wrote:
>"In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists,
> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.
>Then they came for the Jews,
> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't Jewish.
>Then they came for the trade unionist,
> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
>Then they came for the Catholics,
> and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant,
>Then they came for the homosexuals,
> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a homosexual,
>Then they came for me,
> and by that time there was no one left to speak for me."
> --Rev. Martin Niemoeller, German Lutheran Pastor
Quite.
However, the process of censorship started when paedophilic material was
proscribed. That such material is most objectionable made it certain
that no right-thinking person would object to it being banned, whilst
many (or most) on this list would probably not miss coprophagic or
urolagnic material.
The point to press home is not that what is proposed is extreme but that
it is:
a) wholly unnecessary
b) quite unworkable
c) a gross and unwarranted intrusion into people's lives
d) illogical
e) poorly argued
f) a law to be created to solve a problem that does not exist.
Let us make paedophilic material the *only* exception to the rule of
letting people view what they please and to think as they wish. The
alternative will be, in years to come, some other control freaks
building on this proposed law to control words, or thoughts, or
political activity they have decided is "objectionable".
--
< Paul >
zak, 23 Oct 2005 10:20:42
Original Message:
-----------------
CORODENCO@aol.com, 23 Oct 2005 10:20:42
In a message dated 22/10/2005 18:32:32 GMT Standard Time,
pearl_maude1@hotmail.com writes:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/2005_34_tue_01.shtml
Thanks for this information. It was so interesting to hear Mrs Longhurst
say she was ONLY concerned with the closing down of the sites continually
and
obsessively accessed by her daughter's killer.
Maybe we can quote her if the Government proposals are far beyond the aims
of the JLT.
Apart from total freedom from censorship do these sites matter much to us
in
mainstream
BDSM?
Another point you seem to have completely missed is that many people who
acess these
specific sites and wank over the contents do not go out and commit murder.
They have a
wank and then get a good night's sleep. Is their harmless kink to be
prohibited? Or do
their rights not matter as much as yours? THe point we have to keep
hammering home is that
no censorship is justified and censorship is not the magic wand that will
suddenly make
murder and other crimes stop happening.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
Manniq, 23 Oct 2005 10:35:05
I missed the originla post from CORODENCO so am piggy-backing on here. The basic problem with the Longhurst list is a) that some - maybe a lot of it - would not be covered by the current legislation and b) what on earth sort of society would we be if every time someone was the victim of a particularly nasty crime, we went roundf to their nearest and dearest and asked them what they would like banned.
Perhaps we could have a tariff. For murder, you get to ban 100 things. Really nasty murder: 200 things. Whilst for mere assault, the survivor only gets to ban ten things.
I know Labour wants to listen to the victim more, but isn't this taking things a bit far?
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> A few things to ponder:
> The general view has been made clearly that we aren't fighting Liz Longhurst
> or the JLT. In fact, most of us as individuals would probably support at
> least part of the work of the JLT, which is engaged in education of school
> children on safe and responsible internet use.
> Liz Longhurst made a statement after the muder trial concluded, and that
> *seems* to have been the catalyst for the consultation process - although
> the government does not make any link, and there's no value in us pushing
> one. This is "the people", including Backlash, against the government.
> Neither Liz Longhurst, nor the JLT, will have any say in what legislation
> might make it to the statute books. If only it were as simple as offering
> up the sacrificial lambs of 800 web sites; it won't work like that.
> As has been stated several times before, this campaign is all or nothing.
> It's not about "my porn is better than your porn".
> "In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists,
> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.
> Then they came for the Jews,
> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't Jewish.
> Then they came for the trade unionist,
> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
> Then they came for the Catholics,
> and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant,
> Then they came for the homosexuals,
> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a homosexual,
> Then they came for me,
> and by that time there was no one left to speak for me."
> --Rev. Martin Niemoeller, German Lutheran Pastor
> ----Original Message Follows----
: CORODENCO@aol.com, 23 Oct 2005 10:35:05
> Subject: Re: [backlash] Women's Hour Debate
> In a message dated 22/10/2005 18:32:32 GMT Standard Time,
> pearl_maude1@hotmail.com writes:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/2005_34_tue_01.shtml
> Thanks for this information. It was so interesting to hear Mrs Longhurst
> say she was ONLY concerned with the closing down of the sites continually
> and
> obsessively accessed by her daughter's killer.
> Maybe we can quote her if the Government proposals are far beyond the aims
> of the JLT.
> Apart from total freedom from censorship do these sites matter much to us
> in
> mainstream
> BDSM?
> Yours
> deno
zak, 23 Oct 2005 10:47:41
Original Message:
-----------------
Paul C. Dickie pcd-sm@bozzie.demon.co.uk, 23 Oct 2005 10:47:41
Let us make paedophilic material the *only* exception to the rule of
letting people view what they please and to think as they wish. The
alternative will be, in years to come, some other control freaks
building on this proposed law to control words, or thoughts, or
political activity they have decided is "objectionable".
--
< Paul >
Paedophiliac material is unacceptable because it cannot be produced without
committing a
crime (assault on a child) EXCEPT for material which is entirely computer
generated,
written, drawn, or is something like the beachwear pages of a Mothercare
catalogue... It's
probably best to try to keep the debate away from stuff about children
because so many
people's brains fly out of their arseholes at the first mention of "kiddie
porn".
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
Morgarth, 23 Oct 2005 13:16:05
Author wrote:
> Let us make paedophilic material the *only* exception to the rule of
> letting people view what they please and to think as they wish. The
> alternative will be, in years to come, some other control freaks
> building on this proposed law to control words, or thoughts, or
> political activity they have decided is "objectionable".
> --
> < Paul >
Child pornogarphy is so different that it is harmful in ways "extreme" pornography cannot be harmful. The justification for banning child pornography cannot be transfered to "extreme" pornography.
Quite appart from the objectionable nature of the practice there are two good reasons for suppressing child pornography.
1) The child can't give informed consent to be photographed and they may come to regret its very existance. They are recognisable and even if the sexual activity was legal the continued opportunity for people to see the photograph is intrusion on their privacy. That is one of the reasons why photographs of 16 and 17 year olds engaaged in legal (non-paedophilic) sex are included.
2) Photographs of children being sexual in display or action are usable for deliberate deception of other children. They can be shown to children as part of the process of persuading others to consent to or engage in sexual activity themselves. Mildly erotic photographs in categories 1 and 2 are potentially more damaging in this respect than extreme material in category 5.
Neither of these arguments hold with animals, corpses and consenting adults.
I think it is important *not* to present the difference with child pornograph as simply one of degree.
If we make this a debate about what is more or less objectionable for the man on the Clapham Omnibus then we conceed an important part of the argument. Child pornogarphy is also harmful in ways "extreme" pornography cannot be.
Morgarth
Paul C. Dickie, 23 Oct 2005 13:55:03
In message <380-220051002392233671@M2W114.mail2web.com>,
zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:
>Original Message:
>-----------------
CORODENCO@aol.com, 23 Oct 2005 13:55:03
>Subject: Re: [backlash] Women's Hour Debate
>In a message dated 22/10/2005 18:32:32 GMT Standard Time,
>pearl_maude1@hotmail.com writes:
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/2005_34_tue_01.shtml
>
>Thanks for this information. It was so interesting to hear Mrs
>Longhurst say she was ONLY concerned with the closing down of the
>sites continually and obsessively accessed by her daughter's killer.
If one of those sites had been The Stationery Office, would she want
Hansard to be closed?
>Apart from total freedom from censorship do these sites matter much
>to us in mainstream BDSM?
They probably don't, but I do believe you may have missed the point.
Last year, it was only indecent images of children that could get
someone to spend some quality time in chokey. If the 'government' has
its way -- and for 'government', read 'a bunch of self-appointed
nannies, ninnies and nutters' -- then mere possession of what they are
pleased to term 'offensive material' would land someone in gaol.
And where would that process end? Once the precedent has been conceded,
there is no way of knowing where and when the censorship would stop.
>Another point you seem to have completely missed is that many people
>who access these specific sites and wank over the contents do not go
>out and commit murder. They have a wank and then get a good night's
>sleep. Is their harmless kink to be prohibited? Or do their rights not
>matter as much as yours? THe point we have to keep hammering home is
>that no censorship is justified and censorship is not the magic wand
>that will suddenly make murder and other crimes stop happening.
The best way to press that point home is to ask the question of how many
murders have been committed after someone had allegedly viewed a web
site, and how many murders were committed where *no* relevant web site
had been viewed.
As the latter number will be far, far greater than the former and using
the same (cock-eyed) cause and effect logic of the would-be censors, it
may soon become apparent that viewing 'offensive' material prevents
murder or, at least, reduces the likelihood of someone being seriously
killed or injured.
So shouldn't it be made *compulsory* for people to view 'offensive
material' for at least one hour each day?
After all, the would-be censors cannot prove that it does one any harm,
whilst the statistics seem to shew that it may do one a power of good.
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie, 23 Oct 2005 14:10:41
In message <5469638.1130060101198.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
>I missed the originla post from CORODENCO so am piggy-backing on here. The
>basic problem with the Longhurst list is a) that some - maybe a lot of it -
>would not be covered by the current legislation and b) what on earth sort of
>society would we be if every time someone was the victim of a particularly nasty
>crime, we went roundf to their nearest and dearest and asked them what they
>would like banned.
>
>Perhaps we could have a tariff. For murder, you get to ban 100 things. Really
>nasty murder: 200 things. Whilst for mere assault, the survivor only gets to
>ban ten things.
>
>I know Labour wants to listen to the victim more, but isn't this taking things a
>bit far?
It's scapegoat politics, which is the resort of a 'government' that has
lost touch with everyone except its 'focus groups' and which has run out
of real problems it *can* solve.
--
< Paul >
deno, 23 Oct 2005 15:12:32
Ref the response from Zac and Paul
Doubt very much if the obvious points made have escaped the Government who
feel they have to draw a line. We don't want them to draw a line but can we
influence them with tortious arguements?
Even a Jesuit would not use that one about closing Hansard!
Before we digress into discussion about how many angels can dance on the
point of a needle can I make the point that our opposition, who hold THE WHIP
HAND, should not be treated with such derision. It may be all three parties in
both Houses of Parliament.
We will have to see just where they draw the line, having considered our
petitions, representations,etc. Hopefully they will not copy the trend from
the States.
For myself I was aware of the points I was supposed to have missed but I
only sent the email about Women's Hour to inform anyone who didn't know that JLT
seemed only concerned about three or four sites.
Am now informed that such sites number 800. Is this correct?
Yours
deno
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)