an agenda for Friday's meeting
demolitionred, 07 Sep 2005 11:25:42
can we have suggestions please
we have a few speakers and then will need to make some decisions.
I suggest we will need a couple of working parties to get on with different aspects of the campaign.
What areas should these cover?
some sugestions:
lobbying press grassroots legal fundraising
what else do we need to discuss, decide on?
Also can anyone who has relevant documents and will be able to produce photocopies let me know so we can co-ordinate hand-outs.
demolitionred@yahoo.com
Manniq, 07 Sep 2005 13:58:44
Author wrote:
> can we have suggestions please
> we have a few speakers and then will need to make some decisions.
> I suggest we will need a couple of working parties to get on with different aspects of the campaign.
> What areas should these cover?
> some sugestions:
> lobbying press grassroots legal fundraising
> what else do we need to discuss, decide on?
> Also can anyone who has relevant documents and will be able to produce photocopies let me know so we can co-ordinate hand-outs.
> demolitionred@yahoo.com
dem,
I am going to throw a sugegstion in your direction - though in reality it is more of an offer.
One aspect of the consultation paper that I think has the most enormous holes in it is this idea that they can ban realistic images that are not passed by the BBFC, etc. whilst leaving the legit film industry and art alone.
This opens them to a dilemma...allow images that have been 'sanitised' by the censorship process through (even though some of those images may, themselves, be pretty outrageous)...or eventually start to tighten up the law with regard to film and tv images.
Or I suppose a third option: have a bizarre piece of legislation on the books that is wholly inconsistent on what it bans, according to where the material originated.
Anyway, in discussion with one or two people off here, I suggested putting together an exhibition, comparing and contrasting two sorts of images. Some that would, as we understand the proposal, be allowed into the public domain: and others that would be banned. If we can set it up so that the allowed are far nastier than the banned, that makes a very strong point.
Not a public exhibition, especially - though if a gallery somewhere wished to take it on, I wouldn't say no. Rather, one targeted at politicians and journalists.
So, offer. And if I can have a couple of minutes to talk to this, would be happy to.
Regards,
M
demolitionred, 07 Sep 2005 14:31:15
Author wrote:
> Author wrote:
> > can we have suggestions please
> > we have a few speakers and then will need to make some decisions.
> > I suggest we will need a couple of working parties to get on with different aspects of the campaign.
> > What areas should these cover?
> > some sugestions:
> > lobbying, press, grassroots, legal, fundraising, research, internet
> > what else do we need to discuss, decide on?
> > Also can anyone who has relevant documents and will be able to produce photocopies let me know so we can co-ordinate hand-outs.
> > demolitionred@yahoo.com
> dem,
> I am going to throw a sugegstion in your direction - though in reality it is more of an offer.
> One aspect of the consultation paper that I think has the most enormous holes in it is this idea that they can ban realistic images that are not passed by the BBFC, etc. whilst leaving the legit film industry and art alone.
> This opens them to a dilemma...allow images that have been 'sanitised' by the censorship process through (even though some of those images may, themselves, be pretty outrageous)...or eventually start to tighten up the law with regard to film and tv images.
> Or I suppose a third option: have a bizarre piece of legislation on the books that is wholly inconsistent on what it bans, according to where the material originated.
> Anyway, in discussion with one or two people off here, I suggested putting together an exhibition, comparing and contrasting two sorts of images. Some that would, as we understand the proposal, be allowed into the public domain: and others that would be banned. If we can set it up so that the allowed are far nastier than the banned, that makes a very strong point.
> Not a public exhibition, especially - though if a gallery somewhere wished to take it on, I wouldn't say no. Rather, one targeted at politicians and journalists.
> So, offer. And if I can have a couple of minutes to talk to this, would be happy to.
> Regards,
> M
Amelie, 07 Sep 2005 14:31:19
sounds good to me, exactly what is needed to grab media attention
----- Original Message -----
, 07 Sep 2005 14:31:19
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 1:58 PM
>
>
> Author wrote:
>> can we have suggestions please
>> we have a few speakers and then will need to make some decisions.
>> I suggest we will need a couple of working parties to get on with
>> different aspects of the campaign.
>> What areas should these cover?
>> some sugestions:
>> lobbying press grassroots legal fundraising
>> what else do we need to discuss, decide on?
>> Also can anyone who has relevant documents and will be able to produce
>> photocopies let me know so we can co-ordinate hand-outs.
>> demolitionred@yahoo.com
>
> dem,
>
> I am going to throw a sugegstion in your direction - though in reality it
> is more of an offer.
>
> One aspect of the consultation paper that I think has the most enormous
> holes in it is this idea that they can ban realistic images that are not
> passed by the BBFC, etc. whilst leaving the legit film industry and art
> alone.
>
> This opens them to a dilemma...allow images that have been 'sanitised' by
> the censorship process through (even though some of those images may,
> themselves, be pretty outrageous)...or eventually start to tighten up the
> law with regard to film and tv images.
>
> Or I suppose a third option: have a bizarre piece of legislation on the
> books that is wholly inconsistent on what it bans, according to where the
> material originated.
>
> Anyway, in discussion with one or two people off here, I suggested putting
> together an exhibition, comparing and contrasting two sorts of images.
> Some that would, as we understand the proposal, be allowed into the public
> domain: and others that would be banned. If we can set it up so that the
> allowed are far nastier than the banned, that makes a very strong point.
>
> Not a public exhibition, especially - though if a gallery somewhere wished
> to take it on, I wouldn't say no. Rather, one targeted at politicians and
> journalists.
>
> So, offer. And if I can have a couple of minutes to talk to this, would
> be happy to.
>
> Regards,
>
> M
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D314
>
>
SnowdropExplodes, 07 Sep 2005 14:34:26
--- manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Author wrote:
> > can we have suggestions please
> > we have a few speakers and then will need to make
> some decisions.
> > I suggest we will need a couple of working parties
> to get on with different aspects of the campaign.
> > What areas should these cover?
> > some sugestions:
> > lobbying press grassroots legal fundraising
> > what else do we need to discuss, decide on?
> > Also can anyone who has relevant documents and
> will be able to produce photocopies let me know so
> we can co-ordinate hand-outs.
> > demolitionred@yahoo.com
>
> dem,
>
> I am going to throw a sugegstion in your direction -
> though in reality it is more of an offer.
>
> One aspect of the consultation paper that I think
> has the most enormous holes in it is this idea that
> they can ban realistic images that are not passed by
> the BBFC, etc. whilst leaving the legit film
> industry and art alone.
>
> This opens them to a dilemma...allow images that
> have been 'sanitised' by the censorship process
> through (even though some of those images may,
> themselves, be pretty outrageous)...or eventually
> start to tighten up the law with regard to film and
> tv images.
>
> Or I suppose a third option: have a bizarre piece of
> legislation on the books that is wholly inconsistent
> on what it bans, according to where the material
> originated.
>
> Anyway, in discussion with one or two people off
> here, I suggested putting together an exhibition,
> comparing and contrasting two sorts of images. Some
> that would, as we understand the proposal, be
> allowed into the public domain: and others that
> would be banned. If we can set it up so that the
> allowed are far nastier than the banned, that makes
> a very strong point.
>
> Not a public exhibition, especially - though if a
> gallery somewhere wished to take it on, I wouldn't
> say no. Rather, one targeted at politicians and
> journalists.
>
> So, offer. And if I can have a couple of minutes to
> talk to this, would be happy to.
>
I love this idea.
I think it would be very good indeed if we can get a
clip of the breathplay scene in "Killing Me Softly"
(18 certificate movie) as something to show
journalists etc. in some form of display.
If it's cut properly, all they would see is a couple
having (simulated) sex in which the woman's breathing
is restricted by a long ribbon or scarf thing, and
both partners clearly enjoying the experience. True,
it forms part of the plot, and is designed to cast
suspicion on the man involved in the scene (that he's
a stalker/murderer), by linking him with "extreme"
sexual practices, but he turns out to be innocent and
there is no real censure in the film of this
behaviour.
It would therefore appear to fulfil the criteria under
the proposals for material to be prohibited, and yet
it was passed by the BBFC.
The question can then be posed whether there is a line
that can be drawn between a movie for art and a movie
for sexual gratification - if there is some percentage
of the movie that must be made up of sexual imagery
for it to count as "porn" and therefore a movie that
must not include any "extreme" elements.
***
One difficulty with the suggestion, however, is that
by showing anybody images that would be banned under
the proposed legislation, one would be committing an
offence under the Obscene Publications Act as it
currently stands.
However, showing a gallery of images from photographic
art and stills from BBFC-certificated movies that
would appear to fit the criteria for "extreme"
material as described by the consultation paper, would
be a very strong argument, both that the proposed
legislation is not necessary for the protection of
public morals, and that the legislation would be
difficult to work with, and open up movie buffs to
potential liability (scientific/educational use is
another exemption, but proving it was for that purpose
could be very hard).
Since the paper says "The intention is that any new
offence would apply only to ... material that has
been solely or primarily produced for the
purpose of sexual arousal." it could reasonably be
posed, "why is it that no victim in a slasher movie is
ever a chubby, ugly girl?" Unless it is for sexual
arousal, or to associate sex with the violence?
Again, the question is posed, "is it possible to make
a clear distinction between different types of
movies?"
Not a watertight argument, it has to be admitted, but
another strong "narrative" line that could be taken to
make people doubt the strength of the arguments put
forward by the government and other pro-censorship
campaigners.
(also, unless pitched *very* carefully, it could be
spun by the government/tabloids that we are suggesting
even tighter censorship, rather than none at all)
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
clare, 07 Sep 2005 15:03:57
> I love this idea.
> I think it would be very good indeed if we can get a
> clip of the breathplay scene in "Killing Me Softly"
> (18 certificate movie) as something to show
> journalists etc. in some form of display.
> If it's cut properly, all they would see is a couple
> having (simulated) sex in which the woman's breathing
> is restricted by a long ribbon or scarf thing, and
> both partners clearly enjoying the experience.
And the Rape scene in "the Accused" with Jody Foster
http://www.celebritymoviearchive.com/tour/movie.php/6656
You're right, showing only BBFC approved films and images from books available on the High Street would solve the OPA problem.
backdooruk, 07 Sep 2005 15:10:38
SnowdropExplodes wrote:
> I think it would be very good indeed if we can get a
> clip of the breathplay scene in "Killing Me Softly"
> (18 certificate movie)
The most famous Breath play scene is probably the one from “In the Realm of the Senses” which eventually leads to death when he tells her not to stop and to her then cutting off his penis.
SnowdropExplodes wrote:
> (also, unless pitched *very* carefully, it could be
> spun by the government/tabloids that we are suggesting
> even tighter censorship, rather than none at all)
But it would be a *good* thing if this turned in some quarters into a call for the banning of such mainstream films. It would mean that we will have mainstream anti censorship supporters on our side and could not be marginalized as perverts. We’d definably get an anti legislation majority in parliament if we achieved that!
- Chris
Graham Marsden, 07 Sep 2005 15:21:25
pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
>>clip of the breathplay scene in "Killing Me Softly"
>
> And the Rape scene in "the Accused" with Jody Foster
I've not seen the film, but something that *was* deemed fit for public
consumption was "Boxing Helena" - Mad Doctor kidnaps a woman and
amputates her arms and legs so she can't stop him raping her!!
rosalee, 07 Sep 2005 17:26:54
I like this idea of an exhibition and if it could be a
public exhibition so much the better.
Ginny
--- manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Author wrote:
> > can we have suggestions please
> > we have a few speakers and then will need to make
> some decisions.
> > I suggest we will need a couple of working parties
> to get on with different aspects of the campaign.
> > What areas should these cover?
> > some sugestions:
> > lobbying press grassroots legal fundraising
> > what else do we need to discuss, decide on?
> > Also can anyone who has relevant documents and
> will be able to produce photocopies let me know so
> we can co-ordinate hand-outs.
> > demolitionred@yahoo.com
>
> dem,
>
> I am going to throw a sugegstion in your direction -
> though in reality it is more of an offer.
>
> One aspect of the consultation paper that I think
> has the most enormous holes in it is this idea that
> they can ban realistic images that are not passed by
> the BBFC, etc. whilst leaving the legit film
> industry and art alone.
>
> This opens them to a dilemma...allow images that
> have been 'sanitised' by the censorship process
> through (even though some of those images may,
> themselves, be pretty outrageous)...or eventually
> start to tighten up the law with regard to film and
> tv images.
>
> Or I suppose a third option: have a bizarre piece of
> legislation on the books that is wholly inconsistent
> on what it bans, according to where the material
> originated.
>
> Anyway, in discussion with one or two people off
> here, I suggested putting together an exhibition,
> comparing and contrasting two sorts of images. Some
> that would, as we understand the proposal, be
> allowed into the public domain: and others that
> would be banned. If we can set it up so that the
> allowed are far nastier than the banned, that makes
> a very strong point.
>
> Not a public exhibition, especially - though if a
> gallery somewhere wished to take it on, I wouldn't
> say no. Rather, one targeted at politicians and
> journalists.
>
> So, offer. And if I can have a couple of minutes to
> talk to this, would be happy to.
>
> Regards,
>
> M
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D314
>
Peter Green, 07 Sep 2005 18:58:55
On 9/7/05, -OJT- wrote:
> However, showing a gallery of images from photographic
> art and stills from BBFC-certificated movies that
> would appear to fit the criteria for "extreme"
> material as described by the consultation paper, would
> be a very strong argument, both that the proposed
> legislation is not necessary for the protection of
> public morals, and that the legislation would be
> difficult to work with, and open up movie buffs to
> potential liability (scientific/educational use is
> another exemption, but proving it was for that purpose
> could be very hard).
Of course we'd need to check how this idea stands w.r.t. copyright (is
it OK under the fair use clause?).
I'd suggest "Salo, or 120 Days of Sodom" - once deemed only suitable
for viewing by intellectual types at the NFT and ICA, now available in
your High Street HMV. Essentially nothing but a bleak catalogue of
rape, mutilation, murder, watersports, sexual humiliation, extreme
torture and explicit scat play. BBFC-approved, cert 18.
> it could reasonably be
> posed, "why is it that no victim in a slasher movie is
> ever a chubby, ugly girl?"
Well, the "Silence of the Lambs" victims were chubby, because the
killer was skinning them to make a "skin suit".
--
Peter
«No Name Set», 09 Sep 2005 18:13:41
A suggestion for manniq's exhibition - maybe for a welcome/warm
up section :
Hamlet (as in "Happiness is a cigar called....") a year or so
ago did a promotion at Kempton races. there was a series of
posters all round the grandstand - where all the kids coming to
watch the horses could see them, indeed! - with racing themes.
One had a headline "Happiness is........ misuse of the whip!"
Picture showed this item or riding equipment being brandished by
voluptuous kinkily-clad female "riding" ecstaticly happy (male)
jockey.
Potentially under remit of the proposals if this leaves welts,
and certainly shows up ludicrousness of ramifications.
--
Rosemary