Quick Question
Angus Scrimm, 02 Apr 2006 05:45:43
This is a really simple, maybe even daft question, but here goes:
Actually it's so daft, there's actually TWO questions!
It is advisable to stop viewing 'extreme' pornography on the internet altogether, just to be on the 'safe side'?
Or
Shall we assume we can view it as per normal?
adrian, 02 Apr 2006 11:33:21
[ Attachment Removed: ]
Angus Scrimm, 02 Apr 2006 22:30:43
Author wrote:
> [ Attachment Removed: ]
Did that get moderated?
Graham Marsden, 02 Apr 2006 23:14:09
Hi there,
saynotodarwinism@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Author wrote:
>
>>[ Attachment Removed: ]
>
>
>
> Did that get moderated?
No, it's something to do with Smartgroups that IIRC messages with
attachments or HTML content aren't accepted, it just wipes the whole thing.
Cheers,
Graham.
Teddy, 03 Apr 2006 00:40:01
Difficult to answer. The brave chap on the Backlash website ("I am very worried"...) is waiting to do a self book-burning act if the legislation passes. This sort of makes me think that this achieves what the censorious government mob wanted without even having to pass the law.
Having said that, in terms of individuals protecting their interests, the way PCs store data and the way ISPs keep records, now would probably not be the best time ever to start a collection of violent pornography! Although retrospective prosecution technically infringes many legal principles, who knows how the police will behave in practice. Let's hope the HO are suitably stung by the consultation response...
Teddy
Author wrote:
> This is a really simple, maybe even daft question, but here goes:
> Actually it's so daft, there's actually TWO questions!
> It is advisable to stop viewing 'extreme' pornography on the internet altogether, just to be on the 'safe side'?
> Or
> Shall we assume we can view it as per normal?
mobscene, 03 Apr 2006 18:54:51
Depends what you mean by extreme. Unless it's beast or clearly necophilia (but what about a resurrection porn movie since the corpse is actually rejuventated by the sex, so was it really a depiction of a corpse anyway?), then you'll have to decide whether it contains serious a depiction of sexual violence. By that I mean grievous bodily harm (which can only be decided by a jury as the definition varies, and what if it's got psychologically inflicted grievous bodily harm somewhere in it?). Oops, by the time you've decided all this, it's on your machine and you're in possession... You can plead accidental possession, but it looks like looking at the material to decide if it's legal or not won't be a plausible defence. Somehow you will have to guess in advance whether it contains all the relevant criteria and then not download it...
Seriously, there's no simple answer. But of course the amount of prosecutions, by the HO's own clumsy admission, will be small, so I assume they won't be prosecuting all 100,000+ of us...
Author wrote:
> This is a really simple, maybe even daft question, but here goes:
> Actually it's so daft, there's actually TWO questions!
> It is advisable to stop viewing 'extreme' pornography on the internet altogether, just to be on the 'safe side'?
> Or
> Shall we assume we can view it as per normal?
Teddy, 04 Apr 2006 01:37:54
Hi All,
This breaks down in to two sub-questions; (i) concerning whether or not certain material is going to be illegal under the new laws and (ii) whether it is safe to look at extreme porn "per se", bearing in mind it may be illegal in a few months time.
It seemed to me that Angus was more concerned with (ii), but there will admittedly be those for whom (i) is also a key point. The HO can't realistically be hoping to imprison 100,000 people, but may try to use vague and generalised legislation to selectively victimise consumers of certain material. That said, they seem to have nothing except a vague idea of how many people this would be or what the human costs might be; I think the social/psychological profiles of many porn consumers would surprise them...
T.
Author wrote:
> Depends what you mean by extreme. Unless it's beast or clearly necophilia (but what about a resurrection porn movie since the corpse is actually rejuventated by the sex, so was it really a depiction of a corpse anyway?), then you'll have to decide whether it contains serious a depiction of sexual violence. By that I mean grievous bodily harm (which can only be decided by a jury as the definition varies, and what if it's got psychologically inflicted grievous bodily harm somewhere in it?). Oops, by the time you've decided all this, it's on your machine and you're in possession... You can plead accidental possession, but it looks like looking at the material to decide if it's legal or not won't be a plausible defence. Somehow you will have to guess in advance whether it contains all the relevant criteria and then not download it...
> Seriously, there's no simple answer. But of course the amount of prosecutions, by the HO's own clumsy admission, will be small, so I assume they won't be prosecuting all 100,000+ of us...
> Author wrote:
> > This is a really simple, maybe even daft question, but here goes:
> > Actually it's so daft, there's actually TWO questions!
> > It is advisable to stop viewing 'extreme' pornography on the internet altogether, just to be on the 'safe side'?
> > Or
> > Shall we assume we can view it as per normal?