is consensual is making an
> > unwarranted presumption; it may be so, in UK-generated material, indeed it is
> > in my experience, but I cannot say the same for material I have seen from the
> > USA and Eastern Europe.
> True, but "presumed innocent until proven guilty".
> We would be perfectly entitled to demand proof that something that the
> Home Office *claim* to be non-consensual *is* actually so, and even
> then, that would be a single, specific case, not a general case for all
> such material.
> Cheers,
> Graham.

Manniq, 19 Oct 2005 09:36:09

Author wrote:
> It doesn't have to be 'extreme' for harm to befall actors in
> porn pics.

I still want to know about old-fashioned westerns. Is it true they used tripwires on horses. If so, can we assume that all such westerns would now be banned if the proposal came into effect. Oh. But if you can't tell whether the horse was tripped and died or just a good actor (?) then presumably you have to ban ALL westerns which include horses falling.

Regards,

M

Mick, 19 Oct 2005 09:40:39

If these were "pirate" videos, as I assume they are, they would be illegal, if they were censored and passed as fit for adult viewing then it could be argued that the censors could not differentiate between consensual and non-consensual images.
Mick_H

========================================
Message Received: Oct 18 2005, 08:44 PM

"Sir Guy Masterleigh", 19 Oct 2005 09:40:39

Cc:

** Reply to message from "zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk"
on Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:15:48 -0400

> I would suggest too, that presuming all material is consensual is making an
> unwarranted presumption; it may be so, in UK-generated material, indeed it
> is
> in my experience, but I cannot say the same for material I have seen from
> the
> USA and Eastern Europe.
>
>
> What makes you say that, and can you (or anyone else, for that matter) be
> sure that
> material is *not* consensual? I'm not doubting you, I just want to know the
> grounds on
> which you make the assumption...
> ZJ
>
A couple of first-hand reports from people who were at video shoots, and saw
scenes which they thought went beyond consensual.

Re-reading my words, I see I phrased it very poorly; my information is via
emails and snail-mail letters, not from what I saw on the screen.

Academy Incorporated: turning fantasy into reality
Miss Prim's Muir Academy, Muir Academy For Maids,
The Academy Club and The Tawsingham Society:
fast friendly, helpful, discreet service, with integrity
www.academy-inc.com www.muir-academy.com guy@tawse.com
PO Box 135, Hereford, HR2 7WL, UK +44(0)1432 343100

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash

To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com

Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D1774

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

zak, 19 Oct 2005 12:55:45

Original Message:
-----------------

forumite@umbilical.demon.co.uk (Rosemary), 19 Oct 2005 12:55:45

Zak wrote:
Mailing-List: contact backlash-help@smartgroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list backlash
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Subscribe:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

It doesn't have to be 'extreme' for harm to befall actors in
porn pics.

There are cases of actors in - "ordinary", vanilla - gay porn
videos who became HIV+ as a result of taking part in the making of
such videos, because the video makers and distributors insisted
they were not allowed to use condoms on film, thinking it would
restrict the number of people who wanted to buy - videos of hunks
going at it hammer and tongs with condoms on??

You may ask why on earth the said actors agreed to this. I
can't tell you - maybe they desperately needed the money, or
maybe they are now much wiser as well as much sicker (if still
alive). Maybe some - in some parts of the world - were coerced
or blackmailed. I don't know. I remember it causing a fuss
when this first came out.

They may have been desperate for money or they may, like lots of other
people who are not
porn actors, reckoned that it just wouldn't happen to them. After all, it's
not only porn
actors who give/get HIV, is it? Are you proposing that people should be
forcibly protected
against risk because they are not capable of making up their own minds?

Mind you, actors get hurt - and killed - in the making of all kinds of
films. Remember
Brandon Lee, shot dead on the set of The Crow? No one is advocating the end
of the film
industry and no one even advocated the withdrawing of the film: it's still
widely
available

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

Graham Marsden, 19 Oct 2005 14:28:37

manniq@hotmail.com wrote:

> I still want to know about old-fashioned westerns. Is it
> true they used tripwires on horses.

Yes, the device was called the "Running W"

Running W: wire and cuffs were attached to horse's forelegs and run
through slip rings on the saddle cinch underneath the animal. The wire
was anchored to the ground, and when the wire went taut as the horse
galloped along, the legs would be pulled up toward his belly, causing a
tumble. Click HERE for an example --- Yak Canutt taking a tumble on a
double for 'Silver Chief' in THE LONE RANGER (Republic, 1938) serial.

http://www.surfnetinc.com/chuck/stunt.htm

IIRC it was banned under cruelty to animals legislation in the late 40's

Cheers,
Graham.

zak, 19 Oct 2005 17:19:01

Original Message:
-----------------

manniq@hotmail.com, 19 Oct 2005 17:19:01

I would like the bdsm community to move to a position where, whenever such
a raid goes
down, lawyers are banging on the door of the Police Chief responsible next
day with writs
for damages in terms of loss of business. I want any and every police
action to be under
scrutiny. And I want the community to fight back legally to the point that
the Police
know that if they do try this sort of speculative bullying, it will always
cost them
hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Regards,

M

Respect, sir! You rock! We are
not worthy!

ANd lots of other phrases that mean I agree with you wholeheartedly.

zjk

Author wrote:
> Sir Guy Masterleigh wrote:
> > I would suggest too, that presuming all material is consensual is
making an
> > unwarranted presumption; it may be so, in UK-generated material, indeed
it is
> > in my experience, but I cannot say the same for material I have seen
from the
> > USA and Eastern Europe.
> True, but "presumed innocent until proven guilty".
> We would be perfectly entitled to demand proof that something that the
> Home Office *claim* to be non-consensual *is* actually so, and even
> then, that would be a single, specific case, not a general case for all
> such material.
> Cheers,
> Graham.

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash

To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com

Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

Paul Tavener, 19 Oct 2005 19:57:19

Author wrote:
> It doesn't have to be 'extreme' for harm to befall actors in
> porn pics.
> There are cases of actors in - "ordinary", vanilla - gay porn
> videos who became HIV+ as a result of taking part in the making of
> such videos, because the video makers and distributors insisted
> they were not allowed to use condoms on film, thinking it would
> restrict the number of people who wanted to buy - videos of hunks
> going at it hammer and tongs with condoms on??
> You may ask why on earth the said actors agreed to this. I
> can't tell you - maybe they desperately needed the money, or
> maybe they are now much wiser as well as much sicker (if still
> alive). Maybe some - in some parts of the world - were coerced
> or blackmailed. I don't know. I remember it causing a fuss
> when this first came out.
> They may have been desperate for money or they may, like lots of other
> people who are not
> porn actors, reckoned that it just wouldn't happen to them. After all, it's
> not only porn
> actors who give/get HIV, is it? Are you proposing that people should be
> forcibly protected
> against risk because they are not capable of making up their own minds?
> Mind you, actors get hurt - and killed - in the making of all kinds of
> films. Remember
> Brandon Lee, shot dead on the set of The Crow? No one is advocating the end
> of the film
> industry and no one even advocated the withdrawing of the film: it's still
> widely
> available

Most actors in porn movies do not ware a condom, that being said before you can take part you need to have a medical certificate and you need to be tested regularly if you want to continue working. The have been cases where actors get HIV but it's quite rare and is picked up quickly because of all the checks. Obviously the risk is still significant.

Stuntmen/women are probably under a similar if not greater degree of risk of harm.

«No Name Set», 20 Oct 2005 18:04:48

stuff here to get eaten

manniq@hotmail.com writes:

I still want to know about old-fashioned westerns. Is it true they used tripwires on horses. If so, can we assume that all such westerns would now be bann
ed if the proposal came into effect. Oh. But if you can't tell whether the horse was tripped an
d died or just a good actor (?) then presumably you have to ban ALL westerns which include horses falling.

I don't know about old Westerns.

I have seen modern day stunt crews demonstrating some of the
performances thye can put on for films, and it is amazing some
of the things they can train horses to do. It certainly would
not surprise me to find they could train horses to lie on the
ground and play dead until told to get up. It's not beyond the
bounds of possibility people could train their horses to brake
suddenly from a gallop and lie down as if dead. It does strike
me as very unlikely a film team would deliberately kill - or do
anything highly likely to kill by accident - specially trained,
and hence scarce and valuable, stunt horses.

I do know that horses can trip and fall and then get up -
sometimes after a time of lying still on the ground winded - and
walk away perfectly OK. I've ridden some horses who do a lot of
stumbling, and a couple who've nearly come down splat with me on
top - fortunately they both managed to scramble back to their
feet in the nick of time.

I do know that animal welfare legislation in this country is a
mess and that large numbers of people charged with looking after
livestock have zero confidence in this govt to enact any
sensible legislation on the subject.

--
Rosemary

MDS, 20 Oct 2005 23:19:34

just a possible idea for a petion, please feel welcome to comment.

ADULT ENTERTAINMENT.

CENSORSHIP – DICTATORSHIP Defend your right to choose.

Our fathers, forefathers and indeed young men of today fought and are still fighting for the rights of individuals, the right to live in a society free from dictatorship.

Our government wish to penalise the majority of law abiding citizens because of a minority of criminal acts which they believe are a direct result of adult images.

Crimes of this nature have been committed for centuries long before the internet became available.
One of these websites certainly appealed to Coutts’s disturbingly violent sexuality. But does that really justify the conclusion, as voiced by David Lepper, Jane Longhurst’s MP, that the internet “doubtless led to Jane’s death”? It is an assumption that needs to be thoroughly tested before a neutral communications channel is blamed for inciting, rather than reflecting, one of the darkest aspects of human nature.

Murderers enacted their horrific fantasies long before a few million computers were linked together: maybe we should have been blaming books.
The internet undoubtedly makes such images easier to find, and reinforces a sense of community among those stimulated by them. Yet there is simply too little convincing research to demonstrate that these images initiate acts of violence. Indeed, some psychologists argue the opposite — that it provides a safe outlet for those who might otherwise enact their malevolent fantasies.

1) We the undersigned reserve the right of freedom to choose.
2) We the undersigned reserve the right to view consensual images of an adult nature
3) We the undersigned reserve the right take a responsible attitude and to decide the
difference between right and wrong.

AV8R, 20 Oct 2005 23:29:45

I like it.

Author wrote:
> just a possible idea for a petion, please feel welcome to comment.
> ADULT ENTERTAINMENT.
> CENSORSHIP – DICTATORSHIP Defend your right to choose.
> Our fathers, forefathers and indeed young men of today fought and are still fighting for the rights of individuals, the right to live in a society free from dictatorship.
> Our government wish to penalise the majority of law abiding citizens because of a minority of criminal acts which they believe are a direct result of adult images.
> Crimes of this nature have been committed for centuries long before the internet became available.
> One of these websites certainly appealed to Coutts’s disturbingly violent sexuality. But does that really justify the conclusion, as voiced by David Lepper, Jane Longhurst’s MP, that the internet “doubtless led to Jane’s death”? It is an assumption that needs to be thoroughly tested before a neutral communications channel is blamed for inciting, rather than reflecting, one of the darkest aspects of human nature.
> Murderers enacted their horrific fantasies long before a few million computers were linked together: maybe we should have been blaming books.
> The internet undoubtedly makes such images easier to find, and reinforces a sense of community among those stimulated by them. Yet there is simply too little convincing research to demonstrate that these images initiate acts of violence. Indeed, some psychologists argue the opposite — that it provides a safe outlet for those who might otherwise enact their malevolent fantasies.
> 1) We the undersigned reserve the right of freedom to choose.
> 2) We the undersigned reserve the right to view consensual images of an adult nature
> 3) We the undersigned reserve the right take a responsible attitude and to decide the
> difference between right and wrong.
>
>

demolitionred, 21 Oct 2005 06:26:43

WE have already agreed not to mention Jane Longhurst. other than that I like it.

We can put it up as a print off option as wea re now updating the backlash website.