Thread

defending SM or defending rights?

adrian, 20 Apr 2006 10:09:24

[ Attachment Removed: ]

adrian, 20 Apr 2006 10:54:07

Retry:

I'm reading here and there that various bodies are now realising that the proposals criminalise ethical BDSMers, and are making reassuring noises that they think practitioners of SM should be protected from the effects of any law that may be enacted.

Does this mean that they are happy that the possibly much larger number of people who look at this material, who are not in any BDSM scene, and whose motivation may be very different from BDSM ones, should not be protected?

If so, what are the criteria for being in the BDSM community? Will it be necessary to flog people consensually in a club, to demonstrate that you can do so without going out and murdering people?

If not, in exactly what way will the law not affect the BDSM community? Surely, the only remaining way is to try to decide if the individual's motivation is a 'BDSM' one or a 'murderer's' one. I'm sure there's room in Backlash for a range of opinions, but most here surely believe that a sexual interest in non-consensual acts is not a predictor of those actual acts, and even if it was, that the net effect of the pornography's availability is to reduce the incidence of them.

In short, we argue that extreme material does not cause violence, and that this is true of people in general. We must make sure we make this clear, and that Backlash represents ALL ethical people who want to look at 'extreme porn'.

Those who will be speaking to the Home Office need to specifically defend the right of EVERY adult to see it and to make sure their words cannot possibly be taken to imply that a badge-carrying subclass of 'registered SM addicts' are the only people who should not be jailed.

demolitionred, 20 Apr 2006 21:10:47

agreed.

Teddy, 20 Apr 2006 21:19:26

Hi All,

I would echo those sentiments from Adrian very strongly; although the BDSM community are clearly one group under threat from this, there are fundamental issues of individual freedom and privacy at stake.
In any case, it seems legally and practically impossible to me that you could create a law where "BDSMers" are exempt, but psychopathic maniacs (don't all put your hands up at once!) viewing "extreme" porn can jolly well go to prison for 3 years. One fear I have is that the government will try some kind of ludicrous fudge of this kind, so as not to lose face with the anti-porn cabal.

T.

Author wrote:
> Retry:
> I'm reading here and there that various bodies are now realising that the proposals criminalise ethical BDSMers, and are making reassuring noises that they think practitioners of SM should be protected from the effects of any law that may be enacted.
> Does this mean that they are happy that the possibly much larger number of people who look at this material, who are not in any BDSM scene, and whose motivation may be very different from BDSM ones, should not be protected?
> If so, what are the criteria for being in the BDSM community? Will it be necessary to flog people consensually in a club, to demonstrate that you can do so without going out and murdering people?
> If not, in exactly what way will the law not affect the BDSM community? Surely, the only remaining way is to try to decide if the individual's motivation is a 'BDSM' one or a 'murderer's' one. I'm sure there's room in Backlash for a range of opinions, but most here surely believe that a sexual interest in non-consensual acts is not a predictor of those actual acts, and even if it was, that the net effect of the pornography's availability is to reduce the incidence of them.
> In short, we argue that extreme material does not cause violence, and that this is true of people in general. We must make sure we make this clear, and that Backlash represents ALL ethical people who want to look at 'extreme porn'.
> Those who will be speaking to the Home Office need to specifically defend the right of EVERY adult to see it and to make sure their words cannot possibly be taken to imply that a badge-carrying subclass of 'registered SM addicts' are the only people who should not be jailed.

Alan, 20 Apr 2006 22:09:39

This is a vital point well made. I do not enjoy BDSM but I do enjoy "erotic horror" That is horror and snuff not involving explicit sex forced or otherwise.I need defending from government fascism too.

RGDS

Alan
Author wrote:
> Hi All,
> I would echo those sentiments from Adrian very strongly; although the BDSM community are clearly one group under threat from this, there are fundamental issues of individual freedom and privacy at stake.
> In any case, it seems legally and practically impossible to me that you could create a law where "BDSMers" are exempt, but psychopathic maniacs (don't all put your hands up at once!) viewing "extreme" porn can jolly well go to prison for 3 years. One fear I have is that the government will try some kind of ludicrous fudge of this kind, so as not to lose face with the anti-porn cabal.
> T.
> Author wrote:
> > Retry:
> > I'm reading here and there that various bodies are now realising that the proposals criminalise ethical BDSMers, and are making reassuring noises that they think practitioners of SM should be protected from the effects of any law that may be enacted.
> > Does this mean that they are happy that the possibly much larger number of people who look at this material, who are not in any BDSM scene, and whose motivation may be very different from BDSM ones, should not be protected?
> > If so, what are the criteria for being in the BDSM community? Will it be necessary to flog people consensually in a club, to demonstrate that you can do so without going out and murdering people?
> > If not, in exactly what way will the law not affect the BDSM community? Surely, the only remaining way is to try to decide if the individual's motivation is a 'BDSM' one or a 'murderer's' one. I'm sure there's room in Backlash for a range of opinions, but most here surely believe that a sexual interest in non-consensual acts is not a predictor of those actual acts, and even if it was, that the net effect of the pornography's availability is to reduce the incidence of them.
> > In short, we argue that extreme material does not cause violence, and that this is true of people in general. We must make sure we make this clear, and that Backlash represents ALL ethical people who want to look at 'extreme porn'.
> > Those who will be speaking to the Home Office need to specifically defend the right of EVERY adult to see it and to make sure their words cannot possibly be taken to imply that a badge-carrying subclass of 'registered SM addicts' are the only people who should not be jailed.

Nigel Meek, 21 Apr 2006 07:53:49

As a non-BDSMing libertarian, for me the Backlash campaign is one front in a more general war against authoritarianism. The Libertarian Alliance has published a small pamphlet of mine on the subject (http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/cultn/cultn053.pdf).

Nigel Meek

Author wrote:
> Retry:
> I'm reading here and there that various bodies are now realising that the proposals criminalise ethical BDSMers, and are making reassuring noises that they think practitioners of SM should be protected from the effects of any law that may be enacted.
> Does this mean that they are happy that the possibly much larger number of people who look at this material, who are not in any BDSM scene, and whose motivation may be very different from BDSM ones, should not be protected?
> If so, what are the criteria for being in the BDSM community? Will it be necessary to flog people consensually in a club, to demonstrate that you can do so without going out and murdering people?
> If not, in exactly what way will the law not affect the BDSM community? Surely, the only remaining way is to try to decide if the individual's motivation is a 'BDSM' one or a 'murderer's' one. I'm sure there's room in Backlash for a range of opinions, but most here surely believe that a sexual interest in non-consensual acts is not a predictor of those actual acts, and even if it was, that the net effect of the pornography's availability is to reduce the incidence of them.
> In short, we argue that extreme material does not cause violence, and that this is true of people in general. We must make sure we make this clear, and that Backlash represents ALL ethical people who want to look at 'extreme porn'.
> Those who will be speaking to the Home Office need to specifically defend the right of EVERY adult to see it and to make sure their words cannot possibly be taken to imply that a badge-carrying subclass of 'registered SM addicts' are the only people who should not be jailed.

SnowdropExplodes, 21 Apr 2006 15:02:15

Author wrote:
> As a non-BDSMing libertarian, for me the Backlash campaign is one front in a more general war against authoritarianism. The Libertarian Alliance has published a small pamphlet of mine on the subject (http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/cultn/cultn053.pdf).
> Nigel Meek

I agree.

We (the BDSM community) would be doing ourselves no favours if we accept the help of the "free expression" campaigners only until we've got our own agenda satisfied, and then decide to sit pretty. This won't be the last battle that we're going to have to fight to protect our sexuality, and if we treat natural allies in such a shoddy fashion this time, how much less likely they will be to make common cause with us next time we need to challenge a "Spanner" type ruling, or some other form of censorship imposed upon us.

There's a definite principle that must be defended here, and we shouldn't be satisfied at having our sectional interests mollified at the expense of that principle.

Have you uploaded the pamphlet to the Smartgroups site? It might be a useful resource in general.

Ta,

SnowdropExplodes

Nigel Meek, 22 Apr 2006 16:07:08

Author wrote:
> Author wrote:
> > As a non-BDSMing libertarian, for me the Backlash campaign is one front in a more general war against authoritarianism. The Libertarian Alliance has published a small pamphlet of mine on the subject (http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/cultn/cultn053.pdf).
> > Nigel Meek
> I agree.
> We (the BDSM community) would be doing ourselves no favours if we accept the help of the "free expression" campaigners only until we've got our own agenda satisfied, and then decide to sit pretty. This won't be the last battle that we're going to have to fight to protect our sexuality, and if we treat natural allies in such a shoddy fashion this time, how much less likely they will be to make common cause with us next time we need to challenge a "Spanner" type ruling, or some other form of censorship imposed upon us.
> There's a definite principle that must be defended here, and we shouldn't be satisfied at having our sectional interests mollified at the expense of that principle.
> Have you uploaded the pamphlet to the Smartgroups site? It might be a useful resource in general.
> Ta,
> SnowdropExplodes

I have now (it may or may not take a little while to appear).

NGM

Teddy, 23 Apr 2006 14:42:59

This is a really good article, which one hopes might reach a reasonably wide readership.

Teddy

Author wrote:
> Author wrote:
> > Author wrote:
> > > As a non-BDSMing libertarian, for me the Backlash campaign is one front in a more general war against authoritarianism. The Libertarian Alliance has published a small pamphlet of mine on the subject (http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/cultn/cultn053.pdf).
> > > Nigel Meek
> > I agree.
> > We (the BDSM community) would be doing ourselves no favours if we accept the help of the "free expression" campaigners only until we've got our own agenda satisfied, and then decide to sit pretty. This won't be the last battle that we're going to have to fight to protect our sexuality, and if we treat natural allies in such a shoddy fashion this time, how much less likely they will be to make common cause with us next time we need to challenge a "Spanner" type ruling, or some other form of censorship imposed upon us.
> > There's a definite principle that must be defended here, and we shouldn't be satisfied at having our sectional interests mollified at the expense of that principle.
> > Have you uploaded the pamphlet to the Smartgroups site? It might be a useful resource in general.
> > Ta,
> > SnowdropExplodes
> I have now (it may or may not take a little while to appear).
> NGM

*** This message has been edited by Teddy on 23 Apr 2006 23:26:58 ***

zak, 28 Apr 2006 04:08:55

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

adrianhb@googlemail.com, 28 Apr 2006 04:08:55

Alan, 28 Apr 2006 21:38:38

I strongly agree!!

Al
Author wrote:
> Original Message:
> -----------------

: adrianhb@googlemail.com, 28 Apr 2006 21:38:38

> Subject: [backlash] RE: defending SM or defending rights?
> Retry:
> I'm reading here and there that various bodies are now realising that the
> proposals criminalise ethical BDSMers, and are making reassuring noises
> that they think practitioners of SM should be protected from the effects of
> any law that may be enacted.
> Does this mean that they are happy that the possibly much larger number of
> people who look at this material, who are not in any BDSM scene, and whose
> motivation may be very different from BDSM ones, should not be protected?
> About time someone brought this up. For fuck's sake let's not get
> sidetracked down the sm-as-part-of-loving-relationship path - to look at
> pictures is the right of everyone whether their consensual sex life
> involves love, commercial transactions or no-one but themselves and
> inanimate objects.
> We are battling against censorship because it impacts on EVERYONE.
> Z
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .

Paul C. Dickie, 07 May 2006 01:13:56

In message <380-220064521161357781@M2W007.mail2web.com>,
zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:
>We are battling against censorship because it impacts on EVERYONE.

In that case, would it not be a good idea to tackle the censorship
evident on this list?

In recent days, a couple of my postings have "gone missing" and another
has been edited. Whilst postings may disappear for all manner of
reasons, in none of the sixteen years I've been using various forms of
electronic communication have I encountered the removal of written
content from a message which did not involve human intervention.

The information removed was hardly important: I had merely quoted
another person's comments before adding my own. What was more
important, perhaps, was the clumsy and inept way that header information
was pasted in. I have -- of course -- checked what my email client sent
to SmartGroups and it certainly was *not* what was sent back!

So who/what is playing at Silly Buggers and *why*?

--
< Paul >

doulos, 07 May 2006 01:29:37

> The information removed was hardly important: I had merely quoted
> another person's comments before adding my own. What was more
> important, perhaps, was the clumsy and inept way that header information
> was pasted in. I have -- of course -- checked what my email client sent
> to SmartGroups and it certainly was *not* what was sent back!
>
> So who/what is playing at Silly Buggers and *why*?

Are you aware that some people reading this are reading impaired? And
that reading through the entire quoted contents of previous messages
by getting a computer to read it out is very time consuming and very
irritating but unavoidable since some people introduce comments
alongside quoations? I imagine there might be an automatic system to
cut down on quoted material or it could just smartgroups garbling a
few messages.

adrian, 07 May 2006 10:08:59

No, there is something screwy. I made the first post to this thread
and it was blank. I sent a 'Retry' post. A day or two later I could
see both posts. There have been other posts that people can't see but
I can, and vice versa. It may just be a Gmail funny but I suspect
something is strange about Smartgroups' mails as well.

In any case it's an example of non-human 'removal of content'.

zak, 07 May 2006 10:28:28

Well, I'll wait and see who says what about that, Paul. Certainly there are
glithes with this list - the message you're replying to was posted about a
fortnight ago and has only just appeared.

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

Paul C. Dickie pcd-sm@bozzie.demon.co.uk, 07 May 2006 10:28:28

Alan, 07 May 2006 13:05:08

Smartgroups have suffering gremlins in the messaging system. I have experienced it in a group I run.

Cheers

Al

Author wrote:
> Well, I'll wait and see who says what about that, Paul. Certainly there are
> glithes with this list - the message you're replying to was posted about a
> fortnight ago and has only just appeared.
> Original Message:
> -----------------

: Paul C. Dickie pcd-sm@bozzie.demon.co.uk, 07 May 2006 13:05:08

> Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: defending SM or defending rights?
> In message <380-220064521161357781@M2W007.mail2web.com>,
> zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:
> >We are battling against censorship because it impacts on EVERYONE.
> In that case, would it not be a good idea to tackle the censorship
> evident on this list?
> In recent days, a couple of my postings have "gone missing" and another
> has been edited. Whilst postings may disappear for all manner of
> reasons, in none of the sixteen years I've been using various forms of
> electronic communication have I encountered the removal of written
> content from a message which did not involve human intervention.
> The information removed was hardly important: I had merely quoted
> another person's comments before adding my own. What was more
> important, perhaps, was the clumsy and inept way that header information
> was pasted in. I have -- of course -- checked what my email client sent
> to SmartGroups and it certainly was *not* what was sent back!
> So who/what is playing at Silly Buggers and *why*?
> --
> < Paul >
> --
> 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%3D4723
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .

rosalee, 07 May 2006 20:17:08

One of mine disappeared too.

Ginny

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

Artisan [mailto:pcd-sm@bozzie.demon.co.uk], 07 May 2006 20:17:08

Sent: 07 May 2006 01:08

In that case, would it not be a good idea to tackle the censorship
evident on this list?

In recent days, a couple of my postings have "gone missing" and another
has been edited

--
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%3D4723

Paul C. Dickie, 07 May 2006 20:52:49

In message
, doulos wrote:
>> The information removed was hardly important: I had merely quoted
>> another person's comments before adding my own. What was more
>> important, perhaps, was the clumsy and inept way that header information
>> was pasted in. I have -- of course -- checked what my email client sent
>> to SmartGroups and it certainly was *not* what was sent back!
>>
>> So who/what is playing at Silly Buggers and *why*?
>
>Are you aware that some people reading this are reading impaired?

I certainly am *now*, for you appear to have read the words "all of"
between the words "quoted" and "another". Quite how you could have made
such a mistake may be something of a mystery to those who do not
appreciate that, for some folk, this can be a write-only medium.

For your information, I *had* trimmed what I quoted. I always do.

>I imagine there might be an automatic system to cut down on quoted
>material or it could just smartgroups garbling a few messages.

I do believe that you might as well believe that the earth is flat or
that the moon is composed of nothing but cheese, for I've never heard of
such a program in the last sixteen years.

Whilst it is *possible* the message became garbled, I really cannot
understand how headers might be transposed to the body of an email and
thereby replace some of the contents of that email.

--
< Paul >

Paul C. Dickie, 18 May 2006 11:19:45

In message <000501c6720a$12c94ea0$0200a8c0@GinnysLaptop>,
rosalee1@btopenworld.com wrote:
>One of mine disappeared too.

So, they're after you too?

--
< Paul >