* Posts by Mark .

1859 posts • joined 18 Jun 2009

Tory Lady tries to give bodice-rippers the snip

Mark .

Poppy Z Brite / Scotland's "Extreme Porn" Bill

Poppy Z Brite, author of erotic horror, would be another example - one of her short stories (His Mouth Will Taste Of Wormwood) features a bit about a dog giving oral sex to a woman. Not to mention her novel Exquisite Corpse, which features necrophilia and sex killings.

In practice, people might not be locked up for possessing physical published books, but that just shows the inconsistency if people are arrested for possessing similar writings that either they downloaded from a BDSM erotica site, or were their own personal fantasies.

Not mentioned in the article is the progress of Scotland's version of the "extreme porn" bill. This bill is already broader than England's version, and a selection of "Women's" groups are coordinating a lobbying effort against the Government to extend it even further, in particular demanding that non-photographic images be covered (they cite Second Life as an example, and this would presumably cover cartoons and drawings also). They stress that they see this law as merely being a "first step" - the end game is to see possession of all porn criminalised.

Have a read of the responses at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/justice/inquiries/CriminalJusticeandLicensing/ju-criminaljustice-evid.htm , if you fancy seeing the kind of anti-porn crusade that's going on here.

0
0

Amiga Forever updated for Windows 7

Mark .

Re: Haha great picture

"Like with all Linux lusers, is it a compulsory requirement to have a neckbeard and own an Amiga?"

Great joke. In my experience, back in the day the boring bearded geek stereotypes were the PC owning users, who thought it was cool running DOS on their expensive 286s. The Amiga was the mainstream home computer (in the UK, at least), used by ordinary people - just like Windows is today.

You also show your ignorance of PC history - geeks with beards are commonplace in the history of platforms such as DOS and Windows, and is hardly specific to Linux or the Amiga. Just look at this Microsoft classic, for example: http://militantgeek.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/microsoft-1978.jpg . And as for Apple, try this gem: http://munfitnessblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/apple-steve-job-with-beard-1998.jpg .

0
0

'Get cameraphones out of nurseries' plea

Mark .

Oddities

"It's also not helped by oddities in the law that mean a 15 year old couple having sex could lead to the male being charged with Statutary Rape."

Or indeed, the oddity that a 17 year old couple who can legally have sex will be charged with child porn possession if they take a photo of their legal acts (or indeed, if a 17 year old takes a private photo of his or her own body). No doubt the press would refer to them as "pedophiles".

With the Coroners and Justice Bill that will soon be made law, drawing a naughty picture that appears to depict a 17 year old in the scene will get you three years in prison, because the Government think that makes you a pedophile too.

0
0

Conviction overturned in MySpace suicide case

Mark .
Thumb Up

Good for users, Good for justice

No justice comes from setting a precedent that criminalises a wide range of people.

If you think she's guilty of harrassment, then charge her with that. If not, don't. The fact that it was "on the Internet" is irrelevant.

0
0

UK obscenity law: Where to now?

Mark .

Re: To be fair to the IWF...

"I don't think anyone can criticise them for this"

I can. The justification put forward for the IWF is that it exists to block child porn. We don't need a private organisation to help grass up any other kind of sites, especially for a law as dubious as this one.

"but I do think that if you write stories about raping and murdering real people online it probably shouldn't come as much of a surprise when the Police decide to ask you about your intentions."

But the IWF aren't the police.

And the problem is that the police simply didn't just ask questions - no one would have a problem if they simply investigated, and then realised it was clearly just a work of fiction. The problem is they went ahead with the prosecution anyway, using a law that has nothing to do with the issue of threats or harrassment.

0
0

Girls Aloud net obscenity case falls at first hurdle

Mark .

Re: Disrepute

But it wasn't the story itself that (*allegedly*) brought them into "disrepute", it was the publicity of the trial. And you could make the same claim about all sorts of trials.

It seems rather bad if someone can be sacked as a result of trials, even if they are found not guilty.

0
0
Mark .

Re: Did the IWF block this site? / etc

@Fred 6 : No, they didn't. They only block "suspected child porn" (and Wikipedia articles). For everything else (including "extreme" porn, which is also now illegal to possess), their involvement is just to report it to the police, if it's either hosted in the UK, or posted by a UK citizen.

@Armus Squelprom: We're discussing his right to his liberty. If you read the article, you'll see that the trial wasn't about whether he can write porn (which he's already done), it was whether he'd go to prison (the maximum sentence being 3 years, and it's now been raised 5).

The "right to have porn" argument is something I repeatedly hear with respect to laws like the OPA, or the "extreme" porn law, but it is flawed. These laws are not about the Government providing people with porn. It's not that the policemen will come around, tell you not to possess or write that, and then leave it at that. It's about whether people have a right to their *freedom*, or whether they should be placed in prison, simply for writing or possessing something you find distasteful - even though you'd never have seen the material if it wasn't for these laws!

"there's no shred of literary or creative merit to redeem Darryn Walker's vile, jealous filth"

So now the law should concern itself with whether things have artistic merit? By that argument, we'd better prosecute the Daily Star...

@Estariel: There is perhaps some argument for a law against writing about identified people without their consent.

But the OPA is no such law. It would apply to fiction about non-identified people, yet meanwhile, non-obscene but still unpleasant fiction about an identified person would remain legal.

"Circulate the new version to your family and friends......it's not illegal, so that should be ok, right?"

I would choose not to do that, but that's my choice. If someone else did it on some random bit of the Internet, I wouldn't give a damn. If I was in the public eye, I would have even less right to care - after all, fame is what brings celebrities their fortune, and as always, it's a double-edged sword. And if the story was generating publicity for a commercial product that I was part of, if anything I would be glad of the extra sales.

And actually, I might write a kinky story and show it to my lover. Since I'm a submissive, it'd be about me. But that's my choice, and it's not up to you, or the law, to take that away.

0
0
Mark .

response

@Gordon 10 :

So by that reasoning, it's okay to fire you for publishing on this page?

The problem was he didn't lose his job directly for publishing, but because of the prosecution. If he wasn't prosecuted, they'd have never known about it. It's unclear if he ever used his full name - the problem is that his details were found out as a result of an investigation by the Internet Watch Foundation and the police.

Same with the Anon poster who talked about co-workers not wanting to share space. By that reasoning, should anyone accused of a crime be dismissed? If they're not uncomfortable, then either make arrangements to work in another bit of the office, or get another job yourself.

@Estariel : You should try reading some Poppy Z Brite. These fictional depictions are not uncommon in mainstream bookstores.

0
0

Home Office kicks ID cards into touch

Mark .

What exactly are the Torys promising to scrap?

"but most of this will be required for updated passports and so is not a target for Tory cost cutting"

So wait - does this mean we're still going to get the ID card in everything but name - the database, the biometrics - for anyone who wants a passport? Given that most of us need a passport, and that the problems with the ID card are with the database, not the physical card itself, this would be rather worrying. So what exactly are the Torys promising to scrap?

0
0

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017