A new record has been added to the database'Arguments'.
Graham Marsden, 06 Sep 2005 18:53:49
the_object1@hotmail.com wrote:
> 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?
> Notes/Links : The slippery slope argument, which might be useful
> for generalising interest in the campaign.
Combining two of the above, some "religious material" is already verging
on (if not actually) illegal which may lead to the counter of "well it's
ok to ban that because it's potentially harmful..."
Graham Marsden, 07 Sep 2005 11:54:03
backdooruk@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Refutation :- This legislation will be a form of \x{2018}precrime\x{2019},
I like the idea of using "precrime" as anyone who has seen Minority
Report will get the reference and associate it with the fundamental
flaws of that system.
> convicting those assumed to have a propensity to do harm
> rather than those who actually harm others. ('argument' 19)
This is a good point, but too wordy. IMO it should be put simply as eg
"assuming guilt without any proof".
clare, 07 Sep 2005 12:06:39
Author wrote:
> backdooruk@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > Refutation :- This legislation will be a form of ‘precrime’,
> I like the idea of using "precrime" as anyone who has seen Minority
> Report will get the reference and associate it with the fundamental
> flaws of that system.
> > convicting those assumed to have a propensity to do harm
> > rather than those who actually harm others. ('argument' 19)
> This is a good point, but too wordy. IMO it should be put simply as eg
> "assuming guilt without any proof".
The precrime point is not the same as assuming guilt without proof. It is conviction for presumed propensity rather than for having caused harm.
Graham Marsden, 07 Sep 2005 12:12:15
pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > convicting those assumed to have a propensity to do harm
>> > rather than those who actually harm others. ('argument' 19)
>>This is a good point, but too wordy. IMO it should be put simply as eg
>>"assuming guilt without any proof".
>
> The precrime point is not the same as assuming guilt without proof.
> It is conviction for presumed propensity rather than for having
> caused harm.
Ok, but it needs to be put more simply than the above.
clare, 07 Sep 2005 12:25:47
Author wrote:
> pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> > convicting those assumed to have a propensity to do harm
> >> > rather than those who actually harm others. ('argument' 19)
> >>This is a good point, but too wordy. IMO it should be put simply as eg
> >>"assuming guilt without any proof".
> >
> > The precrime point is not the same as assuming guilt without proof.
> > It is conviction for presumed propensity rather than for having
> > caused harm.
> Ok, but it needs to be put more simply than the above.
I don't think it's being proposed for the petition is it? There it is already covered by the point that no harm caused. For the response to the consultation or any info blurbs press releases can't we be permitted a few more words per idea :)
«No Name Set», 07 Sep 2005 18:31:06
In message <1272508.1126039649756.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com> backdooruk@yahoo.co.uk writes:
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’, convi cting those assumed to have a propensity to do harm rather than those who a ctuall
y harm others.
Notes/Links : The government are trying to look in to the future, as in the film 'Minority Report'.
This could be counter-productive.
There may be no definite evidence that use of porn leads peopleto commit the acts depicted, but I *have* heard of situationswhere having access to - and using - porn actually preventedpeople from going out and gaving real sex (because the porn gavethem an outlet).
I don't know if there are studies of this in cases of peoplewith an urge towards illegal sexual activity - maybe someonewith more skill than mine on google may find some? I cameacross this in particular in the early days of the AIDSepidemic, before anyone knew what caused it or how to preventit. Guys were staying in with their porn mags/videos ratherthan going out cruising or cottaging, and thus reducing thespread of (what was later found to be) the HIV virus.
SOrry I don't have a reference to this, as I've recently beenclearing out all my old paperwork and bequeathed most of it toarchives. THT might have a reference, or possibly the AidsMonitor people at the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centrein COlindale.
--Rosemary