Dem_red's submission

Manniq, 07 Nov 2005 10:11:59

OK. Still pushing for loads and loads of stirring on any and every chat room and message board across the nation. A number of people have come back to me and it is great to see how much is being done and by so many people.

The basic aim is to get our message out to as many chat rooms in any even remotely related subject as possible. If you want to help – frankly, if you can raise the issue without giving offense, just go for it!

Meanwhile, we have the following commitments:

Adrian: LiveJournal and bodyart

Wilhelm: EABDSM

Barbara: Goth & vampire groups/websites & magazines

Rosemary, Mike, Graham and Amelie are also doing their thing in a slightly less structured way!! Thanks to them as well.

People asked about a standard text.

I would suggest the following, but….this is only a starter. If you feel it does not represent you, your style or what you want to say, then just amend it – or scrap and start again.

Finally, once you have posted this, would be VERY grateful if you could write back and let me know where you have posted to.

Many thanks,

M

Suggested text:

Hi,

I hope people on this group won’t mind my posting this – but I think it is a pretty important topic, and one that could affect some, maybe all of us, in the next few years.

A month or so back there was a lot of publicity about how the government was going to clamp down on ‘extreme pornographic images’ on the internet. What that actually meant was that they were asking for input and opinion from the public around a consultation paper that they had written.

It’s a bit much to go into detail now. However, what they seem to be saying is that there are some images on the internet that they can’t police (because they are outside their boundaries). They would not be publishable in this country, because they would be considered obscene (under the Obscene Publications Act). And they are so ‘abhorrent’ that all right-thinking people would like them banned.

So the government reckons it has to do something – and what it plans to do is to make it a criminal offence to POSSESS such images in future. From the net, certainly – but also in book or other form. If you possess any of the images that the government doesn’t like, you could end up in prison for three years and/or on the Sex Offenders’ Register.

Now I know that it is very tempting to say ‘jolly good’ – because I am sure that every one of us can think of images that they would find horrid to view and that maybe we would rather did not exist. But there are a number of problems with this proposal.

First, the government admits there is no evidence of harm at all from people watching these images – if anything, the evidence is the other way, with Japanese studies suggesting that people who look at a lot of porn often use it as a means to reduce their desires to DO things.

Second, it is about sex: the government is not proposing to ban ALL nasty images or nasty news images or whatever. Only images ‘in a sexual context’. Which is pretty dumb: because if they REALLY thought that these images led people to commit crimes, they would want them ALL banned anyway.

But they are saying there will be exemptions for images taken from films already passed by the censor and for artistic works – and that it won’t be a crime if you download stuff ‘accidentally’.

Which really sounds like spin and lies. Because once this proposal is law, I can’t see the police being impressed by someone saying: this image of a rape taken from a 18 film was only for personal interest or was downloaded accidentally or just didn’t turn me on.

Once this law is law, they are going to go after any images that anyone possesses that the local police chief doesn’t like – and if you remember James Anderton, the ultra-Christian police chief, what chiefs don’t like can be pretty innocuous indeed.

Anyway, all this worries me. There is a group set up to fight the proposal – details are at

www.backlash-uk.org.uk

You can also find links to the government consultation paper there. And if these proposals worry you, too, then please, please write in to the consultation. You don’t have to be wity, academic or anything. You don’t even have to answer THEIR rather biased questions. Just write in and make your point.

And you have until 2 December to do it!!!!

All the best,

XXXX {that’s for your name – not loads of kisses!}


*** This message has been edited by Manniq on 07 Nov 2005 10:24:07 ***


demolitionred, 07 Nov 2005 10:14:31

The url is www.backlash-uk.org.uk


Manniq, 07 Nov 2005 10:23:52

How peculiar...that's what I fed my pc - and it appears to have taken me to unfettered... any idea why?

Regards,

M

Author wrote:
> The url is www.backlash-uk.org.uk


demolitionred, 07 Nov 2005 10:37:01

because we're using the unfettered server. But we won't be for much longer. so your url will soon be obsolete.


demolitionred, 07 Nov 2005 10:39:01

I have posted messages on

fet groups:

Unmasked, tallystrapon-on club, total servitude, Night of the Senses volunteer group, omnipotency and subterrain.


alternative culture:
Xtro, masterdarcyandraventwisted, switchblade_sister.


Thunder, 07 Nov 2005 10:47:24

In message
<7775583.1131359029669.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com>,
manniq@hotmail.com writes
>
>How peculiar...that's what I fed my pc - and it appears to have taken
>me to unfettered... any idea why?
>
>Regards,
>
>M

The site is actually located where you indicated - i.e. on the
Unfettered website.

The URL mentioned by DemRed redirects to it.

As it has not been set up (I thought it was going to be) to be masked
then clicking the www.backlash-uk.org.uk link takes one to the site and
reveals its actual location.
>

It was originally set up like that as Backlash was a "working title" and
money was not going to be spent on a dedicated site.
--
^Thunder^


adrian, 07 Nov 2005 10:49:46

The backlash URL redirects to Unfettered which is hosting the Backlash
pages. This was only intended to be for about 10 days, but's they've
been very long days.

I'm hoping that LFS who have kindly offered us hosting will set up the
domain name details any moment now so that we can move over.


Manniq, 07 Nov 2005 11:00:16

Makes sense. Basically, what happened was that I wrote the note, then realised I needed a url. I clicked on the CORRECT url, and then cut and pasted the url that appeared in my window, without re-checking.

Foolish on my part: I assumed that if I clicked on it, it would be what appeared. Just proves how un-techy I am!

However, it now means I have to write to about 30 people to tell them I gave them the wrong link!! Darn.

Regards,

M

Author wrote:
> In message
> <7775583.1131359029669.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com>,
> manniq@hotmail.com writes
> >
> >How peculiar...that's what I fed my pc - and it appears to have taken
> >me to unfettered... any idea why?
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >M
> The site is actually located where you indicated - i.e. on the
> Unfettered website.
> The URL mentioned by DemRed redirects to it.
> As it has not been set up (I thought it was going to be) to be masked
> then clicking the www.backlash-uk.org.uk link takes one to the site and
> reveals its actual location.
> >
> It was originally set up like that as Backlash was a "working title" and
> money was not going to be spent on a dedicated site.
> --
> ^Thunder^


fuschia, 07 Nov 2005 14:01:14

In a message dated 07/11/2005 11:00:30 GMT Standard Time, manniq@hotmail.com
writes:


However, it now means I have to write to about 30 people to tell them I gave
them the wrong link!! Darn.


I suggest UF sets up a redirect on that page to the backlash url, once it's
up and running, so anyone looking for the old link still ends up at Backlash

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

Amelie, 07 Nov 2005 16:00:17

finally found this - for some reason it had been routed to my spam folder
for deletion - there seems to be no consistency about what gets caught
here as I had specifically allowed anything from backlash or its
correspondents.

Also I finally found the financial details, what we had raised, where from,
how used and how to contribute. All on Unfettered. But could not help
thinking it would been more positive for some discussion group members to
point silver and myself there when we asked for info rather than making
personal attacks on us both for asking. Well, we know now, so thanks,
Amelie


----- Original Message -----
, 07 Nov 2005 16:00:17
To:
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 10:11 AM


OK. Still pushing for loads and loads of stirring on any and every chat
room and message board across the nation. A number of people have come back
to me and it is great to see how much is being done and by so many people.

The basic aim is to get our message out to as many chat rooms in any even
remotely related subject as possible. If you want to help - frankly, if you
can raise the issue without giving offense, just go for it!

Meanwhile, we have the following commitments:

Adrian: LiveJournal and bodyart

Wilhelm: EABDSM

Barbara: Goth & vampire groups/websites & magazines

Rosemary, Mike, Graham and Amelie are also doing their thing in a slightly
less structured way!! Thanks to them as well.

People asked about a standard text.

I would suggest the following, but..this is only a starter. If you feel it
does not represent you, your style or what you want to say, then just amend
it - or scrap and start again.

Finally, once you have posted this, would be VERY grateful if you could
write back and let me know where you have posted to.

Many thanks,

M

Suggested text:

Hi,

I hope people on this group won't mind my posting this - but I think it is a
pretty important topic, and one that could affect some, maybe all of us, in
the next few years.

A month or so back there was a lot of publicity about how the government was
going to clamp down on 'extreme pornographic images' on the internet. What
that actually meant was that they were asking for input and opinion from the
public around a consultation paper that they had written.

It's a bit much to go into detail now. However, what they seem to be saying
is that there are some images on the internet that they can't police
(because they are outside their boundaries). They would not be publishable
in this country, because they would be considered obscene (under the Obscene
Publications Act). And they are so 'abhorrent' that all right-thinking
people would like them banned.

So the government reckons it has to do something - and what it plans to do
is to make it a criminal offence to POSSESS such images in future. From the
net, certainly - but also in book or other form. If you possess any of the
images that the government doesn't like, you could end up in prison for
three years and/or on the Sex Offenders' Register.

Now I know that it is very tempting to say 'jolly good' - because I am sure
that every one of us can think of images that they would find horrid to view
and that maybe we would rather did not exist. But there are a number of
problems with this proposal.

First, the government admits there is no evidence of harm at all from people
watching these images - if anything, the evidence is the other way, with
Japanese studies suggesting that people who look at a lot of porn often use
it as a means to reduce their desires to DO things.

Second, it is about sex: the government is not proposing to ban ALL nasty
images or nasty news images or whatever. Only images 'in a sexual context'.
Which is pretty dumb: because if they REALLY thought that these images led
people to commit crimes, they would want them ALL banned anyway.

But they are saying there will be exemptions for images taken from films
already passed by the censor and for artistic works - and that it won't be a
crime if you download stuff 'accidentally'.

Which really sounds like spin and lies. Because once this proposal is law,
I can't see the police being impressed by someone saying: this image of a
rape taken from a 18 film was only for personal interest or was downloaded
accidentally or just didn't turn me on.

Once this law is law, they are going to go after any images that anyone
possesses that the local police chief doesn't like - and if you remember
James Anderton, the ultra-Christian police chief, what chiefs don't like can
be pretty innocuous indeed.

Anyway, all this worries me. There is a group set up to fight the
proposal - details are at

http://www.unfettered.co.uk/backlash/index.html

You can also find links to the government consultation paper there. And if
these proposals worry you, too, then please, please write in to the
consultation. You don't have to be wity, academic or anything. You don't
even have to answer THEIR rather biased questions. Just write in and make
your point.

And you have until 2 December to do it!!!!

All the best,

XXXX {that's for your name - not loads of kisses!}







--
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%3D3182


MsDemmie, 07 Nov 2005 17:52:20

Other places I have raised this in discussion

CollarMe.com
Edge Of Europe.com
LJ
Stumble.com

Various mailing lists .....

BDSM South West
Cream Tease
Various Mistresses Groups - where they take videos and sell them / show them via the web - so far two are taking legal advise as to how this will effect them.

I have seen it raised on
LFS
B2G
IC
LJ
Alternative Lifestyles
Southern Spanking and BDSM

Kind regards
MsDemmie


Graham Marsden, 07 Nov 2005 19:00:05

manniq@hotmail.com wrote:

> Finally, once you have posted this, would be VERY grateful if
> you could write back and let me know where you have posted to.

I've not posted your standard text, but I have posted my version of it.

Currently (of the ones I can remember off the top of my head!) it's on
pages or in forums or linked to from:

My website http://www.affordable-leather.co.uk

uk.people.bdsm

http://www.net-model.com

http://www.takemenow.net/forum/

http://www.liberalism2010.tsohost.co.uk

http://groups.msn.com/missuse/

It may well be on more, but I can't remember off-hand!

Cheers,
Graham.


Graham Marsden, 07 Nov 2005 20:11:17

graham wrote:
> I've not posted your standard text, but I have posted my version of it.
>
> Currently (of the ones I can remember off the top of my head!) it's on
> pages or in forums or linked to from:

Oh, yeah, I sent it out to everyone on my business e-mail list too!

(Duh! :-) )

Cheers,
Graham.


Paul Tavener, 08 Nov 2005 01:56:33

I have posted here:
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/chat/
One of the visitors here has already written and another 3 regular visitors that I know will also respond. The web master will be pushing the issue up to the end of the consultation period.

I have posted here:
http://groups.msn.com/MedievalTerrors/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=1316&LastModified=4675546689390655408
At least one said he would respond

I have posted here:
http://www.smartgroups.com/group/group.cfm?GID=3301298
No response probably not worth following up

I have made contact with the web master here:
www.inquisition21.com
I think at least 3 will respond and perhaps another 3. On going discussions underway

I have been going through the list of Universities shown here:
http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/members/
I have contacted a few people who I thought might be interested, but have had little feed back except one professor at Brunel appears keen and said he would respond.

I couldn’t get in here but it looks very promising. Please can someone else try
http://horrorchannel.com/forums/index.php

I have asked
info@blackwitch.co.uk contact for
http://www.asphyxiation-films.com/newreleases.html
No response. Might be worth another go as they had an article in DVD World recently and this is an ideal candidate. Looks like the company would go bust if the new law comes in so I was surprised not to here anything.

I have also spoken to someone at the BBFC about the proposals. They will be responding but don’t want to let on what they will say, but from what I’ve heard from someone who is close to the BBFC they will be likely to support the Governments position but point out lots and lots of difficulties for them.

I will post here again soon:
http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/list.php?f=3


If there’s any where else that needs following up please let me know





Author wrote:
> OK. Still pushing for loads and loads of stirring on any and every chat room and message board across the nation. A number of people have come back to me and it is great to see how much is being done and by so many people.
> The basic aim is to get our message out to as many chat rooms in any even remotely related subject as possible. If you want to help – frankly, if you can raise the issue without giving offense, just go for it!
> Meanwhile, we have the following commitments:
> Adrian: LiveJournal and bodyart
> Wilhelm: EABDSM
> Barbara: Goth & vampire groups/websites & magazines
> Rosemary, Mike, Graham and Amelie are also doing their thing in a slightly less structured way!! Thanks to them as well.
> People asked about a standard text.
> I would suggest the following, but….this is only a starter. If you feel it does not represent you, your style or what you want to say, then just amend it – or scrap and start again.
> Finally, once you have posted this, would be VERY grateful if you could write back and let me know where you have posted to.
> Many thanks,
> M
> Suggested text:
> Hi,
> I hope people on this group won’t mind my posting this – but I think it is a pretty important topic, and one that could affect some, maybe all of us, in the next few years.
> A month or so back there was a lot of publicity about how the government was going to clamp down on ‘extreme pornographic images’ on the internet. What that actually meant was that they were asking for input and opinion from the public around a consultation paper that they had written.
> It’s a bit much to go into detail now. However, what they seem to be saying is that there are some images on the internet that they can’t police (because they are outside their boundaries). They would not be publishable in this country, because they would be considered obscene (under the Obscene Publications Act). And they are so ‘abhorrent’ that all right-thinking people would like them banned.
> So the government reckons it has to do something – and what it plans to do is to make it a criminal offence to POSSESS such images in future. From the net, certainly – but also in book or other form. If you possess any of the images that the government doesn’t like, you could end up in prison for three years and/or on the Sex Offenders’ Register.
> Now I know that it is very tempting to say ‘jolly good’ – because I am sure that every one of us can think of images that they would find horrid to view and that maybe we would rather did not exist. But there are a number of problems with this proposal.
> First, the government admits there is no evidence of harm at all from people watching these images – if anything, the evidence is the other way, with Japanese studies suggesting that people who look at a lot of porn often use it as a means to reduce their desires to DO things.
> Second, it is about sex: the government is not proposing to ban ALL nasty images or nasty news images or whatever. Only images ‘in a sexual context’. Which is pretty dumb: because if they REALLY thought that these images led people to commit crimes, they would want them ALL banned anyway.
> But they are saying there will be exemptions for images taken from films already passed by the censor and for artistic works – and that it won’t be a crime if you download stuff ‘accidentally’.
> Which really sounds like spin and lies. Because once this proposal is law, I can’t see the police being impressed by someone saying: this image of a rape taken from a 18 film was only for personal interest or was downloaded accidentally or just didn’t turn me on.
> Once this law is law, they are going to go after any images that anyone possesses that the local police chief doesn’t like – and if you remember James Anderton, the ultra-Christian police chief, what chiefs don’t like can be pretty innocuous indeed.
> Anyway, all this worries me. There is a group set up to fight the proposal – details are at
> www.backlash-uk.org.uk
> You can also find links to the government consultation paper there. And if these proposals worry you, too, then please, please write in to the consultation. You don’t have to be wity, academic or anything. You don’t even have to answer THEIR rather biased questions. Just write in and make your point.
> And you have until 2 December to do it!!!!
> All the best,
> XXXX {that’s for your name – not loads of kisses!}
>
>