Privacy No Longer A Right

catalina_francisco

Happily insatiable always
Joined
Jul 29, 2002
Posts
18,730
Hmmm, well I long gave up the fantasy that most of us are free to do as we please and live our lives unobserved and unmonitored if we do no harm to anyone else. Seems it is just going to take another step in the UK toward restricting the rights of the net users. This story seems to become a legislated reality, restricting what one minister just outlined on TV the right of UK web users to view their porn if it contains any government decided inappropriate image content such as degradation, violence, torture. While restrictions have been in place involving UK based sites, print material etc., of showing or owning violence based porn, they now aim to extend that to preventing UK people from accessing such porn from overseas providers. The use of credit card companies to inform on their clients is not a new one and has been seen in the past by restricting what those credit cards can be used for....blah!! Now they are proposing the possession or use of any visual material online or otherwise that has what we term BDSM as a theme, as qualifying as an offence similar to child porn. They are proposing that similar to their child porn campaign where they seized computers and examined the contents, they will now apply the same to those who look at any violent pornography as decided by their legislation of what is illegal and inappropriate. This world is going nuts I am sure.

Catalina :rose:
 
It's stuff like this that makes me glad I live in the States.

Even though we are getting really bad too... sigh... damn Bush and his high handed morality.
 
La Kajira said:
It's stuff like this that makes me glad I live in the States.

Even though we are getting really bad too... sigh... damn Bush and his high handed morality.

But doesn't your new legislation have restrictions which also doesn't freely allow images which have SM content as in physical bruising etc., or explicit nudity as in genitals without lots of data and personal information being supplied, recorded and monitored? :confused: I just think it is about time governments dropped this kindergarten attitude and realised that rape and murder is a much bigger problem than someone getting fired up by something they see on the internet and running out to attack someone. It is ridiculous given sex crime was an issue before the internet, before computers, before movies, before novels, and even before print media of any type....so why try and blame it on these areas as if the seed is not within certain human minds to begin with and often does not need any media run fertiliser to make it a reality. Perhaps if they dealt with the real issues they would stand a chance of actually making a difference.

Catalina :rose:
 
Last edited:
If they want to stop kids from being exploited in porn, maybe some debt relief in 3rd world countries so they didn't have prostitution or starvation as the only career paths.
 
What the British government is proposing is
"We propose restricting the offence to
explicit pornography containing actual
scenes or realistic depictions of:
i) intercourse or oral sex with an animal;
ii) sexual interference with a human
corpse;
iii) serious violence in a sexual context,
and
iv) serious sexual violence.
40. In (c) above, “serious violence” will
involve or will appear to involve serious
bodily harm in a context or setting which
is sexual – for example, images of
suffocation or hanging with sexual
references in the way the scenes are
presented. In (d) above “serious sexual
violence” will involve or will appear to
involve serious bodily harm where the
violence is sexual.
41. By “serious bodily harm” we mean
violence in respect of which a prosecution
of grievous bodily harm could be brought
in England and Wales or in Scotland,
assault to severe injury."
Now I can foresee two problems with this; one is the issue of whether they mean GBH, or the alternative charge which can be brought under the Offences Against The Person Act, of wounding. (The injury required to bring a wounding charge is much less severe than that required for a GBH charge, but they're both defined in the same sections of the OATP Act.)
The second problem is that it will lead, almost inevitably, to a revisitting of the verdict in the Operation Spanner case, where the Law Lords, decided, in undemocratic and wholly predictable fashion, to change the law so that consent was not a defecne if you were a gay man in a sexual situation, but was if you were a gay man (or any other man) engaged in a violent sport like boxing or rugby....

Responses can be sent to the British government at the addersses in the consultation document at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/30_08_05_porn_doc.pdf

Isn't it funny how, in the case of violent porn, government wants to penalize the consumers in order to minimize the demand, but when it comes to the cannabis the children of government ministers consume there's no point in criminalizing the consumers?

By the way, I don't give a fig for extreme defences of free speech; with rights come responsibilities. But I fear this legislation might criminalize images of consensual activities as well as non consensual, and that's a step too far for me. Criminalizing the non consensual has a certain rationale to it, but anyone who kids themselves that psychopaths won't just go away and make up pictures in their heads, like they always used to, is living in the intellectual equivalent of Teletubby land.
 
I'm a little confused by these proposals! Does this mean that viewing BDSM images of women tied up with nipple clamps on being spanked on her arse and vagina (for example) would fall under this legislation? Does this mean that sites like 'Hogtied' would be illegal to view in the UK?

I somtimes post in the ameteur pictures section pictures taken when me and my girlfriend have had a bit of a 'punishment session' - does this mean I'm open to prosecution under these laws?
 
La Kajira said:
It's stuff like this that makes me glad I live in the States.
Yeah, right! As if America has a sensible attitude towards censorship! :confused: For instance, I wonder how many Americans realise that even a lot of crappy, soft Hollywood movies are produced in two versions; one for America, with a lot of the homour taken out as it is considered 'abusive', and one for the rest of the world. :rolleyes:

I am just glad I don't live in UK or USA! :D

La Kajira said:
Even though we are getting really bad too... sigh... damn Bush and his high handed morality.
Couldn't agree more!
 
I wonder if the British woman will get whipped and chained up as punishment if the authorities find inappropriate stuff on their computers.

If so, Tainted......more pics please :D


On the other hand I have two options.

Get a job as an inspector of such materials; and, of course, I will start with looking at the computers of those people in politics and government office
.
.
.
.
.

Move abroad.


Decisions, decisions
:rolleyes:
 
shy slave said:
I wonder if the British woman will get whipped and chained up as punishment if the authorities find inappropriate stuff on their computers.

If so, Tainted......more pics please :D


On the other hand I have two options.

Get a job as an inspector of such materials; and, of course, I will start with looking at the computers of those people in politics and government office
.
.
.
.
.

Move abroad.


Decisions, decisions
:rolleyes:

Well one way you get to look at other people's porn, the other way you got move to another country . . . .

Decisions, decisions. :p
 
Netzach said:
If they want to stop kids from being exploited in porn, maybe some debt relief in 3rd world countries so they didn't have prostitution or starvation as the only career paths.

Amen!
 
catalina_francisco said:
But doesn't your new legislation have restrictions which also doesn't freely allow images which have SM content as in physical bruising etc., or explicit nudity as in genitals without lots of data and personal information being supplied, recorded and monitored? :confused: I just think it is about time governments dropped this kindergarten attitude and realised that rape and murder is a much bigger problem than someone getting fired up by something they see on the internet and running out to attack someone. It is ridiculous given sex crime was an issue before the internet, before computers, before movies, before novels, and even before print media of any type....so why try and blame it on these areas as if the seed is not within certain human minds to begin with and often does not need any media run fertiliser to make it a reality. Perhaps if they dealt with the real issues they would stand a chance of actually making a difference.

Catalina :rose:

Sorry, Catalina, I am not that up on our laws regarding this subject. I just know we are going downhill with it... :rose:
 
Andante said:
Yeah, right! As if America has a sensible attitude towards censorship! :confused: For instance, I wonder how many Americans realise that even a lot of crappy, soft Hollywood movies are produced in two versions; one for America, with a lot of the homour taken out as it is considered 'abusive', and one for the rest of the world. :rolleyes:

I am just glad I don't live in UK or USA! :D

Most people, IMO, have a love hate relation with where they live. I love the States, but I recognize we have our problems. Censorship is something I despise, with certain exceptions, however... yeah... I know what you mean.

Sometimes I think we just need to get over ourselves... we no longer stem from Puritans...

:rolleyes:


Andante said:
Couldn't agree more!

I'm glad we do agree on something, lol... :D
 
I have one word for this: thoughtcrime.

When are they going to lean it is better to let people keep their fantasies private than to force them to look in the real world for what they seek? And what's wrong with bestiality? Did the PETA people claim horse rape or something?

Time to start using TOR.
 
catalina_francisco said:
But doesn't your new legislation have restrictions which also doesn't freely allow images which have SM content as in physical bruising etc., or explicit nudity as in genitals without lots of data and personal information being supplied, recorded and monitored? :confused:

That and the "Patriot Act." Although there was a lot of "proposed" talk in 2000 well before September 2001 in the similar vein as the Patriot Act that had me very antsy.

While I agree there are some trade-offs that have to be made to keep us "safer" - there are times I think it goes a bit beyond what I am comfortable with - and some of these areas are my vanilla political "hard limits" in a "Libertarian" sense. I love that I have the right to speak my opinion about my government freely, but I hate that my government is beginning to legislate away my right to privacy (warrentless searches & wiretaps without much solid supporting evidence of possible wrongdoing).
 
Last edited:
DwayneDibley said:
I'm a little confused by these proposals! Does this mean that viewing BDSM images of women tied up with nipple clamps on being spanked on her arse and vagina (for example) would fall under this legislation? Does this mean that sites like 'Hogtied' would be illegal to view in the UK?

I somtimes post in the ameteur pictures section pictures taken when me and my girlfriend have had a bit of a 'punishment session' - does this mean I'm open to prosecution under these laws?


In a word, yep. As sad as it is that this woman was murdered by her friend, I still don't see how a government can buy into the grief of her mother, who says she never realised that 'such people' (meaning those of us into BDSM type porn) existed, and legislate accordingly because of one incident. My thoughts are this is just an excuse they needed to cover what they really wanted to do all along......brings back thoughts of Preaching To The Perverted and the reasoning behind how that movie came to be.

Catalina :rose:
 
Well put Catalina. I really hope this legislation doesn't come into force, we're nannied enough in the UK without what been told is 'perverted' and what is acceptable. I just hope that the Human Rights Act can be used - it's a freedom of expression!

It does smack of someon not understanding what the BDSM community is about (there's probably plenty I don't understand about it as I'm relatively new to it though I've had predilictions towards it since about 7 or 8!), and being guilty of gross ignorance.

The murder of this girl seems to have produced a knee-jerk reaction not properly thought through. This government in the UK is pretty good at those (e.g. Iraq). One set of circumstances and one person's psychopathic tendencies could ruin things for a lot of law-abiding people rightfully practicing a different form of sexual expression. :(
 
DwayneDibley said:
Well put Catalina. I really hope this legislation doesn't come into force, we're nannied enough in the UK without what been told is 'perverted' and what is acceptable. I just hope that the Human Rights Act can be used - it's a freedom of expression!

It does smack of someon not understanding what the BDSM community is about (there's probably plenty I don't understand about it as I'm relatively new to it though I've had predilictions towards it since about 7 or 8!), and being guilty of gross ignorance.

The murder of this girl seems to have produced a knee-jerk reaction not properly thought through. This government in the UK is pretty good at those (e.g. Iraq). One set of circumstances and one person's psychopathic tendencies could ruin things for a lot of law-abiding people rightfully practicing a different form of sexual expression. :(
Dwayne,

Use Theyworkforyou to email your MP; send in a response to the consultation paper.

I already have...
 
Web sites do not kill/harm people physically.

People kill/harm people physically.

So a man watched something on the 'net and went and killed someone he knew in a violent and sexually deviant way. Apparently twinkies can provoke a person to murder as well so why not ban them too?
And let us never forget the inherant dangers in alcohol- how many have killed others under its influence?
Heck, lets ban everything fun and become Amish....... wait, even with all the things they don't allow they're not perfect either.

Seriously- I think that banning snuff type pornography would be a good thing. Stop it from the buyers side. Much like child pornography, snuff films harm/kill others so someone else can get thier jollies off. So ban away, no problem.
But to ban BDSM themed material strikes me as censorship of what should be someone's personal life. What's done between concenting adults should not be the buisness of the government, even if it includes a photographer.
Unless said personal buisness is shown to a child or uses a child, then it becomes the state's job to safeguard that child and punish those responsable.

To refer again to the case of Graham Coutts and his murder of Jane Longhurst- it is a tragic thing and my heart goes out to her family. But it was not the internet that killed Jane, it was Graham Coutts.
The mixing of sexual motive for murder is by no means a new one.
In his famous 1886 book Psychopathia Sexualis, Richard von Krafft-Ebing notes a case of serial murder in the 1870s, that of an Italian man named Eusebius Pieydagnelle who had a sexual obsession with blood and confessed to murdering six people. The unidentified Jack the Ripper killer slaughtered prostitutes in London in 1888. Those crimes gained enormous press attention at the time because, although there were plenty of murders in Victorian Britain motivated by robbery and theft, it was almost unheard of for someone to kill people simply for pleasure. London was also the center of the world's greatest superpower at the time, so having such dramatic murders of financially destitute women in the midst of such wealth focused the news media's attention on the plight of the urban poor and gained coverage worldwide. Joseph Vacher was executed in France in 1898 after confessing to killing and mutilating 11 women and children, while American serial killer H. H. Holmes was hanged in Philadelphia in 1896 after confessing to 28 murders.
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer#Serial_murder_before_1900

To ban something because one sick, twisted person killed another using a method he found on the internet is wrong. Murders by the sexually obssessed have been happening far far longer then the internet or even published pictorial media has been around.
I'd say put the funding into education and helping to aleviate poverty in 3rd world countries.

Minor note- its 430 am, so I reserve the right to edit any of this if its worded oddly.
 
La Kajira said:
Sorry, Catalina, I am not that up on our laws regarding this subject. I just know we are going downhill with it... :rose:

Is always good to keep an eye oin what is and is not legal these days. This is the latest Lit guidelines made in an effort to conform with the new law:

"The Literotica Forum Photo Guidelines have been created to conform to United States law in regards to content and copyright laws. If you disagree with the policy, please remember to cast your vote in any upcoming election.

Here are the basic Forum Photo Guidelines:

- Legally, we can allow soft nudity, but under current United States law, photographs (does not apply to non-photographic images) posted on this site may not contain "sexually explicit conduct", which the government defines as:

- Actual or simulated:
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.

- All persons in all adult-themed photographs must be over 18 years of age.
- Image must not contain URL or other advertisement.
- You must have a legal right from the copyright owner to post any images - i.e. photographs/drawings that you yourself created and/or have a license or other permission to post."

And here is a link which outlines 2257 and another which gives some more info on what it means and how it is being challenged etc. We did have a couple of threads on the board about 2257, but haven't had tme to find them.

Catalina :rose:
 
I'm just confused about what's going on here. I agree there needs to be control on certain areas, involving children, death etc.

I also think they should be clearer. We're not all up on politician speak.
 
The thing with a lot of the BDSM porn is that it's consenting. OK, the 'stories' that go with it are probably rubbish but the models in it I'm sure get paid very well to be involved and aren't forced into it at all in general.

And the content is either fantasy, and can also give inspiration to those who practice a bit of BDSM at home - e.g. a new way to tie their partner up, or 'tit torture' etc.

As I say, under these proposals I could potentially be arrested for posting pictures I may take of my girlfriend tied up, being spanked, wearning nipple clamps, etc. if I've understood them correctly :eek:
 
english vicky said:
I'm just confused about what's going on here. I agree there needs to be control on certain areas, involving children, death etc.

I also think they should be clearer. We're not all up on politician speak.

The pollie I saw interviewed yesterday said it would include any sites or pictures accessed through the internet by anyone in the UK (or stored pictures on their computer or elsewhere), which depicted rape scenes, sexual violence of any type (that means BDSM type play because they are not interested if you or anyone consented to the act, just forbidding it being seen by anyone), breath play, necrophilia, bestiality, torture, or acts that were aimed at degrading or humiliating someone in the picture/movie. The necrophilia and real rape I can see their reasoning on to an extent, but from what he has stated it pretty much will ban bondage, play piercing, foot worship, whipping and all forms of pain play, and basically anything that does not come under the most basic of vanilla type sex. Think about it, if someone in authority thinks anal sex or doggy position is degrading or perverted, it could be classed as inappropriate to view and thus an offence for which you could be charged, barred from working in certain positions/careers etc.

Catalina :rose:
 
Damn, the situation here could get almost as bad as it is in the US! :(

I really hope this gets defeated, as it will trample on the freedom of expression of a lot of people with 'innocent' intentions (i.e. not to kill or harm someone else) will be restricted in what they can look at (or post!)
 
Back
Top