> I agree any petition needs to be very focused and avoid emotive/aggressive/defensive language.
> However, it's not about the internet, but about a new law criminalising sinple possession of images
> - draconian is media-speak and
> - we have a better chance of avoiding knee-jerk reacction against 'perverts' if we don't mention specific types of site
> -
> I suggest something more like ....
> The government has announced plans to create new offence of simple possession of images, currently available on the internet and offline, which could lead to individuals facing up to three years in prison just for owning a picture, even on a computer.
> We, the undersigned, believe this proposed new law is unworkable since it
> - violates the rights of individuals
> - will criminalise minority groups such as the BDSM community whose interests are not shared by the majority of the population
> - is based on a false assumption that looking at images drives people to criminal activity
> - does not clearly define what would be illegal
> - fails to address the real causes of crime
> - is a backward step in a society which is growing more tolerant of minority interests
> The order in which the points are listed will be important as most people start reacting at the first line and don't really read the rest. Also IMO we should aim for a form of words that would be acceptable to people outside 'the scene'
> foxxx
Comment: once it is law it will not violate a right, since the right will be lost. The "right" to recieve images is a fundamental freedom under the European Convention on Human rights but the ECHR permits those freedoms to be restricted where its necessary in the interests of the protection of morals, health, prevention of crime and various other grounds. Clearly the petition won't go into all this, but my point is that the central issues are (1) whether there is a need to protect morals or health. (2) whether the proposed measures do so. Rights are variable.
Failure to define: We probably don't want to invite definitoin at this stage. It only leads to arguments about taste, a battle we can only lose.
Fails to address the real causes of crime: What are the real causes of crime? We don't know.
Society growing more tolerant of minority intersts: This invites people to sign a petition to protect a minority they are not a part of.
Sorry to be negative.
clare, 06 Sep 2005 11:30:28
Below is my draft posted on Informed Consent and under debate and crit over there.
----------------------------
The government has announced plans to create new draconion internet porn laws which are intended to lead to computer owners facing a three year sentence for mere possession of pornographic images on spanking and bondage sites.
We the undersigned believe the governments proposed new Internet porn laws:
* Are an unjustified intrusion by the nanny state into the privacy of adults.
* Are unworkable
* Promote denouncement by former partners and friends.
* Fail to address the problem of children accessing obscene material on the internet, most of which is excluded from the proposed bill.
* An imposition of the government¡¦s sense of taste on its citizens.
* A presumption, which the government accepts is unsupported by research, that looking at images on the net drives people to violence.
We call on the government to abandon the proposed censorship of the internet.
-----------------------------------
Above a quick counter proposal for consideration, shooting down or amendment.
I think the bullet point format makes it easy to digest. I have tried to focus on things that will appeal to everyone rather than on the things that annoy those of us familiar with bdsm in its many marvellous and various forms.
I agree that it is wrong to invite them to draw up a list of images. The vagueness of the propoosal is one of our strong cards.
I do not think we should say the bill fails to address the real causes of crime, since we along with everyone else have no idea what those causes are.
I also agree that we should not refer to consenting acts between adults, since one cannot consent to GBH. Hence the reference to "notional" consent in the consultation paper.
I do think we should focus, as someone said, on "Nanny State" and "Censorship". Those words are emotive in a good way.
clare
Graham Marsden, 06 Sep 2005 11:58:31
demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
> My thinking is we want to cover the main points, appeal to a wide
> audience, and not be too aggressive.
>
> The government has announced plans to create new draconion internet
> porn laws which could lead to computer owners facing a three year
> sentence for looking at spanking and bondage sites.
I don't think we should refer to "porn" or even "pornography" because
IMO there would be an automatic reaction from many people that "porn is
bad". I think the expression "adult material" would be better (and
which, of course, excludes children).
> We the undersigned believe the governments proposed new Internet
> porn laws are unworkable, fail to recognise the important difference
> between acts of violence and sexual acts between consenting adults,
> are based on a false assumption that looking at images
> on the net drives people to violence and fails to address the real
> causes of crime.
I think the idea is right, but I think we need to break this up into
short "bullet points", one to a paragraph to make it easier to read and
understand exactly what we're saying.
I'd rephrase this as:
* We, the undersigned, believe the governments proposed new laws to
attempt to control adult material on the Internet are unworkable and
unenforceable.
* We believe that these laws fail to recognise the important difference
between genuine acts of violence and sexual acts between consenting
adults and will risk criminalising people just for their fantasies.
* We believe that these laws are based on a false and unproven
assumption that looking at images on the net drives people to violence
and fail to address the real causes of crime.
* We believe that it is not the job of the Nanny State to tell
consenting adults what they may or may not view.
> We call on the government to address these issues and specifically
> to draw up a list of images which it will be illegal to look at.
>
> Any thoughts, comments?
It is still my belief that this legislation should be stopped entirely,
not merely amended, so I don't think we should have this last part.
Ok, it may, later, be necessary to accept that some parts of this bill
will be passed in some form, but that should be our fall-back position,
not the default.
foxxx, 06 Sep 2005 12:07:39
Some very good points clare : I think what my version lacks is better focus to say the PROPOSAL should be rejected. I also posted a poll on britishspanking with a poll. It might get pulled, I don't speak for that site, but the options I gave on signing were yes/no/yes-different wording, reject all/yes-different wording, reject some. The results might be interesting. Especially since a vocal proportion of that site deny absolutely that spanking/CP is part of BDSM or sexual in any way. ;)
http://www.britishspanking.com/forums/showthread.php?p=537419&posted=1#post537419
I am encouraging people to send completed response forms direct to the government, which they can do anonymously, as I believe this will carry more weight. Our 'target' in any petition is at least 35,000 signatures, as many as signed FOR a change in the law following the Coutts case
So - the more visibility we give this in the disparate areas of 'the scene' the better
lixxx
Author wrote:
> Below is my draft posted on Informed Consent and under debate and crit over there.
> ----------------------------
> The government has announced plans to create new draconion internet porn laws which are intended to lead to computer owners facing a three year sentence for mere possession of pornographic images on spanking and bondage sites.
> We the undersigned believe the governments proposed new Internet porn laws:
> * Are an unjustified intrusion by the nanny state into the privacy of adults.
> * Are unworkable
> * Promote denouncement by former partners and friends.
> * Fail to address the problem of children accessing obscene material on the internet, most of which is excluded from the proposed bill.
> * An imposition of the government¡¦s sense of taste on its citizens.
> * A presumption, which the government accepts is unsupported by research, that looking at images on the net drives people to violence.
> We call on the government to abandon the proposed censorship of the internet.
> -----------------------------------
> Above a quick counter proposal for consideration, shooting down or amendment.
> I think the bullet point format makes it easy to digest. I have tried to focus on things that will appeal to everyone rather than on the things that annoy those of us familiar with bdsm in its many marvellous and various forms.
> I agree that it is wrong to invite them to draw up a list of images. The vagueness of the propoosal is one of our strong cards.
> I do not think we should say the bill fails to address the real causes of crime, since we along with everyone else have no idea what those causes are.
> I also agree that we should not refer to consenting acts between adults, since one cannot consent to GBH. Hence the reference to "notional" consent in the consultation paper.
> I do think we should focus, as someone said, on "Nanny State" and "Censorship". Those words are emotive in a good way.
> clare
>
>
clare, 06 Sep 2005 12:16:28
I agree that "porn" should be replaced with adult material.
Graham Marsden, 06 Sep 2005 12:17:13
pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
> The government has announced plans to create new draconion internet porn laws
Just a picky point "create new" is rather redundant :-)
> which are intended to lead to computer owners facing a three year sentence
> for mere possession of pornographic images on spanking and bondage
> sites.
This isn't necessarily accurate and we *need* to be accurate or we risk
undermining our own case.
> We the undersigned believe the governments proposed new Internet porn laws:
>
> * Are an unjustified intrusion by the nanny state into the privacy of adults.
>
> * Are unworkable
Agreed.
> * Promote denouncement by former partners and friends.
This *may* happen, but it's not a stated purpose, so I don't think it
should be in there.
> * Fail to address the problem of children accessing obscene material
> on the internet, most of which is excluded from the proposed bill.
The counter to this is "if we make it illegal, it will stop there being
so of it much out there and it will protect children".
(Of course that's probably nonsense and won't stop it being out there at
all, but I don't think it helps our case.)
> * An imposition of the government's sense of taste on its citizens.
I'd say, rather, something like "an attempt to introduce 'Thought
Police' to control what citizens may or may not see.
(This has resonances with eg China etc where the government is trying to
do exactly this).
> * A presumption, which the government accepts is unsupported by research,
> that looking at images on the net drives people to violence.
Agreed.
> We call on the government to abandon the proposed censorship of the internet.
Although I agree, IMO this is a little too sweeping, and would confuse
the issue, because it's really only one part of the internet they're
talking about.
> Above a quick counter proposal for consideration, shooting down or amendment.
>
> I think the bullet point format makes it easy to digest.
I agree, I've just done the same in another message (great minds think
alike :-)
> I have tried to focus on things that will appeal to everyone rather than
> on the things that annoy those of us familiar with bdsm
Yes, we must appeal to the general population, not just the BDSM
"community".
> I agree that it is wrong to invite them to draw up a list of images.
> The vagueness of the propoosal is one of our strong cards.
Definitely.
> I do not think we should say the bill fails to address the real causes
> of crime, since we along with everyone else have no idea what those
> causes are.
True.
> I also agree that we should not refer to consenting acts between adults,
> since one cannot consent to GBH. Hence the reference to "notional"
> consent in the consultation paper.
Hmm, I'm not so sure about this. The paper is trying to legislate on
anything that even *looks* "unconsenting", even if portrayed by
"actors", this is a possible counter to this, ie we don't assume that
acts of violence shown on screen/ TV are "unconsenting", so why should
we do so with "acts of violent porn"?
> I do think we should focus, as someone said, on "Nanny State" and
> "Censorship". Those words are emotive in a good way.
Yep :-)
demolitionred, 06 Sep 2005 12:20:30
Author wrote:
> demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
> > My thinking is we want to cover the main points, appeal to a wide
> > audience, and not be too aggressive.
> >
> > The government has announced plans to create new draconion internet
> > porn laws which could lead to computer owners facing a three year
> > sentence for looking at spanking and bondage sites.
> I don't think we should refer to "porn" or even "pornography" because
> IMO there would be an automatic reaction from many people that "porn is
> bad". I think the expression "adult material" would be better (and
> which, of course, excludes children).
> > We the undersigned believe the governments proposed new Internet
> > porn laws are unworkable, fail to recognise the important difference
> > between acts of violence and sexual acts between consenting adults,
> > are based on a false assumption that looking at images
> > on the net drives people to violence and fails to address the real
> > causes of crime.
> I think the idea is right, but I think we need to break this up into
> short "bullet points", one to a paragraph to make it easier to read and
> understand exactly what we're saying.
> I'd rephrase this as:
> * We, the undersigned, believe the governments proposed new laws to
> attempt to control adult material on the Internet are unworkable and
> unenforceable.
> * We believe that these laws fail to recognise the important difference
> between genuine acts of violence and sexual acts between consenting
> adults and will risk criminalising people just for their fantasies.
> * We believe that these laws are based on a false and unproven
> assumption that looking at images on the net drives people to violence
> and fail to address the real causes of crime.
> * We believe that it is not the job of the Nanny State to tell
> consenting adults what they may or may not view.
> > We call on the government to address these issues and specifically
> > to draw up a list of images which it will be illegal to look at.
> >
> > Any thoughts, comments?
> It is still my belief that this legislation should be stopped entirely,
> not merely amended, so I don't think we should have this last part.
> Ok, it may, later, be necessary to accept that some parts of this bill
> will be passed in some form, but that should be our fall-back position,
> not the default.
cool thanks....
clare, 06 Sep 2005 13:03:53
Author wrote:
> Just a picky point "create new" is rather redundant :-)
I agree
> > which are intended to lead to computer owners facing a three year sentence
> > for mere possession of pornographic images on spanking and bondage
> > sites
> This isn't necessarily accurate and we *need* to be accurate or we risk
> undermining our own case.
"for mere possession of adult images that can be found on spanking and bondage sites"
I take your point, but a petition is not a place for detail and referring to necrophilic and bestiality sites isn't going to go down a storm. The width of the proposals will prohibit images that we find on spanking and bondage sites, even if that is not all that it will do. Any ideas for a better form or words?
> > We the undersigned believe the governments proposed new Internet porn laws:
> >
How about "We the undersigned believe the governments proposed censorship of adult material on the Internet"
> > * Are an unjustified intrusion by the nanny state into the privacy of adults.
> >
How about adding "It is not the government’s business to legislate against sexual fantasies" (as suggested on another comment thread).
> > * Are unworkable
> Agreed.
> > * Promote denouncement by former partners and friends.
> This *may* happen, but it's not a stated purpose, so I don't think it
> should be in there.
It's true that it's not there, but but it must objectively be a real and substantial risk of the proposal and it will get the hearts of all those with bad experiences of the CSA and/or divorce beating a little harder in our favour.
> > * Fail to address the problem of children accessing obscene material
> > on the internet, most of which is excluded from the proposed bill.
> The counter to this is "if we make it illegal, it will stop there being
> so of it much out there and it will protect children".
> (Of course that's probably nonsense and won't stop it being out there at
> all, but I don't think it helps our case.)
Actually it is total nonsence, the consultation papers preferred option doesn;t propose to prohibit a lot of obscene material, so the proposal will not protect children from it. Secondly, even if the UK market drops, there is no suggestion why that should affect demand./supply in a world wide market. I think saying children will not be protected by this proposal is important.
> > * An imposition of the government's sense of taste on its citizens.
> I'd say, rather, something like "an attempt to introduce 'Thought
> Police' to control what citizens may or may not see.
> (This has resonances with eg China etc where the government is trying to
> do exactly this).
Fair enough
> > * A presumption, which the government accepts is unsupported by research,
> > that looking at images on the net drives people to violence.
> Agreed.
> > We call on the government to abandon the proposed censorship of the internet.
> Although I agree, IMO this is a little too sweeping, and would confuse
> the issue, because it's really only one part of the internet they're
> talking about.
But is none the less censorship, even if the BBC sites remain intact!!
clare, 06 Sep 2005 13:05:44
Threads on IC are saying
(1) keep any petition really short because people won't read all our long stuff
(2) Petition will only show we have less support than the Longhurst camp.
(3) A lot of the argument we are having is about detail which is difficult to precis accurately.
This mitigates aganist a petition.
Personally I am against a petition, but if there is going to be one then I think it should be along the lines above.
I think a reasoned letter to persuade Liberty to take it on is the priority.
Lothario, 06 Sep 2005 13:13:38
I'm against the whole idea of having a petition.
1. You will be playing a numbers game against the Longhurst petition
that already has a 35,000 head start.
2. The whole essence of the campaign is that things in society should
be permitted or prohibited according to a defensible princple, not
just according to the tastes of a majority.
3. It's a lot easier to get signatories to a petition calling for a
ban on something rather than for one where people advocating an
activity about to be banned are opposing it. Many people will feel,
perhaps rightly, that they are giving their details to the government
as potential suspects once a law comes into force.
4. The likelihood of a positive outcome of a petition is minimal. To
achieve it, the petition would need, I'd estimate, tens or hundreds of
thousands of signatures. I doubt there is sufficient time before 9
December to do this, even if enough people were prepared to sign in
principle.
There are many ways the campaign can better use its time. The likely
benefits are minimal and the risks are great.
clare, 06 Sep 2005 13:20:45
Author wrote:
> I'm against the whole idea of having a petition.
> 1. You will be playing a numbers game against the Longhurst petition
> that already has a 35,000 head start.
> 2. The whole essence of the campaign is that things in society should
> be permitted or prohibited according to a defensible princple, not
> just according to the tastes of a majority.
> 3. It's a lot easier to get signatories to a petition calling for a
> ban on something rather than for one where people advocating an
> activity about to be banned are opposing it. Many people will feel,
> perhaps rightly, that they are giving their details to the government
> as potential suspects once a law comes into force.
> 4. The likelihood of a positive outcome of a petition is minimal. To
> achieve it, the petition would need, I'd estimate, tens or hundreds of
> thousands of signatures. I doubt there is sufficient time before 9
> December to do this, even if enough people were prepared to sign in
> principle.
> There are many ways the campaign can better use its time. The likely
> benefits are minimal and the risks are great.
I agree with all of the above. And who is going to actually put themselves on the public line to collect the signatures?
SnowdropExplodes, 06 Sep 2005 13:55:22
--- Lothario wrote:
> I'm against the whole idea of having a petition.
>
> 1. You will be playing a numbers game against the
> Longhurst petition
> that already has a 35,000 head start.
>
> 2. The whole essence of the campaign is that things
> in society should
> be permitted or prohibited according to a defensible
> princple, not
> just according to the tastes of a majority.
>
> 3. It's a lot easier to get signatories to a
> petition calling for a
> ban on something rather than for one where people
> advocating an
> activity about to be banned are opposing it. Many
> people will feel,
> perhaps rightly, that they are giving their details
> to the government
> as potential suspects once a law comes into force.
>
> 4. The likelihood of a positive outcome of a
> petition is minimal. To
> achieve it, the petition would need, I'd estimate,
> tens or hundreds of
> thousands of signatures. I doubt there is sufficient
> time before 9
> December to do this, even if enough people were
> prepared to sign in
> principle.
>
> There are many ways the campaign can better use its
> time. The likely
> benefits are minimal and the risks are great.
I agree with this in general, but with one caveat:
If a sizable petition can be presented to coincide
with the report from the consultation (which, if
people in the campaign have been writing letters as
private individuals, will show a strong response
opposed to new legislation) then it might just have
enough impact to help sway the balance.
However, a petition at this stage is not going to be
very effective. Writing letters to the consultation,
giving carefully-reasoned (and individually composed)
answers to the consultation questions, will. I and
others have provided resources to help people write
their own letters and/or question responses.
There is a clear case for working on the public front
as well, maybe not quite in the propagandist way that
some here propose, but certainly developing strategies
to develop the right sort of attitude (that it's
"nanny state", "government interference in personal
lives", "censorship" and the like) but making
apetition at this stage may be counter-productive.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Graham Marsden, 06 Sep 2005 19:11:53
pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>which are intended to lead to computer owners facing a three year sentence
>>> for mere possession of pornographic images on spanking and bondage
>>> sites
>
>>This isn't necessarily accurate and we *need* to be accurate or we risk
>>undermining our own case.
>
> I take your point, but a petition is not a place for detail and referring
> to necrophilic and bestiality sites isn't going to go down a storm. The
> width of the proposals will prohibit images that we find on spanking
> and bondage sites, even if that is not all that it will do.
It may do, but that's not solid enough IMO.
It may be ok as "a law that could be interpreted in a way that would
lead computer owners to face a three year sentence...", rather than
using the word "intent" which suggests that they're deliberately setting
out to do this.
> How about "We the undersigned believe the governments proposed
> censorship of adult material on the Internet"
Sounds good.
>>>* Are an unjustified intrusion by the nanny state into the privacy
>>>of adults.
>
> How about adding "It is not the government\x{2019}s business to legislate
> against sexual fantasies" (as suggested on another comment thread).
Hmm, possible. We need to keep the points short (to stop people getting
bored), but that doesn't add too much.
>>>* Promote denouncement by former partners and friends.
>>
>>This *may* happen, but it's not a stated purpose, so I don't think it
>>should be in there.
>
> It's true that it's not there, but but it must objectively be a
> real and substantial risk of the proposal and it will get the
> hearts of all those with bad experiences of the CSA and/or
> divorce beating a little harder in our favour.
Maybe. But it may make others go "oh look, another bunch of paranoid
conspiracy theorists".
Perhaps it could be worded as something like "may result in partners
being attacked for possessing this material in divorce or custody cases"?
>>>* Fail to address the problem of children accessing obscene material
>>> on the internet, most of which is excluded from the proposed bill.
>>The counter to this is "if we make it illegal, it will stop there being
>>so of it much out there and it will protect children".
>>(Of course that's probably nonsense and won't stop it being out there at
>>all, but I don't think it helps our case.)
>
> Actually it is total nonsence, the consultation papers preferred option
> doesn;t propose to prohibit a lot of obscene material, so the proposal
> will not protect children from it. Secondly, even if the UK market drops,
> there is no suggestion why that should affect demand./supply in a world
> wide market. I think saying children will not be protected by this
> proposal is important.
Yes, I agree, but the suggestion above seems to be that this bill
*should* be doing something to protect children, rather than saying it
*won't* protect them.
How about "will not address the problem of children accessing obscene
material, nor will protect them in any way from it"?
>>>We call on the government to abandon the proposed censorship of the internet.
>>
>>Although I agree, IMO this is a little too sweeping, and would confuse
>>the issue, because it's really only one part of the internet they're
>>talking about.
>
> But is none the less censorship, even if the BBC sites remain intact!!
True, but not "censorship of the internet" which is too broad.
Graham Marsden, 06 Sep 2005 19:14:28
pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Threads on IC are saying
>
> (1) keep any petition really short because people won't read all
> our long stuff
Agreed.
> (2) Petition will only show we have less support than the Longhurst camp.
Possibly. We'd have to "spin" it that it's not simply a case of the
majority telling the minority what is acceptable for them to see.
> (3) A lot of the argument we are having is about detail which is
> difficult to precis accurately.
Details aren't important in a petition, what matters is getting people
outraged enough that they sign it!
Peter Green, 06 Sep 2005 21:42:54
On 9/6/05, graham wrote:
> I don't think we should refer to "porn" or even "pornography" because
> IMO there would be an automatic reaction from many people that "porn is
> bad". I think the expression "adult material" would be better (and
> which, of course, excludes children).
A good point, although the Five documentary last night "Britain's
Sexual Fantasies" canvassed a fairly substantial 18,000 people of all
ages, genders, races and backgrounds, and 71% admitted to viewing
porn.
(Although on the down side, presenter Brett Kahr (a psychotherapist)
appears to believe that all sexual fantasies, especially BDSM ones,
are a coping mechanism for childhood traumas. I don't recall any
trauma, just getting strangely excited when Captain Hook tied up Tiger
Lily!)
--
Peter
clare, 07 Sep 2005 10:09:40
> Perhaps it could be worded as something like "may result in partners
> being attacked for possessing this material in divorce or custody cases"?
I like.
> How about "will not address the problem of children accessing obscene
> material, nor will protect them in any way from it"?
I like this too.
demolitionred, 07 Sep 2005 11:04:45
I have said elsewehere and will say again here.
we need a petition...we won't have more names but if we can get a substantial number of names -- I am told by people who work for MPs, for the whips office, for lobby firms -- we can prove we are a substantial minority determined to be heard.
If we can find someone who can do the programmiing we will have an on-line petition.
If we can't it will be emailed.
this works on a number of levels...
It draws attention to our cause in a short period of time and broadens our reach.. we can reach anti-censorship groups, gay groups, sex worker groups, universities, businesses and Joe public.
It allows people outside of London, off the internet to particpate.
As for exposing ourselves...there are a few of us that are able to do that. But you have to remenber that you can bill yourself as a protector of freedom and don't need to say you are a BDSMer.
If the Liberal democrats and some Labour MPS, eminent professors, the FT, The Guardian and the Times and people who read the BBC online are against the bill you are not outing yourself by explaining why you think the proposals are wrong.
We also need to focus the petition on people who are likely to sign (people who go to sex shops, swinger clubs, suggestions anyone?) in order to maximise the result.
Graham Marsden, 07 Sep 2005 11:56:57
pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
>>Perhaps it could be worded as something like "may result in partners
>>being attacked for possessing this material in divorce or custody cases"?
>
>
> I like.
Except it should be reworded as "may result in partners in divorce or
custody cases being attacked for possessing this material" :-)
>>How about "will not address the problem of children accessing obscene
>>material, nor will protect them in any way from it"?
>
> I like this too.
Make that "nor will protect them from it in any way"!
Graham Marsden, 07 Sep 2005 12:05:06
demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
> I have said elsewehere and will say again here.
>
> we need a petition...we won't have more names
I'm still not entirely convinced on the idea of the petition. Yes, it
could bring up a "substatial minority" of people, but it could also be
seen (or spun as being) in bad taste as if we're somehow "competing"
against Jane Longhurst's family if we're not very careful.
Any petition would have to make it clear that we consider that JL case
to be an absolute tragedy and that we sympathise with her family, but
this proposed law would not have prevented her death.
> If we can find someone who can do the programmiing we will have an
> on-line petition.
There are already online petition sites we can sign up to.
> It draws attention to our cause in a short period of time and broadens
> our reach.. we can reach anti-censorship groups, gay groups, sex
> worker groups, universities, businesses and Joe public.
This is something that would be a good thing. There are no doubt many
who object to these proposals who haven't yet done anything and this
would be an easy way for them to do so.
> As for exposing ourselves...there are a few of us that are able to do that.
> But you have to remenber that you can bill yourself as a protector
> of freedom and don't need to say you are a BDSMer.
Which is why we need to emphasise that this is about freedom of speech,
thought and expression, rather than being about "violent porn" per se.
Mage, 07 Sep 2005 13:17:58
This reluctance to use of a petition is very well if an effective alternative may be suggested.
Demolition Red is trying to get the potential severity of this consultation document publicised to as vast a number of people as is possible. That means support has to be given, either toward the suggested petition or a concrete alternative.
Speed is of the essence to extinguish any new legislation before it attracts majority support.
«No Name Set», 08 Sep 2005 18:22:57
Most law-abiding citizens would agree, I suggest, that it is a
*good* thing if relatives or friends grass up people who have
committed crimes. In fact, it's said that's how many serious
crimes are "solved".
Maybe of relevance is the possibility of an increase in hacking,
to plant offending images, by vindictive former employees or
ex-spouses. Allegedly, much computer hacking, virus-planting
and other sabotage is the work of disgruntled ex-employees
wanting to get their own back on the boss who sacked them
(failed to promote them, etc etc).
--
Rosemary
«No Name Set», 08 Sep 2005 18:23:06
I've been in several minds on this, but take your contacts' word
for potential benefit.
If we can't it will be emailed.
This rings lots of alarm bells! I can't be the only person here,
let alone "out there" who's reaction to getting emailed yet
another email petition is to groan about yet more spam, delete
the thing unread and block the perpetrator(s). The last thing
we want is to be tarred ith that brush.
Yes, circulate it to interested promoters by email - but as
something to print out and get signed on paper, not to spread as
a chain email.
I'm quite sure paper returns have more weight than electronic
ones - after all, it isn't that hard for most of you (even if
not some of us) to set up loadsa free email accounts and stuff
the thing.
[I'm sure this is what Demolition Red was meaning, but it ought
to be clarified.]
--
Rosemary