Thread

ETO news on internet porn

zak, 11 Aug 2006 16:41:27

The new issue of ETO magazine, which is distributed free to people who sell
erotic/adult goods, opens with an article on a trader being busted for
internet porn sales. Not much detail, but a worrying quote from the
unidentified trader "The police are looking at stopping any sales of porn
over the internet".
Now I have the impression (though I'm happy to be corrected) that ETO
haven't shown much interest in Backlash so far, but this case has got them
twitching. Might now be a good time to give them a gentle prod or two?
(Graham, what do you think? Or have you already written to them about it?)
Z

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

Alan, 12 Aug 2006 00:00:03

This reminds me of the comment by some bod in the HO or an MP similar tosser who said "eventually we could ( or want to ) ban the possession of any material not passed by the BBFC"

I wonder what the rest of the EU states make of all this repressive bullshit?

Todd

Author wrote:
> The new issue of ETO magazine, which is distributed free to people who sell
> erotic/adult goods, opens with an article on a trader being busted for
> internet porn sales. Not much detail, but a worrying quote from the
> unidentified trader "The police are looking at stopping any sales of porn
> over the internet".
> Now I have the impression (though I'm happy to be corrected) that ETO
> haven't shown much interest in Backlash so far, but this case has got them
> twitching. Might now be a good time to give them a gentle prod or two?
> (Graham, what do you think? Or have you already written to them about it?)
> Z
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .

snowflake, 12 Aug 2006 19:53:47

On 07/08/06, zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:
> Not much detail, but a worrying quote from the
> unidentified trader "The police are looking at stopping any sales of porn
> over the internet".

I heard about this somewhere else, or if it wasn't this it was
something similar. The reason they got busted was something to do
with selling goods via the internet that are only licenced for sale in
the UK through registered sex shops.

I think it was something to do with there needing to be an absolute
guarantee of the purchaser being of legal age, which can't happen over
the Internet. In this respect (i.e. if the point-of-sale restriction
is what they got pulled up for), I'd be fully behind the police in
bringing a prosecution.

Zoë, who's hoping this plain text post gets through this time.

Graham Marsden, 12 Aug 2006 23:18:37

Hi there,

zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:
> The new issue of ETO magazine, which is distributed free to people who sell
> erotic/adult goods, opens with an article on a trader being busted for
> internet porn sales. Not much detail, but a worrying quote from the
> unidentified trader "The police are looking at stopping any sales of porn
> over the internet".

As far as I can tell this is just the situation of it being illegal to
sell R18 stuff in this country (even if via affiliates) over the web,
it's not "any porn" full stop.

For more details on the story, see the Melonfarmers site:
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/sslaw06.htm

IMO what's more disturbing is the charges of "money laundering" which,
it seems, can now be defined any "illegal obtained" money.

Cheers,
Graham.

Alan, 12 Aug 2006 23:35:06

<guarantee of the purchaser being of legal age>>

This might be an excuse the government could use to clobber any internet porn specially so called extreme porn.

Todd

Author wrote:
> On 07/08/06, zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:
> > Not much detail, but a worrying quote from the
> > unidentified trader "The police are looking at stopping any sales of porn
> > over the internet".
> I heard about this somewhere else, or if it wasn't this it was
> something similar. The reason they got busted was something to do
> with selling goods via the internet that are only licenced for sale in
> the UK through registered sex shops.
> I think it was something to do with there needing to be an absolute
> guarantee of the purchaser being of legal age, which can't happen over
> the Internet. In this respect (i.e. if the point-of-sale restriction
> is what they got pulled up for), I'd be fully behind the police in
> bringing a prosecution.
> Zoë, who's hoping this plain text post gets through this time.

snowflake, 15 Aug 2006 09:11:03

On 12/08/06, alan_slaughter2000@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
> <> guarantee of the purchaser being of legal age>>
>
> This might be an excuse the government could use to clobber any internet porn specially so called extreme porn.

True, unless the site requires an ID code, or similar, from an
organisation set-up to determine the legal age of its members and the
site is registered with the major child protection software producers.
This way the site's owners could be seen as taking all appropriate
steps to ensure their site's content doesn't fall into the hands of
minors unless said minors' parents are failing in their duty as
parents.

Whether this would help people selling items that can only be sold
legally via a licenced sex shop is another matter, however. Can a
website be registered as a sex shop and receive the required licence?
I'm not sure.

Zoë

demolitionred, 15 Aug 2006 21:21:13

I'll give them another nudge, today.

Paul Tavener, 16 Aug 2006 05:55:52

I don't think that a website can be licenced in the same way as a shop can. This is because the Video Recordings Act does not apply to the Internet (nor to broadcasting). If the interent were to be classed as a source of supply for video under this Act then almost all comercial online video content would have to be rated by the BBFC before it could be sold to the public.

Broadcasting would also be affected and there are many cases where broadcasters transmit non BBFC rated content.

Author wrote:
> On 12/08/06, alan_slaughter2000@yahoo.co.uk
> wrote:
> > <> > guarantee of the purchaser being of legal age>>
> >
> > This might be an excuse the government could use to clobber any internet porn specially so called extreme porn.
> True, unless the site requires an ID code, or similar, from an
> organisation set-up to determine the legal age of its members and the
> site is registered with the major child protection software producers.
> This way the site's owners could be seen as taking all appropriate
> steps to ensure their site's content doesn't fall into the hands of
> minors unless said minors' parents are failing in their duty as
> parents.
> Whether this would help people selling items that can only be sold
> legally via a licenced sex shop is another matter, however. Can a
> website be registered as a sex shop and receive the required licence?
> I'm not sure.
> Zoë

mobscene, 19 Aug 2006 05:48:05

As far as I know, this was a prosecution under the Obscene Publications Act, not the Video Recordings act, so had nothing to do with R18.

Also AFAIK, the trader was selling scat DVDs

Which they happily and legally do in all other European countries

zak, 21 Aug 2006 07:32:25

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

Zoë Robinson zoe.robinson@gmail.com, 21 Aug 2006 07:32:25

On 07/08/06, zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk
wrote:
> Not much detail, but a worrying quote from the
> unidentified trader "The police are looking at stopping any sales of porn
> over the internet".

I heard about this somewhere else, or if it wasn't this it was
something similar. The reason they got busted was something to do
with selling goods via the internet that are only licenced for sale in
the UK through registered sex shops.

I think it was something to do with there needing to be an absolute
guarantee of the purchaser being of legal age, which can't happen over
the Internet. In this respect (i.e. if the point-of-sale restriction
is what they got pulled up for), I'd be fully behind the police in
bringing a prosecution.

Zoë, who's hoping this plain text post gets through this time.

I don't really understand your position here. Wht's good enough to "be
fully behind" about the prosecution of people selling images of consenting
adults to people who want to look at such images?

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

snowflake, 30 Aug 2006 05:39:00

On 14/08/06, zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:
>
> I don't really understand your position here. Wht's good enough to "be
> fully behind" about the prosecution of people selling images of consenting
> adults to people who want to look at such images?

I've no problem with the sale of images of consenting adults to
consenting adults but I do have a problem, which I believe I made
clear in my post, with selling images of consenting adults to people
you can't guarantee are also consenting adults. I'm sure I was clear
about that in the last post so what's not to understand? Make sure
you don't sell adult material to kids or don't sell at all.

Zoë

Paul C. Dickie, 31 Aug 2006 03:35:20

In message
, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Zo=EB_Robinson?= wrote:
>On 14/08/06, zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> I don't really understand your position here. Wht's good enough to "be
>> fully behind" about the prosecution of people selling images of consenting
>> adults to people who want to look at such images?
>
>I've no problem with the sale of images of consenting adults to
>consenting adults but I do have a problem, which I believe I made
>clear in my post, with selling images of consenting adults to people
>you can't guarantee are also consenting adults. I'm sure I was clear
>about that in the last post so what's not to understand? Make sure
>you don't sell adult material to kids or don't sell at all.

How many children have a credit card in their own name?

--
< Paul >

zak, 31 Aug 2006 14:47:10

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

Zoë Robinson zoe.robinson@gmail.com, 31 Aug 2006 14:47:10

On 14/08/06, zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk
wrote:
>
> I don't really understand your position here. Wht's good enough to "be
> fully behind" about the prosecution of people selling images of consenting
> adults to people who want to look at such images?

I've no problem with the sale of images of consenting adults to
consenting adults but I do have a problem, which I believe I made
clear in my post, with selling images of consenting adults to people
you can't guarantee are also consenting adults. I'm sure I was clear
about that in the last post so what's not to understand? Make sure
you don't sell adult material to kids or don't sell at all.

Zoë

Because, of course, the worst thing that could possibly happen to a
16-year-old is to see
some pornography... Yawn

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

snowflake, 08 Sep 2006 00:35:00

zak, 11 Sep 2006 12:17:57

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

Zoë Robinson zoe.robinson@gmail.com, 11 Sep 2006 12:17:57

On 31/08/06, zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk
wrote:

> Because, of course, the worst thing that could possibly happen to a
> 16-year-old is to see
> some pornography... Yawn

It's attitudes like that which we don't need right now.

Zoë

Actually, now we need uncompromising attitudes more than ever. Along with
the sensible, polite, prepared-to-negotiate voices, there is need of a
righteous fuck-you-all state of mind in the background.
But you and me can agree to differ on this. Particularly given the web-lag
which means this is possibly the slowest motion ruck... er... difference of
opinion I've ever had.
Z

--
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%3D5686

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

snowflake, 12 Sep 2006 20:25:15

Uncompromising attitudes are only useful to this campaign when they
don't involve views on showing adult material to children. If you
start taking the view that it's okay to let kids have free reign over
what they see then you might as well accept right now that you'll lose
this fight because I do not believe for one second that the general
public would back a campaign with that view.

Zoë

On 08/09/06, zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:
>
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------

: Zoë Robinson zoe.robinson@gmail.com, 12 Sep 2006 20:25:15

> Subject: Re: [backlash] ETO news on internet porn
>
>
> On 31/08/06, zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk
> wrote:
>
> > Because, of course, the worst thing that could possibly happen to a
> > 16-year-old is to see
> > some pornography... Yawn
>
> It's attitudes like that which we don't need right now.
>
> Zoë
>
>
> Actually, now we need uncompromising attitudes more than ever. Along with
> the sensible, polite, prepared-to-negotiate voices, there is need of a
> righteous fuck-you-all state of mind in the background.
> But you and me can agree to differ on this. Particularly given the web-lag
> which means this is possibly the slowest motion ruck... er... difference of
> opinion I've ever had.
> Z
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D5686
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D5774
>

--
Zoë
--
www.t-vox.org | www.nobmouse.net
www.livejournal.com/users/nobmouse | www.catnip-radio.com

zak, 12 Sep 2006 23:18:53

Chucking the word "children" around all the time is what the other side
like to do. There *is* just a little bit of a difference between a six year
old and a sixteen year old and being able to get one's head round that fact
is often a useful defence against hysteria fraom the antisex brigade.
Original Message:
-----------------

Zoë Robinson zoe.robinson@gmail.com, 12 Sep 2006 23:18:53

Uncompromising attitudes are only useful to this campaign when they
don't involve views on showing adult material to children. If you
start taking the view that it's okay to let kids have free reign over
what they see then you might as well accept right now that you'll lose
this fight because I do not believe for one second that the general
public would back a campaign with that view.

Zoë

On 08/09/06, zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk
wrote:
>
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------

: Zoë Robinson zoe.robinson@gmail.com, Tue, 12 Sep 2006 20:10:53 +0100

> Subject: Re: [backlash] ETO news on internet porn
>
>
> On 31/08/06, zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk
> wrote:
>
> > Because, of course, the worst thing that could possibly happen to a
> > 16-year-old is to see
> > some pornography... Yawn
>
> It's attitudes like that which we don't need right now.
>
> Zoë
>
>
> Actually, now we need uncompromising attitudes more than ever. Along with
> the sensible, polite, prepared-to-negotiate voices, there is need of a
> righteous fuck-you-all state of mind in the background.
> But you and me can agree to differ on this. Particularly given the web-lag
> which means this is possibly the slowest motion ruck... er... difference
of
> opinion I've ever had.
> Z
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D5686
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D5774
>

--
Zoë
--
www.t-vox.org | www.nobmouse.net
www.livejournal.com/users/nobmouse | www.catnip-radio.com

--
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%3D5804

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

rosalee, 13 Sep 2006 00:09:28

16 year olds aren't children and they can legally have sex... and marry, if
they are that way inclined. So why shouldn't they look at porn too?

Ginny

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

Zoë Robinson [mailto:zoe.robinson@gmail.com], 13 Sep 2006 00:09:28

Sent: 12 September 2006 20:11

Uncompromising attitudes are only useful to this campaign when they
don't involve views on showing adult material to children. If you
start taking the view that it's okay to let kids have free reign over
what they see then you might as well accept right now that you'll lose
this fight because I do not believe for one second that the general
public would back a campaign with that view.

Zoë

On 08/09/06, zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk
wrote:
>
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------

: Zoë Robinson zoe.robinson@gmail.com, 13 Sep 2006 00:09:28

> Subject: Re: [backlash] ETO news on internet porn
>
>
> On 31/08/06, zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk
> wrote:
>
> > Because, of course, the worst thing that could possibly happen to a
> > 16-year-old is to see
> > some pornography... Yawn
>
> It's attitudes like that which we don't need right now.
>
> Zoë
>
>
> Actually, now we need uncompromising attitudes more than ever. Along with
> the sensible, polite, prepared-to-negotiate voices, there is need of a
> righteous fuck-you-all state of mind in the background.
> But you and me can agree to differ on this. Particularly given the web-lag
> which means this is possibly the slowest motion ruck... er... difference
of
> opinion I've ever had.
> Z
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D5686
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D5774
>

--
Zoë
--
www.t-vox.org | www.nobmouse.net
www.livejournal.com/users/nobmouse | www.catnip-radio.com

--
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%3D5804

snowflake, 13 Sep 2006 00:22:41

On 13/09/06, rosalee1@btopenworld.com wrote:
> 16 year olds aren't children and they can legally have sex... and marry, if
> they are that way inclined. So why shouldn't they look at porn too?

16 year olds aren't children since when?

Zoë
--
www.t-vox.org | www.nobmouse.net
www.livejournal.com/users/nobmouse | www.catnip-radio.com

rosalee, 13 Sep 2006 00:27:06

I agree. My only reservation is that the violent porn proposals are not about children, much as some of their advocates would seem to like the general public to think otherwise. So my concern is that talking about children and adolescents will draw attention away from the actual content of the proposals.

I think the attitude to children and teenagers amongst some people, including sectors of the government and the law profession, is a frankly rather odd one. Whilst I think it's an area that needs to be looked at and discussed, I think that getting into that at the moment would distract from the main debate.

Ginny

Author wrote:
> Chucking the word "children" around all the time is what the other side
> like to do. There *is* just a little bit of a difference between a six year
> old and a sixteen year old and being able to get one's head round that fact
> is often a useful defence against hysteria fraom the antisex brigade.

rosalee, 13 Sep 2006 00:54:30

Just wanted to add that as the government seem to be somewhat confused about teenagers, and this is reflected in the inconsistant laws as they currently stand, it might be better to concentrate on over 18 year olds...or should that be over 21 year olds (? ) as far as debating the proposals are concerned.

However, I do believe that the hysteria in recent years about child abuse and paedophilia really hasn't been helpful, either to society as a whole or to children and teenagers themselves. And it's something that needs to be discussed anyway. My feeling is that to ignore it would be similar to ignoring something like the patronising attitude to women in the government's proposals. Much as I hate to admit it though, here may not be the best place to do that.

Ginny

Roel, 13 Sep 2006 14:10:47

rosalee1@btopenworld.com wrote:

> 16 year olds aren't children and they can legally have sex... and marry, if
> they are that way inclined. So why shouldn't they look at porn too?

Children who are too young to handle porn if they accidentally run into
it and other stuff on the net, shouldn't be surfing the net without
parental guidance in the first place. Instead of banning porn from the
net, the complainants shouldn't be using the net as a free nanny and
start taking care of their children. Their children are not our
responsibility.

Roel
--
http://www.touwtjes.tk/ - bondage website (Dutch & English)
http://www.touwtjes.tk/yahoo - Bondage forum & community (Dutch)

zak, 13 Sep 2006 15:18:03

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

Zoë Robinson zoe.robinson@gmail.com, 13 Sep 2006 15:18:03

On 13/09/06, rosalee1@btopenworld.com wrote:
> 16 year olds aren't children and they can legally have sex... and marry,
if
> they are that way inclined. So why shouldn't they look at porn too?

16 year olds aren't children since when?

Zoë

Since they can have sex, marry, live alone and take full time jobs, they
are not "children".
But, as Rosalee says, children, or the age at which they become adults,
have little to do with this campaign so let's leave it there.

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

snowflake, 14 Sep 2006 07:08:47

A sixteen year old is legally a child therefore the association here
would be justified.

Zoe

On 12/09/06, zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:
>
> Chucking the word "children" around all the time is what the other side
> like to do. There *is* just a little bit of a difference between a six year
> old and a sixteen year old and being able to get one's head round that fact
> is often a useful defence against hysteria fraom the antisex brigade.

Graham Marsden, 14 Sep 2006 07:21:28

rosalee1@btopenworld.com wrote:

> 16 year olds aren't children and they can legally have sex... and marry, if
> they are that way inclined. So why shouldn't they look at porn too?

Except that, since the passing of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 where
"child" was redefined as being "under 18" instead of "under 16", taking
naughty photos of someone under 18 (unless in the context of an
"enduring relationship") can be classed as making child porn!

Cheers,
Graham.

rosalee, 14 Sep 2006 07:33:02

Probably since they started having periods, wet dreams, growing hair in
unexpected places, shagging, etc. But in the eyes of the law since they
were officially given permission to have sex.

Ginny

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

Zoë Robinson [mailto:zoe.robinson@gmail.com], 14 Sep 2006 07:33:02

Sent: 13 September 2006 00:08

16 year olds aren't children since when?

Zoë
--

Ms_Tytania, 14 Sep 2006 15:33:50

I can't believe we are debating the "children" issue. It's not what we are
supposed to be defending nor debating. The Government uses the term children
as a smoke screen to avoid the real issues behind this proposed legislation,
while winning Joe Public and the antisex brigade's feeding their fears and
the mass hysteria tht "child porn" whips up.

Can we get back on track to teh proposed legislation itself, and try not to
be diverted? I thought we all could see through this cheap gimmick, people!

Itzi

(Ms Tytania)

http://www.helloitzi.co.uk

"zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk" , 14 Sep 2006 15:33:50

>Subject: Re: [backlash] ETO news on internet porn
>
>
>Chucking the word "children" around all the time is what the other side
>like to do. There *is* just a little bit of a difference between a six year
>old and a sixteen year old and being able to get one's head round that fact
>is often a useful defence against hysteria fraom the antisex brigade.
>Original Message:
>-----------------

Zoë Robinson zoe.robinson@gmail.com, Tue, 12 Sep 2006 18:06:00 -0400

>Subject: Re: [backlash] ETO news on internet porn
>
>
>Uncompromising attitudes are only useful to this campaign when they
>don't involve views on showing adult material to children. If you
>start taking the view that it's okay to let kids have free reign over
>what they see then you might as well accept right now that you'll lose
>this fight because I do not believe for one second that the general
>public would back a campaign with that view.
>
>Zoë
>
>On 08/09/06, zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk
>wrote:
> >
> >
> > Original Message:
> > -----------------

om: Zoë Robinson zoe.robinson@gmail.com, Tue, 12 Sep 2006 20:10:53 +0100

> > Subject: Re: [backlash] ETO news on internet porn
> >
> >
> > On 31/08/06, zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Because, of course, the worst thing that could possibly happen to a
> > > 16-year-old is to see
> > > some pornography... Yawn
> >
> > It's attitudes like that which we don't need right now.
> >
> > Zoë
> >
> >
> > Actually, now we need uncompromising attitudes more than ever. Along
>with
> > the sensible, polite, prepared-to-negotiate voices, there is need of a
> > righteous fuck-you-all state of mind in the background.
> > But you and me can agree to differ on this. Particularly given the
>web-lag
> > which means this is possibly the slowest motion ruck... er... difference
>of
> > opinion I've ever had.
> > Z
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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%3D5686
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> > http://mail2web.com/ .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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%3D5774
> >
>
>
>--
>Zoë
>--
>www.t-vox.org | www.nobmouse.net
>www.livejournal.com/users/nobmouse | www.catnip-radio.com
>
>
>
>
>--
>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%3D5804
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>mail2web - Check your email from the web at
>http://mail2web.com/ .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>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%3D5808

phantom, 18 Sep 2006 10:12:43

Hi,
I am a little surprised at us going into this in any detail...
It's important not to lose focus...

My two bits worth on this would be that I assume the Sexual Offences Act
(SOA) to be yet another fuzzy bit of legislation... I have not read it
verbatim, but given the nature of the OPA, I feel free to assume...
however, I recall that Lindsey Dawn McKenzie famously was in the Sport prior
to being 18... it was her only being topless which appeared to make this
possible... now one could argue this proceeded the SOA, but I'd doubt that
ownership of Lindsey's early pics would get people convicted for child
pornography...

in any case, I don't really see where we're going here... this issue has
little to do with the extreme pornography proposals...
as I said, in an earlier post, I think to engage in the public debate from a
position critical of Operation Ore or any issue on child pornography
legislation is a massive own goal...
government is creating a WMD/Al-Qaeda/Iraq situation with its efforts in
trying to create a tenuous link between extreme pornography and child
porn... there is no link... they are desperately trying to weld together to
totally different, unrelated subjects in order to get their way...
there is no link... so why would people campaigning against the extreme
pornography law be talking about child pornography? Why would they engage in
debate on ground favoured by the government?
there is no link... there is no need to debate child porn in any way, other
than to argue that it is in no way comparable to so-called extreme
pornography... there is no link...
child pornography and Operation Ore both have absolutely nothing to do with
the campaign to stop the progress of legislation to ban possession of
extreme pornography... in no way let yourself be drawn into that subject...
this is what the governments wants... after all, why would we be talking
about both issues, if we didn't concede that they were related?
oh, and should anyone have missed my main point: there is no link between
child pornography and the proposed definition of extreme pornography!..
we are only concerned with the issue of extreme pornography... matters
appertaining to the other issue are dealt with by separate campaigns and
groups...
so, if we're talking about Ore and 16 year olds, we're blurring the issue...
yet our message must remain clear and concise... there is no link... only a
moron would suggest there is... there is no debate... government is trying
to create the perception of a link... don't help them do it...
there is no link...

end of rant...

Regards,
Phantom

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

graham [mailto:graham@affordable-leather.co.uk], 18 Sep 2006 10:12:43

Sent: 13 September 2006 00:12

rosalee1@btopenworld.com wrote:

> 16 year olds aren't children and they can legally have sex... and marry,
if
> they are that way inclined. So why shouldn't they look at porn too?

Except that, since the passing of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 where
"child" was redefined as being "under 18" instead of "under 16", taking
naughty photos of someone under 18 (unless in the context of an
"enduring relationship") can be classed as making child porn!

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%3D5832