Bye for now

guy, 10 Nov 2005 09:23:17

** Reply to message from guilty^ on Thu, 10 Nov 2005
09:38:30 +0100

Thanks everybody for a debate that has enlightened and informed me.

I now believe I know as much as I need to know to make an effective response to
the Consultation. I will report that response back.

I will also be trying to alert others by distributing the Backlash flyer and
other means.

But for now I have to duck out and catch up with what I need to do in my family
and business life.

One final point. I am told that the Obscene Publications Act, etc. explicitly
includes drawings.

This proposed legislation explicitly does not include drawings and other art;
very specifically only photos and pseudo-photos. If it did include drawings and
other art, to be consistent, it would presumably also cover depiction of the
cruxifiction of Christians and the the depiction of the martyrdom of Christian,
Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, etc. Saints and heroes.

But I would respectfully suggest that pathological obsessives like Michael
Oaten would just as easily get off on the 'sacred' imagery as the 'profane'.
Indeed if anyone, Christian or not, has a propensity to be depraved or
corrupted, I would respectfully suggest that 'sacred' art is at least as likely
to do it as the 'profane'; for one it is usually a damn sight better composed
and executed. That was certainly the view of the censors for hundreds of years
up to recent times ...

Anyway I hope my postings have been helpful to some and have not needlessly
offended anyone, and serve to set out where I stand.

If I can help on anything please do not hesitate to contact me direct.

Academy Incorporated: turning fantasy into reality
Miss Prim's Muir Academy, Muir Academy For Maids,
The Academy Club and The Tawsingham Society:
fast friendly, helpful, discreet service, with integrity
www.academy-inc.com www.muir-academy.com guy@tawse.com
PO Box 135, Hereford, HR2 7WL, UK +44(0)1432 343100


Paul C. Dickie, 10 Nov 2005 11:16:58

In message <200511100921.DDA49270@lon1-mail-1.visp.demon.net>, Sir Guy
Masterleigh wrote:
>This proposed legislation explicitly does not include drawings and other art;
>very specifically only photos and pseudo-photos.

And, of course, it's *vital* to protect the pseudo-models used in
programs like Poser, isn't it? After all, they cannot withdraw their
consent from all the wicked and shameful things done unto them...

--
< Paul >


Graham Marsden, 10 Nov 2005 13:40:12

Sir Guy Masterleigh wrote:

> One final point. I am told that the Obscene Publications Act, etc. explicitly
> includes drawings.

I don't think this is the case, because when there have been programmes
about child porn on TV I'm pretty certain that drawings were
specifically excluded to the extent that they actually showed some
(pixellated) ones in the broadcast.

Cheers,
Graham.


guy, 10 Nov 2005 18:53:36

** Reply to message from graham on Thu, 10
Nov 2005 13:41:32 +0000

Hi, actually I have not answered the unsubscribe message, so I am still on list
for a bit.

>
> > One final point. I am told that the Obscene Publications Act, etc. explicitly
> > includes drawings.
>
> I don't think this is the case, because when there have been programmes
> about child porn on TV I'm pretty certain that drawings were
> specifically excluded to the extent that they actually showed some
> (pixellated) ones in the broadcast.
>

My information was that drawings may be considered under the Obscene
Publications Act, OPA, because that is ostensibly about "pornography" in all
its forms.

But that the Sexual Offences, SO, Act (the one specifically including kiddie
porn) does not include drawings because it was ostensibly about protecting
children.

My point is that the proposed legislation is being promoted to 'cover a gap in
the OPA', but they have not included drawings.

I wondered why not and came up with the possible hypothesis I put forward.

Which has one further weird twist; if the Act was passed and we had a secular
government at some point in the future, it could criminalize most adherents of
fundamentalist religion by just an administrative measure of adding violent
drawings, paintings, etc. to the proscribed list.

Academy Incorporated: turning fantasy into reality
Miss Prim's Muir Academy, Muir Academy For Maids,
The Academy Club and The Tawsingham Society:
fast friendly, helpful, discreet service, with integrity
www.academy-inc.com www.muir-academy.com guy@tawse.com
PO Box 135, Hereford, HR2 7WL, UK +44(0)1432 343100


Manniq, 10 Nov 2005 20:29:57

One of the little known footnotes of censorship in this country. We are all familiar with moral panics over nasty violent games, and video nasties, and Ken Russell films. However, even before all that, there was a swift moral panic in the '50's over comics. Apparently, comics are meant to be a medium for kids - and therefore it is most improper that they contain anything 'nasty' (thus contradicting the way comic style is used everywhere else in the world).

Anyway, my memory is (albeit not that I was around at the time) that the government of the day rushed through something that was akin to a 'comic nasty' bill - which applied specifically to images that utilised the medium of line drawing. (I kid you not!).

Whether that got rolled up into subsequent legislation, I do not know.

Regards,

M

Author wrote:
> ** Reply to message from graham on Thu, 10
> Nov 2005 13:41:32 +0000
> Hi, actually I have not answered the unsubscribe message, so I am still on list
> for a bit.
> >
> > > One final point. I am told that the Obscene Publications Act, etc. explicitly
> > > includes drawings.
> >
> > I don't think this is the case, because when there have been programmes
> > about child porn on TV I'm pretty certain that drawings were
> > specifically excluded to the extent that they actually showed some
> > (pixellated) ones in the broadcast.
> >
> My information was that drawings may be considered under the Obscene
> Publications Act, OPA, because that is ostensibly about "pornography" in all
> its forms.
> But that the Sexual Offences, SO, Act (the one specifically including kiddie
> porn) does not include drawings because it was ostensibly about protecting
> children.
> My point is that the proposed legislation is being promoted to 'cover a gap in
> the OPA', but they have not included drawings.
> I wondered why not and came up with the possible hypothesis I put forward.
> Which has one further weird twist; if the Act was passed and we had a secular
> government at some point in the future, it could criminalize most adherents of
> fundamentalist religion by just an administrative measure of adding violent
> drawings, paintings, etc. to the proscribed list.
> Academy Incorporated: turning fantasy into reality
> Miss Prim's Muir Academy, Muir Academy For Maids,
> The Academy Club and The Tawsingham Society:
> fast friendly, helpful, discreet service, with integrity
> www.academy-inc.com www.muir-academy.com guy@tawse.com
> PO Box 135, Hereford, HR2 7WL, UK +44(0)1432 343100


guy, 10 Nov 2005 21:10:30

> One of the little known footnotes of censorship in this country. We are all
> familiar with moral panics over nasty violent games, and video nasties, and Ken
> Russell films. However, even before all that, there was a swift moral panic in
> the '50's over comics. Apparently, comics are meant to be a medium for kids -
> and therefore it is most improper that they contain anything 'nasty' (thus
> contradicting the way comic style is used everywhere else in the world).
>
> Anyway, my memory is (albeit not that I was around at the time) that the
> government of the day rushed through something that was akin to a 'comic nasty'
> bill - which applied specifically to images that utilised the medium of line
> drawing. (I kid you not!).
>
D C Thompson vs The Furry Freak Brothers? ... no that was the 1960s I am
supposed to have forgotten ...


I just went Googling, this is still a live issue in the US: see

http://www.cbldf.org/research/bibliography.html

Academy Incorporated: turning fantasy into reality
Miss Prim's Muir Academy, Muir Academy For Maids,
The Academy Club and The Tawsingham Society:
fast friendly, helpful, discreet service, with integrity
www.academy-inc.com www.muir-academy.com guy@tawse.com
PO Box 135, Hereford, HR2 7WL, UK +44(0)1432 343100


Graham Marsden, 11 Nov 2005 01:50:17

manniq@hotmail.com wrote:

> Anyway, my memory is (albeit not that I was around at the time)
> that the government of the day rushed through something that was akin
> to a 'comic nasty' bill - which applied specifically to images that
> utilised the medium of line drawing. (I kid you not!).
>
> Whether that got rolled up into subsequent legislation, I do not know.

I've never heard of such a thing and given what is now shown in "graphic
novels", I'm not sure that any prosecution would be credible.

Cheers,
Graham.


Manniq, 11 Nov 2005 09:49:04

Hmmm....discussed this with the owner of a comic bookshop in Bristol a few years back - as I was interested in getting hold of some French magazines. Nothing exceptional: things like 'Fluide Glaciale'.

He said that he had more or less given up on importing such things, because although they had mildly sexual humour - not a lot more than you would find in your average Viz nowadays - Customs tended to impound them on the grounds that a cartoon/comic was clearly a medium 'for children' and that therefore it was not appropriate for such images to appear in comic book form.

Remember, also, the furore at the Schoolkids' Oz trial over a number of images - including the subversion of Rupert Bear. Made for some intersting exchanges between counsel as to why Rupert was drawn much as he normally is - but appeared to be sporting a massive erection!

Anyway, the first instance may be to do with Customs legislation: the second was probably OPA, pure and simple. But do not over-estimate the power of antique laws that you thought long dead to come back and sting you, wasp-like (or is it bees that do that?). Remember the last prosecution for blasphemous libel - which was preceded by a couple of centuries in which the law wasn't used.

Regards,

M

Author wrote:
> manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Anyway, my memory is (albeit not that I was around at the time)
> > that the government of the day rushed through something that was akin
> > to a 'comic nasty' bill - which applied specifically to images that
> > utilised the medium of line drawing. (I kid you not!).
> >
> > Whether that got rolled up into subsequent legislation, I do not know.
> I've never heard of such a thing and given what is now shown in "graphic
> novels", I'm not sure that any prosecution would be credible.
> Cheers,
> Graham.


Graham Marsden, 11 Nov 2005 12:52:44

manniq@hotmail.com wrote:

> He said that he had more or less given up on importing such things,
> because although they had mildly sexual humour - not a lot more
> than you would find in your average Viz nowadays - Customs tended
> to impound them on the grounds that a cartoon/comic was clearly a
> medium 'for children' and that therefore it was not appropriate
> for such images to appear in comic book form.

Ah, I forgot the difference between prosecutions and Customs simply
getting power crazed...!

Cheers,
Graham.