another go at a petition....
demolitionred, 08 Sep 2005 10:25:30
The government has announced plans to create new draconion internet porn laws which could criminalise people for simply viewing images on the net.
*The proposed new laws will further burden already streteched police resources
*Are yet another example of the creeping nannyism of the state.
*Ignore our ability to determine right from wrong
Instead, we believe the government should back the police as they implement existing laws to prosecute criminals and protect the innocent.
*** This message has been edited by demolitionred on 08 Sep 2005 11:00:03 ***
Graham Marsden, 08 Sep 2005 11:20:41
demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
> The government has announced plans to create new draconion internet
> porn laws which could criminalise people for simply viewing images
> on the net.
Previous points about "create new" and "internet porn" still apply :-)
> *The proposed new Internet porn laws are unworkable.
I think this should just be "the proposed new laws are unworkable"
> *Are yet another example of the creeping nannyism of the state.
I don't like "creeping nannyism" (sounds like a horror movie! :-) )
"Are yet another example of the rise of the Nanny State."
> *Ignore our ability to determine right from wrong
I think this should be "Ignore the ability of adults to make judgements
for themselves".
> Instead, we believe the government should back the police as they
> implement existing laws to prosecute criminals and protect the
> innocent.
"We believe that already existing laws, applied properly, can succeed in
prosecuting criminals and protecting the public."
demolitionred, 08 Sep 2005 11:33:31
They are talking about creating a new law if neccessary...its porn...wewatch porn or believe people should be allowed to..People that don't are not going to sign this petition.
I was thinking along the lines of 'the proposals will place a further burden of bureaucracy on the already stretched resources of the police.
I think this should be "Ignore the ability of adults to make judgements for themselves". ...yes that is better.
> "We believe that already existing laws, applied properly, can succeed in prosecuting criminals and protecting the public."
good. thanks...I struggled for ages with that one....
Lothario, 08 Sep 2005 11:42:22
I'm still totally opposed to the idea of a petition. It's just a
numbers game, and one which you will lose. The essence of the campaign
is that the reasonable (however "offensive") acitivities of a
minority, even a minority of one, should be protected, not
criminalised.
We need to win that argument, not take part in an unlikely attempt to
prove that our point of view has substantial force of numbers. By
doing so, we co-opt everyone else who believes in freedom, rather than
just everyone else who believes in BDSM.
demolitionred, 08 Sep 2005 11:46:29
noted
Graham Marsden, 08 Sep 2005 11:55:23
demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
> its porn...wewatch porn or believe people should be allowed to.. People that
> don't are not going to sign this petition.
Yes, but "porn" has too many negative connotations, cf all the fuss
about a "pornographer" running a national newspaper (Richard Desmond
taking over the Express group) as if it was somehow a bad thing and he
was going to turn it into a smut rag!
"Adult material" is, IMO, a much better description because there's the
implications of "consenting adults" and so on.
> I was thinking along the lines of 'the proposals will place a further
> burden of bureaucracy on the already stretched resources of the police.
The counter is "but if it protects women (like the child porn laws
protect children) then it's worth it".
Of course this is BS, but it's difficult to rebut easily or quickly.
>>"We believe that already existing laws, applied properly, can
>>succeed in prosecuting criminals and protecting the public."
>
> good. thanks...I struggled for ages with that one....
It took me a fair while to get that one into a usable form too :-)
clare, 08 Sep 2005 11:58:40
I agree.
Author wrote:
> I'm still totally opposed to the idea of a petition. It's just a
> numbers game, and one which you will lose. The essence of the campaign
> is that the reasonable (however "offensive") acitivities of a
> minority, even a minority of one, should be protected, not
> criminalised.
> We need to win that argument, not take part in an unlikely attempt to
> prove that our point of view has substantial force of numbers. By
> doing so, we co-opt everyone else who believes in freedom, rather than
> just everyone else who believes in BDSM.
Nick Phillips, 08 Sep 2005 12:48:06
Yes, this one looks good.
"Let's keep it simple"
nick
demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
The government has announced plans to create new draconion internet porn laws which could criminalise people for simply viewing images on the net.
*The proposed new Internet porn laws are unworkable.
*Are yet another example of the creeping nannyism of the state.
*Ignore our ability to determine right from wrong
Instead, we believe the government should back the police as they implement existing laws to prosecute criminals and protect the innocent.
--
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%3D347
---------------------------------
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
demolitionred, 08 Sep 2005 12:53:06
No. as we have explained elsewehre...
have you aksed any reasonable non-scene people what they think about the proposals...lots are worried about this. there are non-BDSM sites all over the net expressing concern.
this is just one of the many things done to publicise our ideas, begin the discussion..
you have to stop looking at this as BDSMer in a defensive position or the battle is lost.
you have to remember this is a civil rights campaign and lots of people agree with us...
It's not a numbers game, it is about making MPs see that there is a sensible civil liberties argument.
A petition shows MPs that there is a wealth of feeling. If they vote against opinion they lose votes. It's simple. The game is about getting re-elected. It's not us vs them. It's about showing the elected representatives the will if the people - some of them have majorities of less than 100 people...
Anyway..
Graham Marsden, 08 Sep 2005 13:11:33
demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
> No. as we have explained elsewehre...
For those of us getting this via e-mail instead of a thread in the
forum, can you please leave in a quote or the name of the person you're
replying to so we know who (and what) you're referring to, thanks.
adrian, 08 Sep 2005 13:58:30
At 10:25 08/09/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>The government has announced plans to create new draconion internet porn
laws which could criminalise people for simply viewing images on the net.
>
> *The proposed new Internet porn laws are unworkable.
> *Are yet another example of the creeping nannyism of the state.
> *Ignore our ability to determine right from wrong
>
>Instead, we believe the government should back the police as they
implement existing laws to prosecute criminals and protect the innocent.
I know I haven't been active in debating here, but I think this leaves out
too many of the issues.
. The proposals wrongly assume that 'violent' pornography is used by
violent people who will be encouraged to commit violent acts are a result.
This is at best true for a tiny number, and there's more evidence that it
does the opposite overall.
. They appeal to the 'moral outrage' of the majority over the rights and
wrongs of the issue.
. They UNDERMINE our ability to determine right from wrong.
Make it snappy and quotable sure, but leave in that we think ours is the
ethical position taking into account the greatest benefit to all.