A new record has been added to the database 'Arguments'.
object, 06 Sep 2005 16:12:13
Dear Backlash member,
A new record has been added to the database table 'Arguments'.
ID : 16
Argument : Once the principle is established that material can be criminalised without any evidence of harm, what next - religious images, political material, or certain news stories?
For/Agin/Neutral : A
Notes/Links : The slippery slope argument, which might be useful for generalising interest in the campaign.
If you would like to view the table, visit the following URL:
http://www.smartgroups.com/database/viewtable.cfm?GID=3271426&sgTableId=815172
backdooruk, 06 Sep 2005 21:40:21
Dear Backlash member,
A new record has been added to the database table 'Arguments'.
ID : 17
Argument : Making is illegal to read certain types of books would produce an outcry against censorship, yet in principle this proposal is identical since written material is equally as powerful as images.
For/Agin/Neutral : A
Notes/Links :
If you would like to view the table, visit the following URL:
http://www.smartgroups.com/database/viewtable.cfm?GID=3271426&sgTableId=815172
backdooruk, 06 Sep 2005 21:41:57
Dear Backlash member,
A new record has been added to the database table 'Arguments'.
ID : 18
Argument : Because it only targets the visual this legislation is inherently sexist. Men are the largest consumer of visual pornography and women are the largest consumer of written pornography.
For/Agin/Neutral : A
Notes/Links : Vampire themed erotica, for example may well contain murder, torture, necrophilia and even elements of bestiality, yet this is apparently free from consideration.
If you would like to view the table, visit the following URL:
http://www.smartgroups.com/database/viewtable.cfm?GID=3271426&sgTableId=815172
backdooruk, 06 Sep 2005 21:47:34
Dear Backlash member,
A new record has been added to the database table 'Arguments'.
ID : 19
Argument : A
For/Agin/Neutral : This legislation will be a form of ‘precrime’, convicting those assumed to have a propensity to do harm rather than those who actually harm others.
Notes/Links : The government are trying to look in to the future, as in the film 'Minority Report'.
If you would like to view the table, visit the following URL:
http://www.smartgroups.com/database/viewtable.cfm?GID=3271426&sgTableId=815172
backdooruk, 06 Sep 2005 21:51:34
Dear Backlash member,
A new record has been added to the database table 'Arguments'.
ID : 20
Argument : Placing such offenders on the sexual offenders register, as it is assumed this will do, will further dilute its value as a resource.
For/Agin/Neutral : A
Notes/Links : The offences that result in entry on the sexual offences register are deffined under Schedule 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997.
If you would like to view the table, visit the following URL:
http://www.smartgroups.com/database/viewtable.cfm?GID=3271426&sgTableId=815172
SnowdropExplodes, 06 Sep 2005 21:52:05
--- backdooruk@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> Dear Backlash member,
>
> A new record has been added to the database table
> 'Arguments'.
>
> ID : 19
> Argument : A
> For/Agin/Neutral : This legislation will be a form
> of ‘precrime’, convicting those assumed to have a
> propensity to do harm rather than those who actually
> harm others.
> Notes/Links : The government are trying to look in
> to the future, as in the film 'Minority Report'.
This is essentially the same argument as Record 1
(legislating against forms of thought rather than
actions).
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
backdooruk, 06 Sep 2005 22:01:52
Dear Backlash member,
A new record has been added to the database table 'Arguments'.
ID : 21
Argument : This legislation aims to produce a Scapegoat in those that look at porn for the responsibility the whole of society should take for victims of crime.
For/Agin/Neutral : A
Notes/Links : It seems like a ‘Knee-jerk’ reaction rather than a thought out response to need. That is never a good way to legislate.
If you would like to view the table, visit the following URL:
http://www.smartgroups.com/database/viewtable.cfm?GID=3271426&sgTableId=815172
backdooruk, 06 Sep 2005 22:18:32
Dear Backlash member,
A new record has been added to the database table 'Arguments'.
ID : 22
Argument : The internet has made these images much more readily available but with no corresponding measured increase in sexual violence, bestiality or necrophilia.
For/Agin/Neutral : A
Notes/Links : The government cannot argue that research into this is too ‘difficult’.
If you would like to view the table, visit the following URL:
http://www.smartgroups.com/database/viewtable.cfm?GID=3271426&sgTableId=815172
backdooruk, 06 Sep 2005 22:22:46
Dear Backlash member,
A new record has been added to the database table 'Arguments'.
ID : 23
Argument : Having a sexual fantasy does not make people suddenly lose their ethical sense of what is right or wrong. It is not the government’s business to legislate against sexual fantasies.
For/Agin/Neutral : A
Notes/Links : Sexual fantasies powerful enough to lead to criminal activity are not created simply by looking at images.
If you would like to view the table, visit the following URL:
http://www.smartgroups.com/database/viewtable.cfm?GID=3271426&sgTableId=815172
backdooruk, 06 Sep 2005 22:39:03
SnowdropExplodes wrote:
> This is essentially the same argument as Record 1
> (legislating against forms of thought rather than
> actions).
No it isn't: 'precrime' is legislating against possible future action, not current thought. Over simplification is never good when constructing a argument.
- Chris
SnowdropExplodes, 06 Sep 2005 23:06:23
--- backdooruk@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> SnowdropExplodes wrote:
> > This is essentially the same argument as Record 1
> > (legislating against forms of thought rather than
> > actions).
>
> No it isn't: 'precrime' is legislating against
> possible future action, not current thought. Over
> simplification is never good when constructing a
> argument.
In a general sense, you are right. However, in
applying the two formulations to this particular case,
I think that the two lines are different steps in the
same argument:
step 1: They are legislating against thinking about
certain sexual fantasies, by preventing us looking at
the images/footage
step 2: they are doing this because they believe
(despite the lack of evidence for such a claim) that
doing so makes people who look at certain types of
image, more likely to commit crime.
In other words, looking at extreme porn makes us think
things that make us more likely to be criminal.
The first step is the stronger one in terms of the
arguments we need to make, because the fact is that
some people believe that pre-emptive action against
criminals is justified.
Incidentally, I feel that a number of the other
arguments you've added to the list, are in fact
special-case versions of other arguments presented
already, or else are (like the one above) part of the
argument process of the others, forming a subsequent
step in the reasoning, perhaps predicated on more than
one of the other arguments.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
backdooruk, 06 Sep 2005 23:26:44
SnowdropExplodes wrote:
> Incidentally, I feel that a number of the other
> arguments you've added to the list, are in fact
> special-case versions of other arguments presented
> already, or else are (like the one above) part of the
> argument process of the others, forming a subsequent
> step in the reasoning, perhaps predicated on more than
> one of the other arguments.
Of course, but then so are most of the previous arguments. If you wanted to exclude all that did this you'd end up with only 3 or 4 and a much less rich sequences of points to make.
- Chris
SnowdropExplodes, 06 Sep 2005 23:31:36
--- backdooruk@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> SnowdropExplodes wrote:
> > Incidentally, I feel that a number of the other
> > arguments you've added to the list, are in fact
> > special-case versions of other arguments presented
> > already, or else are (like the one above) part of
> the
> > argument process of the others, forming a
> subsequent
> > step in the reasoning, perhaps predicated on more
> than
> > one of the other arguments.
>
> Of course, but then so are most of the previous
> arguments. If you wanted to exclude all that did
> this you'd end up with only 3 or 4 and a much less
> rich sequences of points to make.
>
I'll concede that point for now, but I feel that too
many could be just as bad as too few, because it gets
confusing. I feel that "precrime" is too similar (in
terms of a "general public" perception at least) to
"thought crime" as a concept, so perhaps concentrate
on one or the ther, and maybe a similar weeding
process will be necessary at some point with the other
points put forward.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
backdooruk, 07 Sep 2005 00:12:07
SnowdropExplodes wrote:
> I feel that "precrime" is too similar (in
> terms of a "general public" perception at least) to
> "thought crime" as a concept,
I disagree. Arguments are built on a sequence of points and counterpoints. One possible would be arranging the points (called 'arguments' in the table) as follows:
For :- "There is some pornographic material which is so degrading, violent or aberrant that it should not be tolerated." ('argument' 3)
Counterpoint :- "That this is an attempt to legislate against thoughts not deeds. " ('argument' 1)
Justification :- "We don't have any evidence that banning these images will prevent another similar crime, but if by some chance it did, it would be worthwhile." ('argument' 13)Refutation :- This legislation will be a form of ‘precrime’, convicting those assumed to have a propensity to do harm rather than those who actually harm others. ('argument' 19)
You'll see that at each stage a new significant points is made that contributes to the overall discussion. Excluding points because they share a superficial similarity to others and/or depend on them would be shooting ourselves in the dialectical foot. :-)
- Chris
SnowdropExplodes, 07 Sep 2005 00:27:25
--- backdooruk@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> SnowdropExplodes wrote:
> > I feel that "precrime" is too similar (in
> > terms of a "general public" perception at least)
> to
> > "thought crime" as a concept,
>
> I disagree. Arguments are built on a sequence of
> points and counterpoints. One possible would be
> arranging the points (called 'arguments' in the
> table) as follows:
>
> For :- "There is some pornographic material which is
> so degrading, violent or aberrant that it should
> not be tolerated." ('argument' 3)
> Counterpoint :- "That this is an attempt to
> legislate against thoughts not deeds. " ('argument'
> 1)
> Justification :- "We don't have any evidence that
> banning these images will prevent another similar
> crime, but if by some chance it did, it would be
> worthwhile." ('argument' 13)Refutation :- This
> legislation will be a form of ‘precrime’, convicting
> those assumed to have a propensity to do harm rather
> than those who actually harm others. ('argument' 19)
>
> You'll see that at each stage a new significant
> points is made that contributes to the overall
> discussion. Excluding points because they share a
> superficial similarity to others and/or depend on
> them would be shooting ourselves in the dialectical
> foot. :-)
But when talking to the general public, you will find
that a dialectic is impossible.
You need to be able to present your hard-hitting
points succinctly and in a way that they understand.
Sadly, as has been explained, the general public are
not easily convinced by carefully-reasoned arguments.
That ultimately means presenting things as discrete
entities that are self-supporting. The "precrime"
aspect is covered already because it is formed from
the "absence of proof of harm" argument on the one
hand, and the "thought not deed" argument on the
other, and if you tried to present it separately, it
would like a rehash of those two.
As far as the debate goes, we need to be thinking in
terms of the whole argument rather than individual
points, I think. That is what I mean by trimming
down the points to a managable number. What it looks
like at the moment is an attempt to start new debates
with each step, rather than using a sequence of steps
to build a case against the proposals.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
backdooruk, 07 Sep 2005 08:31:59
wrote:
SnowdropExplodes wrote:
> But when talking to the general public, you will find
> that a dialectic is impossible.
I think treating the public like a homogenous mass won't get us very far either. Our battle won’t just be won in Sun editorials, it has to take place in the broadsheets also, it has to take place in the minds of MP’s we write to and ultimately parliamentary committees and the courts. By all means pick and choose what arguments to use when and the sophistication with which you use them, but we need >all< levels of arguments to win.
I based these arguments on the strongest ones from my own response to the consultation document since that is the stage we are at now. As it was I excluded the more detailed scientific ones.
- Chris
object, 07 Sep 2005 23:02:34
Dear Backlash member,
A new record has been added to the database table 'Arguments'.
ID : 24
Argument : "...we believe that in a free society men and women ultimately have the right within the law to choose their own lifestyle, even when it may damage their own health."
For/Agin/Neutral : A
Notes/Links : John Reid (Health Secr), Nov 2004: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo041116/debtext/41116-05.htm
If you would like to view the table, visit the following URL:
http://www.smartgroups.com/database/viewtable.cfm?GID=3271426&sgTableId=815172
clare, 08 Sep 2005 01:09:04
Author wrote:
> wrote:
> SnowdropExplodes wrote:
> > But when talking to the general public, you will find
> > that a dialectic is impossible.
> I think treating the public like a homogenous mass won't get us very far either. Our battle won’t just be won in Sun editorials, it has to take place in the broadsheets also, it has to take place in the minds of MP’s we write to and ultimately parliamentary committees and the courts. By all means pick and choose what arguments to use when and the sophistication with which you use them, but we need >all< levels of arguments to win.
> I based these arguments on the strongest ones from my own response to the consultation document since that is the stage we are at now. As it was I excluded the more detailed scientific ones.
> - Chris
>
>
I agree. I thought the point of the argument data base was to accumulate all possible arguments in one convenient place so that we don't have to trawl through all the many postings to be reminded of the good points that have been made. (The formt is too restrictive because it will only accept limited text in the comment box).
I assumed that full arguments would then be developed for different audiences; response to consultation paper; press briefings, leaflets. I wouldn't expect the response to the Home Office to bear much similarity to the press briefings.
I imagined that different people or partnerships would draft each of those documents which would then come to forum for ideas, comment and amendment.
Have I got this wrong?
Clare
SnowdropExplodes, 08 Sep 2005 01:29:58
--- pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
> I agree. I thought the point of the argument data
> base was to accumulate all possible arguments in one
> convenient place so that we don't have to trawl
> through all the many postings to be reminded of the
> good points that have been made. (The formt is too
> restrictive because it will only accept limited text
> in the comment box).
>
> I assumed that full arguments would then be
> developed for different audiences; response to
> consultation paper; press briefings, leaflets. I
> wouldn't expect the response to the Home Office to
> bear much similarity to the press briefings.
>
> I imagined that different people or partnerships
> would draft each of those documents which would then
> come to forum for ideas, comment and amendment.
>
> Have I got this wrong?
Sounds like what I had in mind when i saw the
database.
I agree, the format doesn't really allow for the
flexibility to show the various links between the
different points/arguments, and doesn't really show
the history of the debate around each one.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Amelie, 08 Sep 2005 01:32:16
That would make good sense clare. not sure where we go from here, but would
accept assignment wherever needed. can work from home - writing or
research - have some experience of media - radio, TV, public speaking,
journalism etc- but cannot easily travel to mainland unless for a very
important reason - need plenty of prep time as am disabled and live on Isle
of Wight.
rom:
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 1:08 AM
backdooruk, 09 Sep 2005 14:02:47
Dear Backlash member,
A new record has been added to the database table 'Arguments'.
ID : 32
Argument : The emotional reaction to some pictures is so biased that a fair trial by jury cannot be guaranteed.
For/Agin/Neutral : A
Notes/Links : Evidence from operation Ore, such as guy convicted even though it was proved that he had never accessed the site they thought he had and the 1 picture on his pc (from peer-2-peer) had never been opened. The picture however was quite extreme..
If you would like to view the table, visit the following URL:
http://www.smartgroups.com/database/viewtable.cfm?GID=3271426&sgTableId=815172
SnowdropExplodes, 09 Sep 2005 16:28:36
From the sound of it, this is precisely the argument they use in favour of the proposals: that some material is so abhorrent etc. to society that simple possession is an affront to society and must be punished.
The criterion in the OPA appears essentially to be that a jury decides if the material is so offensive that it should not be allowed, so in law it is a fair trial even if the jury are biased against the type of material - because that bias is seen as the judgement of what is acceptable to society (or not). The bias is assumed to be a general bias in society.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
backdooruk@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Dear Backlash member,
A new record has been added to the database table 'Arguments'.
ID : 32
Argument : The emotional reaction to some pictures is so biased that a fair trial by jury cannot be guaranteed.
For/Agin/Neutral : A
Notes/Links : Evidence from operation Ore, such as guy convicted even though it was proved that he had never accessed the site they thought he had and the 1 picture on his pc (from peer-2-peer) had never been opened. The picture however was quite extreme..
If you would like to view the table, visit the following URL:
http://www.smartgroups.com/database/viewtable.cfm?GID=3271426&sgTableId=815172
--
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%3D421
---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
backdooruk, 09 Sep 2005 18:58:58
SnowdropExplodes wrote:
> From the sound of it, this is precisely the argument they use in favour of the proposals: that some material is so abhorrent etc. to society that simple possession is an affront to society and must be punished.
I think you slightly missed the point. It isn't the reaction of in a jury itself, but rather that this reaction prejudices the right to a fair trial and the ability of the jury to listen to the evidence. In a way we are using their point against them (though we would have a different opinion about the cause of the abhorrent reaction).
As well as the case I quoted in the notes there are others that happened as part of operation Ore where the convictions were gotten not on the strength of the evidence that pictures had actually been viewed/possessed, but on the jury's reaction to being shown pictures of child porn.
- Chris
Jane, 13 May 2006 12:55:32
Dear Backlash member,
A new record has been added to the database table 'Arguments'.
ID : 21
Argument : If the law is passed say only for some member countries of the EU, how will it affect those resident elsewhere, say like us, in Spain.
For/Agin/Neutral : A
Notes/Links : BDSM Dungeon in Spain www.bondagedominationspain.com
If you would like to view the table, visit the following URL:
http://www.smartgroups.com/database/viewtable.cfm?GID=3271426&sgTableId=815172