Or are they trying to kill the bill? It's not an uncommon practice to tack stuff onto a bill on it's progress through the houses in order to get people to vote against the bill in order to prevent the amendments becoming law.
Just a thought.
Lord Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill, we're told, is about "equipping the UK to compete and lead in the global digital economy". If two Conservative peers get their way though, its also about censoring breasts, buttocks and anuses. One section of the Bill sets up a compulsory age classification system for video games, in part …
This seems to mean that certain material will be scrutinised by the censor more - at the publisher's expense, I suppose - but probably will be approved if it's legitimate.
I remember in early adolescence I was very interested to get hold of classical or Renaissance art that portrayed the nude female figure - probably the same motive that created the originals, but with a lesser outlay. It probably didn't damage anything but my sense of proper geometric perspective. Yes, that and, um, certain pages of mail order catalogues. All of it educational, up to a point.
Do the good Lords specify the gender of the breasts to be considered? We wouldn't want our old Tarzan movies, or anything Schwarzenegger has ever appeared in to be considered extreme porn. Perhaps the honourable gentlemen could give us some indication of how much needs to be covered to remain safe? Just the niple? Neck to Knee? Naturally, breast feeding is a no-no.
Mines the one that left the country.
I can remember a peer some decades ago, enquiring into (pre-internet) porn. He concluded among other things that a large part of political opposition to pornography, was too often based on making sure the lower classes didn't practice what their betters got up to habitually. He found himself unable to define pornography within the framework of a free society, and since then neither has anyone else, other than it's usually anything that other people do that someone in power doesn't like (or doesn't want his voters to find out about).
We laugh these days at the Lady Chatterley trials - back then they weren't funny. Neither is the modern equivalent.
These days, it's high time we had laws to protect our kids from slimy unelected politicians with narrow minds and private agendas.
A 'family' newspaper is OK to have photos of unclothed women every day, but a cartoon version of such warrants a rating just in case someone under 18 sees it.
We're not *quite* like america yet - porn capital of the world that almost ground to a halt because someone showed half a breast on TV... but we're sure trying to head in that direction.
I think the game concerned is "Call to civic duty" where the player begins serving as a secretary working as a spouse of an MP in their office and then works their way up through various departments to becoming a full MP in their own right.
The various states of undress are required parts of the game, happening in various stages throughout.
The scope of possibilites available to a games/graphic designer means that if they want to do something 'suggestive' they will find a way.
Aside from that what's the problem with basic biological functions, or will it be illegal to piss and poo? let alone other bodily functions..
This does not sound like an adult discussion, but more like some school kids who have been sniggering when someone said 'willy'.
This is just sillly and seems like an excuse to watse a lot of peoples time.
So, no PH in cartoon form then? just the real thing?
So films like Slumdog millionaire, depicting the genital torture of a young boy, the bludgeoning to death of a mother in front of her very young children and the deliberate blinding of kids as young as seven or eight is fine - give it a fifteen certificate.
But when it comes to the sight of a breast or someone peeing - then we really need to act to protect people.
Absolute fucking muppets the lot of them. It reminds me of the brilliant line at the end of South Park : The Movie where, just in case anyone had missed the entire point of the film, a character utters "It's okay to show despicable acts of deplorable violence - just so long as nobody utters any naughty words".
...so I may be more aware of of commercials when I do occasionally see them round at friends houses, but I'm suprised that nobody has picked up on the miriad of buttocks that are flashed at us ALL DAY in shampoo ads?
Ban buttocks? Really?
Next we'll be seeing legislation damanding the return of skirting on furniture. We can't have tables and chairs flirtaciously flashing their legs!
.......since when I was a child, my mother made me wear a blindfold whenever I did pee-pee or poo-poo. I still have that reticence and cannot open my eyes from start to finish until my body is safely tucked away and covered again.
The idea of seeing someone else's body fills me with horror and disgust. They are protecting us all.
... great ...
So all the shower and bathroom glossys that you can get from Jewsons when you were a kid would be banned?
I truly weep for the younger generation that will be brought up in an archaic prudish Britain. more laughing from our relaxed neighbours across the pond and channel..
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019