Thread

A proposal for an alternative to censorship

fobix, 10 Apr 2006 22:41:52

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I hope this isn't too off-topic.

I've been thinking a lot recently about the issues the extreme porn
proposal seems to be targetting, what if any of those issues need to be
addressed, and what could be done to address the pertinent issues. It
seems to me that it would be a far more powerful argument if the
criticisms of the proposed legislation were backed up by a practical
alternative to any genuine issues.

- From what I can tell, the only issue worth answering is the issue of
protecting actors/participants in any given piece and giving them the
power to consent or not consent to the events that take place. It's
already been pretty strongly established (I think) that the "obscenity"
arguments have no place in a society that values free speech, and the
covering of simulated material shows just how arbitrary and ludicrous
the proposals are (not to mention the sheer inability of any of this
legislation to directly deal with preventing actors from being abused).

I've developed a rough specification of a potential system which could
anonymously verify consent (or non-consent) using the same sort of
technology that allows companies to verify your credit-card transactions
online (and prove that noone else could have faked the transaction).
Such a system would be cheaper and far more effective at regulating
abuse in the commercial porn, wouldn't be arbitrarily limited to
"extreme porn" (and thus wouldn't ignore abuse that happens in the more
mainstream porn industry) and wouldn't rely on what anyone thinks is and
isn't an acceptable form of human sexuality. I thought I'd post a link
to my blog-post about this idea to this list for people to have a look
at. I'm really interested in hearing any criticism/suggestions relating
to this (or any technical support in developing it more formally).

http://foibey.livejournal.com/284387.html

Thanks for reading all this,

Phoebe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEOUDZ1vzgRTK71/IRAjw2AKC6x/OCrflkieNaWtUGuDqluczQTwCg3okD
Qs+DF6YrkQP854Xpic/rgh0=
=3ARi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Graham Marsden, 16 Apr 2006 21:44:49

zak, 20 Apr 2006 03:05:12

Original Message:
-----------------

Phoebe Tunstall foibey@gmail.com, 20 Apr 2006 03:05:12

- From what I can tell, the only issue worth answering is the issue of
protecting actors/participants in any given piece and giving them the
power to consent or not consent to the events that take place. It's
already been pretty strongly established (I think) that the "obscenity"
arguments have no place in a society that values free speech, and the
covering of simulated material shows just how arbitrary and ludicrous
the proposals are (not to mention the sheer inability of any of this
legislation to directly deal with preventing actors from being abused).

I've developed a rough specification of a potential system which could
anonymously verify consent (or non-consent) using the same sort of
technology that allows companies to verify your credit-card transactions
online (and prove that noone else could have faked the transaction).
Such a system would be cheaper and far more effective at regulating
abuse in the commercial porn, wouldn't be arbitrarily limited to
"extreme porn" (and thus wouldn't ignore abuse that happens in the more
mainstream porn industry) and wouldn't rely on what anyone thinks is and
isn't an acceptable form of human sexuality. I thought I'd post a link
to my blog-post about this idea to this list for people to have a look
at. I'm really interested in hearing any criticism/suggestions relating
to this (or any technical support in developing it more formally).

There are already laws against rape, assault and coercion of individuals. I
do not think we need silicon chips in our knickers to register consent or
non-consent. Rather, we need less stupidity and stigmatisation of sex
workers in order that people who *have* been coerced, exploited or
assaulted feel more able to report the crime to the authorities and seek
justice.

Z

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

adrian, 20 Apr 2006 05:30:38

[ Attachment Removed: ]

zak, 21 Apr 2006 21:24:50

APologies if a verison of this message has already gone through - about
half my posts still seem to be vanishing or taking weeks to appear -...

We already have lawas against assault, rape and coercion. We don't need
silicon chips in our underwear to veryfiy consent: we need less hysteria
about sexual expression and sex work so that anyone who has been assaulted,
exploited or abused can report the crime and feel that they have a right
and an opportunity to seek justice.

Z
Original Message:
-----------------

graham graham@affordable-leather.co.uk, 21 Apr 2006 21:24:50

Hi there,

Phoebe Tunstall wrote:

> I've developed a rough specification of a potential system which could
> anonymously verify consent (or non-consent)

An interesting idea, although I'd still prefer consent to be assumed
unless there is a complaint or reasonable grounds for assuming
non-consent (eg underage participants)

Unfortunately I can't read your proposals as the link just comes up
"Error - Journal has been deleted. If you are foibey, you have a period
of 30 days to decide to undelete your journal."

Cheers,
Graham.

--
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%3D4592

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

deno, 27 Apr 2006 18:59:15

In a message dated 27/04/2006 18:28:59 GMT Standard Time,
adrianhb@googlemail.com writes:

[ Attachment Removed: ]

Hi Adrian

Seems it is a waste of time trying to send attachments via smartgroups as it
just came as above, "Attachment Removed" Can you resend with everything in
the email itself?

deno

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

Arron Fitzgerald, 27 Apr 2006 19:06:51

The attachment to the message below was removed as usual

-----Original Message-----

Adrian [mailto:adrianhb@googlemail.com], 27 Apr 2006 19:06:51

Sent: 16 April 2006 22:57

[ Attachment Removed: ]

--
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%3D4600

deno, 29 Apr 2006 16:10:38

In a message dated 29/04/2006 14:00:12 GMT Standard Time,
zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk writes:

APologies if a verison of this message has already gone through - about
half my posts still seem to be vanishing or taking weeks to appear

Hi All

Was thinking my posts were censored! Several items of research which may be
most relevant seem to have been gobbled by the system. Either it's AOL or
smartgroups system.

Can the owner and/or his assistant please look into a possible fault which
is stopping member's posts from appearing?

deno

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

demolitionred, 05 May 2006 10:26:54

smartgroups are reporting problems...

send me anything you have tried to upload.

I can try and upload too.

W can also try and add them to www.backlash-uk.org.uk if they're useful to the wider public as well as to ourselves...

Graham Marsden, 05 May 2006 12:24:36

Hi there,

demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:

> smartgroups are reporting problems...

No kidding! That last message from me on Catherine McKinnon that
appeared yesterday was written on the 20th!!

Cheers,
Graham.

adrian, 06 May 2006 20:55:33

On 27/04/06, Arron Fitzgerald wrote:
> The attachment to the message below was removed as usual
It's very odd. I send a message from gmail, forget to select the
plain text option, it sends as rich text which Smartgroups sees as an
attachment. But the mail must have a plaintext part.

But the oddest thing is that I can see the post, if you mean the one
earlier in this thread. And there have been times when I've checked a
post of mine, seen the 'Attachment deleted', then checked back later
and the same message is visible.

I'll remember to select plain text in future, that should work.

The post you can't see and I can see was only to say that Phoebe's LJ
journal is marked deleted as Graham also noted.

fobix, 08 May 2006 14:58:57

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:22:28 -0400
"zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk" wrote:

> we need less hysteria
> about sexual expression and sex work so that anyone who has been assaulted,
> exploited or abused can report the crime and feel that they have a right
> and an opportunity to seek justice.

True, but an anonymous means for participants to verify or withdraw consent would be a really powerful tool to prevent recriminations against people (which are inherrent in the capitalist system that the porn industry exists within).

I'm not suggesting we pander to the melodramatic claims of the anti-porn movement, but rather that at the same time as fighting censorship, we find ways to deal with the genuine issues of consent and abuse that do exist with the porn industry (as they do in other industries, which unlike the sex industry often have relatively well-established systems for reporting and dealing with bad working conditions), in a way that isn't too intrusive to the creative process or too expensive for small producers (the idea I'm working with being near-to-free for anyone with a computer, at least if it's developed as free software which it should be) and which doesn't give any power to the government in terms of controlling material being produced.

The link should be working again by the way.

Phoebe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEU2hn1vzgRTK71/IRArybAJ0UUJyfSLYacBn1D1sEIvUet/L7YgCfTMgz
TqpEXAgUF7gNGei0wbPnun4=
=48A/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

snowflake, 08 May 2006 17:18:25

On 17/04/06, zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:

> We already have lawas against assault, rape and coercion. We don't need
> silicon chips in our underwear to veryfiy consent: we need less hysteria
> about sexual expression and sex work so that anyone who has been assaulted,
> exploited or abused can report the crime and feel that they have a right
> and an opportunity to seek justice.

We also have laws against piracy yet how many new initiatives are
there each year to combat it? What's being discussed here isn't
"histeria" or "silicon chips in our underwear" (where do you get these
ideas from?), it's a discussion on a proposal to show the government
that we can take steps to police ourselves. I for one think this has
been a long time overdue. I see no evidence of anyone verifying
there's been no abuse of any kind in the making of porn and now
someone's proposed a way to put in such a verification and all you can
do is insult them?

Zoë

Graham Marsden, 16 May 2006 19:15:48

Zoë Robinson wrote:

> it's a discussion on a proposal to show the government
> that we can take steps to police ourselves. I for one think this has
> been a long time overdue. I see no evidence of anyone verifying
> there's been no abuse of any kind in the making of porn and now
> someone's proposed a way to put in such a verification and all you can
> do is insult them?

I'm sorry, but IMO this is entirely the wrong way to go about things.

The basic principle of law in the UK (and, indeed, the EU) is the
presumption of innocence. It is not down to the defendant to demonstrate
that they haven't done something, it's the job of the prosecution to
*prove* "beyond reasonable doubt" that they *have*.

The assumption in the case of Graham Coutts and Jane Longhurst was that
"it was the porn that made him do it" and thus it's necessary to control
the porn to stop this sort of thing happening again.

Of course we know that this is nonsense but if we start playing this
game it means that everyone who wants to produce porn (or, indeed,
anything adult related) is going to be hamstrung by endless reams of
legislation requiring birth certificates, addresses, signed statements
from each participant that they did it of their own free will etc etc.
and this will be subject to scrutiny by any petty minded individual who
has the authority to demand to see it.

Cheers,
Graham.

zak, 16 May 2006 19:39:32

No industry in the wolrd is free from occasional abuse of workers by their
employers. Does anyone have any evidence that the porn industry is that
much worse than the catering or clothes-manufaccturing industries?

Given the suspicion with which all porn is widely regarded, the producers
of porn who are hoping to make money and run a business want consenting
performers, not performers who are going to come back and haunt them, so to
speak - there is no shortage of people who want to appear in porn films or
pose for porn pictures.

I would venture to suggest that there is less incentive for people to
coerce other people into making porn than there is for people to produce
pirated goods, and I think this whole concept is a waste of time and effort.
Original Message:
-----------------

Zoë Robinson zoe.robinson@gmail.com, 16 May 2006 19:39:32

On 17/04/06, zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk
wrote:

> We already have lawas against assault, rape and coercion. We don't need
> silicon chips in our underwear to veryfiy consent: we need less hysteria
> about sexual expression and sex work so that anyone who has been
assaulted,
> exploited or abused can report the crime and feel that they have a right
> and an opportunity to seek justice.

We also have laws against piracy yet how many new initiatives are
there each year to combat it? What's being discussed here isn't
"histeria" or "silicon chips in our underwear" (where do you get these
ideas from?), it's a discussion on a proposal to show the government
that we can take steps to police ourselves. I for one think this has
been a long time overdue. I see no evidence of anyone verifying
there's been no abuse of any kind in the making of porn and now
someone's proposed a way to put in such a verification and all you can
do is insult them?

Zoë

--
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%3D4738

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

fobix, 16 May 2006 20:25:33

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 16 May 2006 14:33:07 -0400
"zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk" wrote:

>
> No industry in the wolrd is free from occasional abuse of workers by
> their employers. Does anyone have any evidence that the porn industry
> is that much worse than the catering or clothes-manufaccturing
> industries?

No, and I think the proposed scheme would be conveniently transferrable
to other industries. However, because of the suspicion with which the
porn industry is held the porn industry would have a great deal more to
gain from employing such a system in terms of consumer confidence.

> Given the suspicion with which all porn is widely regarded, the
> producers of porn who are hoping to make money and run a business
> want consenting performers, not performers who are going to come back
> and haunt them, so to speak - there is no shortage of people who want
> to appear in porn films or pose for porn pictures.

See above. I completely recognise that an invasive system would be of
absolutely no use as noone would want to use it. However, as long as
it's kept sufficiently easy to use (and I think it could be made
incredibly cheap to implement and easy to use), the porn industry would
gain by showing that not only was there no harm being done, but it was
better able to prove that it's workers were well-treated than any
industry on the planet, thus debunking all qualms about pornography
worth answering.

> I would venture to suggest that there is less incentive for people to
> coerce other people into making porn than there is for people to
> produce pirated goods, and I think this whole concept is a waste of
> time and effort.

Convincing people conclusively there's no harm being done (and in that
process ensuring that no harm is done) is a waste of effort?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEaiZa1vzgRTK71/IRAmkAAKDDHwuKGY0awhM+Nvn13yfjuOLd/QCeJSwL
UdkdBAVvdStzD8nCZjq+zNw=
=QnKy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

zak, 16 May 2006 22:05:35

Original Message:
-----------------

Phoebe Tunstall foibey@gmail.com, 16 May 2006 22:05:35

SnowdropExplodes, 17 May 2006 00:35:45

"zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk" wrote:

Original Message:
-----------------

Phoebe Tunstall foibey@gmail.com, 17 May 2006 00:35:45

> Given the suspicion with which all porn is widely regarded, the
> producers of porn who are hoping to make money and run a business
> want consenting performers, not performers who are going to come back
> and haunt them, so to speak - there is no shortage of people who want
> to appear in porn films or pose for porn pictures.

See above. I completely recognise that an invasive system would be of
absolutely no use as noone would want to use it. However, as long as
it's kept sufficiently easy to use (and I think it could be made
incredibly cheap to implement and easy to use), the porn industry would
gain by showing that not only was there no harm being done, but it was
better able to prove that it's workers were well-treated than any
industry on the planet, thus debunking all qualms about pornography
worth answering.

> I would venture to suggest that there is less incentive for people to
> coerce other people into making porn than there is for people to
> produce pirated goods, and I think this whole concept is a waste of
> time and effort.

Convincing people conclusively there's no harm being done (and in that
process ensuring that no harm is done) is a waste of effort?

The anti-porn lobby routinely dismiss those porn performers who *do* stand
up and say they do their work freely and are proud of it as
liars/dupes/incapable of giving such consent in the first place. They would
be quick enough to argue that performers would have been coerced into
consenting via the Consent Proving Widget and/or that the fiedishly clever
evil pornographers are using a fake Consent Proving Widget, leaving no one
any better off, really.
Also, while I accept that there must be some abuse of performers in the
porn industry because no industry is free of abuse, is it really that big a
problem? (in terms of numbers affected, not in terms of individual trauma)
Has anyone yet, for instance, been able to produce any individual who
alleges (or has proved) that he/she was coerced into posing for still or
moving pornographic images, which were then published commercially?

The case of Linda Marchiano doesn't count, nor do those occasional cases
which surface of ex-partners publishing nudie shots on the Web or sending
them to magazines as part of some thwarted partner's vengeance scheme.

This appears to be proof of the adage, "the best way to kill a good idea is to tell everyone about it".

Let's leave the anti-porn campaigners out of the equation for a moment.

We're talking about the porn equivalent of the fair trade organisations that seek to ensure that coffee and cocoa growers earn a decent wage for the work they do. Now, we're looking at a cheap, effective system whereby purchasers of pornography can be reasonably secure that the people appearing in the pornography have received a certain standard of industrial rights.

Most people who view porn with suspicion are not the hardline anti-pornography campaigners who slander anyone (female) who professes to enjoy appearing in pornographic material. They are just people with the natural lightly conservative worldview that permeates much of society, and for whom sex is something a bit dubious. They are naturally inclined to follow the lead of the hardliners when the hardliners claim this or that about the harm caused by pornography, because t plays to their underlying suspicions. However, sex workers and adult-entertainment producers and performers, can do a lot to assuage those suspicions by using such a scheme as the one proposed.

Dismissing a good idea because it won't win over those most dead-set against us, is poor tactics: instead, win over the more easily persuaded, and the hardline opposition becomes isolated and irrelevant.

Ta,
SnowdropExplodes

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

zak, 17 May 2006 13:49:29

Original Message:
-----------------

-OJT- snowdrop-explodes@talk21.com, 17 May 2006 13:49:29

"zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk" wrote:

The anti-porn lobby routinely dismiss those porn performers who *do* stand
up and say they do their work freely and are proud of it as
liars/dupes/incapable of giving such consent in the first place. They would
be quick enough to argue that performers would have been coerced into
consenting via the Consent Proving Widget and/or that the fiedishly clever
evil pornographers are using a fake Consent Proving Widget, leaving no one
any better off, really.
Also, while I accept that there must be some abuse of performers in the
porn industry because no industry is free of abuse, is it really that big a
problem? (in terms of numbers affected, not in terms of individual trauma)
Has anyone yet, for instance, been able to produce any individual who
alleges (or has proved) that he/she was coerced into posing for still or
moving pornographic images, which were then published commercially?

The case of Linda Marchiano doesn't count, nor do those occasional cases
which surface of ex-partners publishing nudie shots on the Web or sending
them to magazines as part of some thwarted partner's vengeance scheme.

This appears to be proof of the adage, "the best way to kill a good idea is
to tell everyone about it".

More like: "the best way to find out that what you think is a stroke of
genius is actually a pretty fucking stupid idea".

Let's leave the anti-porn campaigners out of the equation for a moment.

We're talking about the porn equivalent of the fair trade organisations
that seek to ensure that coffee and cocoa growers earn a decent wage for
the work they do. Now, we're looking at a cheap, effective system whereby
purchasers of pornography can be reasonably secure that the people
appearing in the pornography have received a certain standard of industrial
rights.

SnowdropExplodes

Look, apart from the hysteria of the ignorant and the anti-sex, and various
little flurries of xenophobia _ it's always foreigners who
coerce/kidnap/rape - has ANYONE any concrete proof of any kind that vast
numbers of people are being coerced into posing for porn? Is there any
actual justification for adding more time-consuming paperwork to the lives
of porn producers - who already keep signed consent forms for all
performers along with evidence that said performers are of age?
As to "the equivalent of a fair trade organisation", are you totally
unaware of AITA, ETO at the business end and the ECP and $pread magazine
which are run by and for sex workers?

The COnsent Proving Widget is a completely pointless idea. That's all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

deno, 17 May 2006 17:32:15

In a message dated 16/05/2006 19:36:46 GMT Standard Time,
graham@affordable-leather.co.uk writes:

The assumption in the case of Graham Coutts and Jane Longhurst was that
"it was the porn that made him do it" and thus it's necessary to control
the porn to stop this sort of thing happening again.

Yes. Quite agree that this is the simplistic idea behind the proposed
legislation The matter of consent is very secondary as our oponents are only
concerned that if it looks realistic some nutter will try it for real.

deno

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

Graham Marsden, 24 May 2006 09:49:19

Hi there,

-OJT- wrote:

> I completely recognise that an invasive system would be of
> absolutely no use as noone would want to use it. However, as long as
> it's kept sufficiently easy to use (and I think it could be made
> incredibly cheap to implement and easy to use), the porn industry would
> gain by showing that not only was there no harm being done, but it was
> better able to prove that it's workers were well-treated than any
> industry on the planet, thus debunking all qualms about pornography
> worth answering.

I'm sorry, but I really don't see that this "debunking" or "convincing
people conclusively there's no harm being done" will actually ever happen.

All it will do is to create extra hoops for people to jump through if
they want to produce porn in this country, meanwhile those in other
countries will not be affected and go ahead and do what they want anyway.

> We're talking about the porn equivalent of the fair trade
> organisations that seek to ensure that coffee and cocoa growers
> earn a decent wage for the work they do. Now, we're looking at
> a cheap, effective system whereby purchasers of pornography can
> be reasonably secure that the people appearing in the pornography
> have received a certain standard of industrial rights.

But will it actually be a) cheap or b) effective?

Who will pay to police it? If it's Government regulated you can
guarantee that there will be some sort of licensing fee required to
cover the "cost of inspections" or some such BS and there will no doubt
be a long list of what can or cannot be done imposed by the Goggins of
this world. If it's self-regulated then those who object to porn will
claim that it's worthless and get their views splashed all over the
Daily Mail etc.

Meanwhile the views of those who have actually created or participated
in such a scheme are liable to be ignored or side-lined.

> Dismissing a good idea because it won't win over those most dead-set
> against us, is poor tactics: instead, win over the more easily
> persuaded, and the hardline opposition becomes isolated and
> irrelevant.

If you could provide guarantees that such a thing would happen, I'd be
all for it.

Unfortunately I think that such a scheme will just give those who oppose
us another rod to beat us with (non-consensually!) and who will use it
to repress us even more.

Cheers,
Graham.

snowflake, 28 May 2006 17:25:54

On 16/05/06, graham wrote:

> If you could provide guarantees that such a thing would happen, I'd be
> all for it.

Tell you what, read that statement again and if you can find any logic
to it, maybe those of us trying to find ways of making this work may
be inclined to answer your request. In the mean time, if you can
think of any way to provide guarantees of *anything at all* then do be
sure to tell us.

Zoë

deno, 29 May 2006 03:10:26

In a message dated 28/05/2006 10:19:40 GMT Standard Time,
graham@affordable-leather.co.uk writes:

-OJT- wrote:

> I completely recognise that an invasive system would be of
> absolutely no use as noone would want to use it. However, as long as
> it's kept sufficiently easy to use (and I think it could be made
> incredibly cheap to implement and easy to use), the porn industry would
> gain by showing that not only was there no harm being done, but it was
> better able to prove that it's workers were well-treated than any
> industry on the planet, thus debunking all qualms about pornography
> worth answering.

people conclusively there's no harm being done" will actually ever happen.

they want to produce porn in this country, meanwhile those in other
countries will not be affected and go ahead and do what they want anyway.>

Hi

Yes, I agree with final two paras. Other countries will not be affected
by our do gooders
but it seems the English speaking ones have similar legislators and
their position could
end up worse!

Surely though the main point is not the consent of the actors as even
our severest critics
would conceed they are very willing and well paid, at least if they
understand anything at
all! What is at issue, obviously, is the perception of the Christian
clique and other 'nillas
that a realistic depiction of "extreme porn" apart from degrading women
affects the viewer
to offend gradually exciting him to the point where he loses control
and seeks a victim.

It seems that our best bet would be to argue, quoting sympathetic
professional opinion,
that this scenario has never been proved and that even if the as yet
undefined "extreme
porn" does influence a tiny minority (one case every 10 years?) the
proposed new law
will create many problems and solve none!

deno posted 28 May

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

zak, 29 May 2006 07:36:09

Original Message:
-----------------

graham graham@affordable-leather.co.uk, 29 May 2006 07:36:09

> Dismissing a good idea because it won't win over those most dead-set
> against us, is poor tactics: instead, win over the more easily
> persuaded, and the hardline opposition becomes isolated and
> irrelevant.

If you could provide guarantees that such a thing would happen, I'd be
all for it.

Unfortunately I think that such a scheme will just give those who oppose
us another rod to beat us with (non-consensually!) and who will use it
to repress us even more.

Cheers,
Graham.

OK so this is another time-warped message (and my commetns will undoubtedly
not show up till July) but given that the Sindy today has an article on
"internet porn" which is full of most of the usul rubbish along the lines
of 'just because there's no evidence doesn;'t mean it isn't so" - and
someone suggests this 'fair trade mark', I would like to ask yet AGAIN

Has anyone got ANY evidence at all that people are being drugged, coerced,
kidnap[ed and beaten into posing for pornography? Because everything I've
ever read about it seems to cite, with no actual evidence or occurence
described, that it somehow all goes on in those evil wierd foregin
countries where life is cheap to all them fuzzy-wuzzies, etc, and the whole
concept seems to be a lot more a mixture of xeonophobia and a refusal to
accept that there are people who like to have sex in front of camears and
get paid for it.

Look, I'll even consider a friend of a friend having been
drugged/kidnapped, filmed and then finding the footage on the Internet.
Z

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

Graham Marsden, 02 Jun 2006 20:11:02

Zoë Robinson wrote:

>> If you could provide guarantees that such a thing would happen, I'd be
>> all for it.
>
> Tell you what, read that statement again and if you can find any logic
> to it, maybe those of us trying to find ways of making this work may
> be inclined to answer your request. In the mean time, if you can
> think of any way to provide guarantees of *anything at all* then do be
> sure to tell us.

You rather miss my point that there *IS* no way of providing such
guarantees.

As I said in my original post:

"I think that such a scheme will just give those who oppose us another
rod to beat us with (non-consensually!) and who will use it to repress
us even more."

Cheers,
Graham.

snowflake, 07 Jun 2006 01:39:43

On 02/06/06, graham wrote:

> You rather miss my point that there *IS* no way of providing such
> guarantees.

Then you'll have to forgive the fact that I don't believe that for a second.

Zoe

Graham Marsden, 09 Jun 2006 15:31:35

Hi there,

Zoë Robinson wrote:

>> You rather miss my point that there *IS* no way of providing such
>> guarantees.
>
> Then you'll have to forgive the fact that I don't believe that for a
> second.

Err, who was it who said: "In the mean time, if you can think of any way
to provide guarantees of *anything at all* then do be sure to tell us."?!

Cheers,
Graham.

snowflake, 12 Jun 2006 21:37:55

On 08/06/06, graham wrote:
>
> Err, who was it who said: "In the mean time, if you can think of any way
> to provide guarantees of *anything at all* then do be sure to tell us."?!

Quoting out of context does nothing to further your argument.
However, as this is now off topic for this group I suggest you take it
to email if you want to continue this discussion.

Zoë
--
www.t-vox.org
www.nobmouse.net: My own, weird website
www.livejournal.com/users/nobmouse
www.catnip-radio.com

Graham Marsden, 14 Jun 2006 13:18:23

Hi there,

Zoë Robinson wrote:

>> Err, who was it who said: "In the mean time, if you can think of any way
>> to provide guarantees of *anything at all* then do be sure to tell us."?!
>
> Quoting out of context does nothing to further your argument.
> However, as this is now off topic for this group I suggest you take it
> to email if you want to continue this discussion.

It is entirely in context and the discussion was on topic before you
snipped it.

However I see no point in trying to demonstrate this further.

Cheers,
Graham.