Sounds like a dumb question?
«No Name Set», 14 Sep 2005 23:40:02
Before I ask this, I'd better explain I'm a partially-sighted
person using a text-only computer, Lynx text-only browser, and
with a screen reader/speech synthesiser system when the eyes are
really rough.
In these days of multimedia computers and internet sites, what
about soundtracks?
We've been talking about the banning in terms of looking at
still images, and film/video/DVD moving pictures, but
would/could the proposed legislation also cover suggestive sound
tracks? - with or without a film to go with them?
COuld a blind person be prosecuted for possessing sound files
with nasty-sounding combinations of heavy breathing,
roughly-ordered commands, hideous screams, thwacking whips,
chainsaw ....?
If sound comes into the picture - errm, as it were! - then that
opens new avenues for pinpointing the ludicrous. For example,
it could be OK to listen to something as broadcast live-to-air
on the radio, but illegal to download it from the BBC's Listen
Again web page. Particularly if, for some reason, only part of
the programme was in a file. Parts of The Raj Quartet on the
Classic Serial, maybe, or last December's rape scene from The
Archers.
Rosemary
--
Rosemary
Ian, 15 Sep 2005 09:57:48
Rosemary
Anything is possible. BUT the consultation document only refers to
images. I think that should legislation subsequently get drafted then
it would be very difficult for the parliamentary draftsmen to draft
legislation restricting specific classes of images let alone trying
to extend that to sounds. So I think you are safe with sounds
Ian
At 03:12 14/09/2005, you wrote:
>Before I ask this, I'd better explain I'm a partially-sighted
>person using a text-only computer, Lynx text-only browser, and
>with a screen reader/speech synthesiser system when the eyes are
>really rough.
>
>
>In these days of multimedia computers and internet sites, what
>about soundtracks?
>
>We've been talking about the banning in terms of looking at
>still images, and film/video/DVD moving pictures, but
>would/could the proposed legislation also cover suggestive sound
>tracks? - with or without a film to go with them?
>
>
>COuld a blind person be prosecuted for possessing sound files
>with nasty-sounding combinations of heavy breathing,
>roughly-ordered commands, hideous screams, thwacking whips,
>chainsaw ....?
>
>
>If sound comes into the picture - errm, as it were! - then that
>opens new avenues for pinpointing the ludicrous. For example,
>it could be OK to listen to something as broadcast live-to-air
>on the radio, but illegal to download it from the BBC's Listen
>Again web page. Particularly if, for some reason, only part of
>the programme was in a file. Parts of The Raj Quartet on the
>Classic Serial, maybe, or last December's rape scene from The
>Archers.
>
>Rosemary
>
>--
>Rosemary
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>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%3D510
Ian Gurnhill
Spanner Trust trustee
www.spannertrust.org
Know the Law, Help Change the Law