Hi alpahde5
No, I'm British, and it's a British law I'm talking about.
UK Thought crime
oh rite lol,
well put it this way the law does not prohibit thoughts of a sexual nature it does however prohibit the use of material for the use of sexual practice. in alot of cases it's not actually a crime to have pornographic material, it's a tort, if you own material which does not have the consent of the individual it is a crime, a crime of theft and technically although im not 100% of this, remember im only a second year lol, it is a tort due to trespass of goods and punishable by compensation. in which case broadcasting material filmed by the BBC which has extreme violent material is subject to regulations on what you can broadcast, however it does not mean that they have broken a law by showing images of extreme violent behavior, especially if the purpose is to educate or inform. also bear in mind there are separate laws regarding broadcast via t.v, radio, internet and other forms as well as universal ones that cover all forms of communication.
well put it this way the law does not prohibit thoughts of a sexual nature it does however prohibit the use of material for the use of sexual practice. in alot of cases it's not actually a crime to have pornographic material, it's a tort, if you own material which does not have the consent of the individual it is a crime, a crime of theft and technically although im not 100% of this, remember im only a second year lol, it is a tort due to trespass of goods and punishable by compensation. in which case broadcasting material filmed by the BBC which has extreme violent material is subject to regulations on what you can broadcast, however it does not mean that they have broken a law by showing images of extreme violent behavior, especially if the purpose is to educate or inform. also bear in mind there are separate laws regarding broadcast via t.v, radio, internet and other forms as well as universal ones that cover all forms of communication.
webtease requests? msg me here first then add me to msn, [email protected] (e-mail doesn't work so don't e-mail that address)
what is written below is true
--------------------------------
what is written above is a lie
what is written below is true
--------------------------------
what is written above is a lie
I think the key part in this is this bit :diddums wrote:Hi alphahde5
I agree about consent. But the American soldiers whose corpses were mutilated then hung from a bridge by an angry crowd in Iraq, images of which went out on TV - and their families- did not consent to that either. So again, it must be stressed. The Law is not criminalising the image, but the state of mind of the viewer. It will be okay to have and display grotesque pictures and films, unless they are supposed to arouse sexual feeling. It's the sex that will be illegal, not the image.
(3) An image is “pornographic” if it appears to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.
It isn't criminalising the state of mind of the viewer, it is criminalising content which was made specifically to entice sexual arowsal in the viewer. I feel there is a slight, but important difference inbetween the two.
unfortunately that wouldn't hold any weight, when you think about it, what is the intention of many adverts, lynx for example, the idea is that the advert arouses you to the point where you believe you can pull woman like this, ok bad example another one, FHM, whats the point of that to arouse you sexually, and what if your mrs takes photos of herself naked for when shes away, or just for fun, that would cause sexual arousal.
not only do i believe that this law would be open to mass interpretation but any ruling by a judge who had an offender before him because of this, would interpret it as to general and therefor set a president that is legal to hold images of this nature.
I really would not be concerned about this legislation unless your already doing something illegal.
not only do i believe that this law would be open to mass interpretation but any ruling by a judge who had an offender before him because of this, would interpret it as to general and therefor set a president that is legal to hold images of this nature.
I really would not be concerned about this legislation unless your already doing something illegal.
webtease requests? msg me here first then add me to msn, [email protected] (e-mail doesn't work so don't e-mail that address)
what is written below is true
--------------------------------
what is written above is a lie
what is written below is true
--------------------------------
what is written above is a lie
I agree with you alpahde5.But then,we must define what illegal means.Does smoking a joint of marihuana makes one a criminal,worthy of years in prison?alpahde5 wrote:
I really would not be concerned about this legislation unless your already doing something illegal.
Is anal sex illegal?...I don't know,I'm asking.In some arabic countries it's illegal for a woman to not wear a veil.The punishement is death by stoning.I guess this illegal thing is subject to the cultures and traditions.
Defining what's illegal could be a tricky undertaking.Giving power to people to define what illegal means could be worse,because next time around they'll take away every bit of freedom you have.
Hi Binary, thankyou for pointing out the distinction between having sexual thoughts and having material intended to arouse them. It is an important distinction.
But I feel that the Bill represents thought crime nonetheless. Because non- sexual material of identical topics are to remain lawful. The point of the Law would be to punish the sexuality of the people who own the material, not the material or its originators.
It would be okay to screen real- life crucifixions (as Channel 5 did last year) but not to own a picture of somebody being crucified if a Judge and Jury are convinced that your reason for owning it is because it turns you on. And no-one will be able to know ahead of any Court hearing whether image X or book Y qualifies as "extreme pornography" in the eyes of this Law. (From Orwell to Kafka in a single bound!)
So long as it's only supposedly sexual imagery which is to be subject to the Law, it is only the sexuality of possible future offenders which will be punished.
I believe that the only way to be safe, if the Law is enacted, will be to own *no* pornography at all. So to that extent, I agree that the Law is about possession as such.
But if you have been interested in sex all your life, and the Police know it, they are unlikely to know that you have obligingly destroyed all your porn before they break into your house at four a.m. to arrest you and possibly shoot you too.
But I feel that the Bill represents thought crime nonetheless. Because non- sexual material of identical topics are to remain lawful. The point of the Law would be to punish the sexuality of the people who own the material, not the material or its originators.
It would be okay to screen real- life crucifixions (as Channel 5 did last year) but not to own a picture of somebody being crucified if a Judge and Jury are convinced that your reason for owning it is because it turns you on. And no-one will be able to know ahead of any Court hearing whether image X or book Y qualifies as "extreme pornography" in the eyes of this Law. (From Orwell to Kafka in a single bound!)
So long as it's only supposedly sexual imagery which is to be subject to the Law, it is only the sexuality of possible future offenders which will be punished.
I believe that the only way to be safe, if the Law is enacted, will be to own *no* pornography at all. So to that extent, I agree that the Law is about possession as such.
But if you have been interested in sex all your life, and the Police know it, they are unlikely to know that you have obligingly destroyed all your porn before they break into your house at four a.m. to arrest you and possibly shoot you too.
Hi alpahde5
It worries me that so many new things have become illegal over the past few years, that none of us know really what is and what is not lawful any more. This Bill muddies the water even more, because it does not define what the banned types of material are precisely, but leaves issues like "intention to cause sexual arousal" and "serious injury" vague. Over 3,000 new Criminal offences in the past decade. Can you really be sure you are within the Law?
But I feel the most pernicious aspect of this Bill is that it makes a state of mind punishable. If the State can define what is and is not acceptable to think and feel- the precedent this Bill seems to me to represent- in one sphere, it will surely do so in others.
Freedom of thought and freedom of conscience are indivisible. Take them away from one person and you take them away from everybody,
forever
It worries me that so many new things have become illegal over the past few years, that none of us know really what is and what is not lawful any more. This Bill muddies the water even more, because it does not define what the banned types of material are precisely, but leaves issues like "intention to cause sexual arousal" and "serious injury" vague. Over 3,000 new Criminal offences in the past decade. Can you really be sure you are within the Law?
But I feel the most pernicious aspect of this Bill is that it makes a state of mind punishable. If the State can define what is and is not acceptable to think and feel- the precedent this Bill seems to me to represent- in one sphere, it will surely do so in others.
Freedom of thought and freedom of conscience are indivisible. Take them away from one person and you take them away from everybody,
forever
Hey,diddums.diddums wrote:Hi alpahde5
It worries me that so many new things have become illegal over the past few years, that none of us know really what is and what is not lawful any more. This Bill muddies the water even more, because it does not define what the banned types of material are precisely, but leaves issues like "intention to cause sexual arousal" and "serious injury" vague. Over 3,000 new Criminal offences in the past decade. Can you really be sure you are within the Law?
But I feel the most pernicious aspect of this Bill is that it makes a state of mind punishable. If the State can define what is and is not acceptable to think and feel- the precedent this Bill seems to me to represent- in one sphere, it will surely do so in others.
Freedom of thought and freedom of conscience are indivisible. Take them away from one person and you take them away from everybody,
forever
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_3lMpSD ... ed&search=
Watch this,and always look of the bright side of life.
That was an english whom wrote that...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_3lMpSD ... ed&search=
And tell alpahde5 to devise some new coded where he can truly ban danny,and NOT brag about that he can.diddums wrote:Hi alpahde5
It worries me that so many new things have become illegal over the past few years, that none of us know really what is and what is not lawful any more. This Bill muddies the water even more, because it does not define what the banned types of material are precisely, but leaves issues like "intention to cause sexual arousal" and "serious injury" vague. Over 3,000 new Criminal offences in the past decade. Can you really be sure you are within the Law?
But I feel the most pernicious aspect of this Bill is that it makes a state of mind punishable. If the State can define what is and is not acceptable to think and feel- the precedent this Bill seems to me to represent- in one sphere, it will surely do so in others.
Freedom of thought and freedom of conscience are indivisible. Take them away from one person and you take them away from everybody,
forever
love,danny
Can't resist anymore. Must reply to thread. Cus' it speaks to my core beliefs.... 
Maybe it's just demographics, maybe it's because I'm too arrogant (I think I make good choices, so I'd rather not other people make them for me) or maybe because I'm such a rebel, but I just love freedom. Problem is, freedom is so damn hard to defend if it is chipped away slowly enough. I think this particular law is indeed symptomatic. It feels like we're moving backwards.
The problem is: Freedom always loses in any argument. Do you want people to DIE from second hand smoke just to keep a little freedom? Do you want people to DIE from terrorists just to keep a little freedom? And on and on. The problem is that freedom is so elusive. Yes we kind of didn't have it and then there we're revolutions, wars and what not to get it, so it's gotta be worth something, right?
I'm German. My grand-ma got 92 yesterday. That means I heard how fast your freedom can slip right through your fingers. Adolf Hitler was Time Magazine Man of the Year 1938 and everyone was happy: Trade in a little freedom for all the big problem this man solved. Ok, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. A government MUST NOT be able to control their people, otherwise you get a feedback loop like holding a microphone to big stadium speakers. Now, please, I don't think Bush (or Blair) compares to Hitler. But people are making the same dumb decisions and in many ways go in the same dumb direction again. What scares me is that this time we have better technology. And technology moves the balance towards the bad guys.
So much for my rant. Sorry if you feel it's a bit off topic, but I can't just talk about only one piece of the puzzle.
Maybe it's just demographics, maybe it's because I'm too arrogant (I think I make good choices, so I'd rather not other people make them for me) or maybe because I'm such a rebel, but I just love freedom. Problem is, freedom is so damn hard to defend if it is chipped away slowly enough. I think this particular law is indeed symptomatic. It feels like we're moving backwards.
The problem is: Freedom always loses in any argument. Do you want people to DIE from second hand smoke just to keep a little freedom? Do you want people to DIE from terrorists just to keep a little freedom? And on and on. The problem is that freedom is so elusive. Yes we kind of didn't have it and then there we're revolutions, wars and what not to get it, so it's gotta be worth something, right?
I'm German. My grand-ma got 92 yesterday. That means I heard how fast your freedom can slip right through your fingers. Adolf Hitler was Time Magazine Man of the Year 1938 and everyone was happy: Trade in a little freedom for all the big problem this man solved. Ok, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. A government MUST NOT be able to control their people, otherwise you get a feedback loop like holding a microphone to big stadium speakers. Now, please, I don't think Bush (or Blair) compares to Hitler. But people are making the same dumb decisions and in many ways go in the same dumb direction again. What scares me is that this time we have better technology. And technology moves the balance towards the bad guys.
So much for my rant. Sorry if you feel it's a bit off topic, but I can't just talk about only one piece of the puzzle.
You speak pretty good english for a german.seraph0x wrote: I'm German. My grand-ma got 92 yesterday.
And may your grand-ma live 1000 years.
He was?..I didn't know that..you have a link to back up your claims?...If he was..then amazing stuff,because he was sheer EVIL in my books.seraph0x wrote:That means I heard how fast your freedom can slip right through your fingers. Adolf Hitler was Time Magazine Man of the Year 1938 and everyone was happy:
They are not hitlers.seraph0x wrote:Trade in a little freedom for all the big problem this man solved. Ok, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. A government MUST NOT be able to control their people, otherwise you get a feedback loop like holding a microphone to big stadium speakers. Now, please, I don't think Bush (or Blair) compares to Hitler.
Not really..we have good guys,like you,seraph0x..you are a good guy.BE AS YOU CAN BE!!!..fight the bad guys,dear..seraph0x wrote:But people are making the same dumb decisions and in many ways go in the same dumb direction again. What scares me is that this time we have better technology. And technology moves the balance towards the bad guys.
love,danny
Re: UK Thought crime
Yes I can.ghazken wrote:dannywanker wrote:lol..that's why the 98% sexporn sites are from US?
Care to back up that number with some facts?
ConversationsResource Center
Statistics
Sex in America
* 134,000 new cases of syphilis are occurring each year, the highest infection rate in 40 years.
* 1.3 million new gonorrhea cases occur annually.
* 24 million new cases of human papilloma virus (HPV) occur annually, including a high percentage among teens.
* 63% of all sexually transmitted disease (STD) cases occur among people less than 25 years of age.
* AIDS is the leading killer of Americans between the ages of 25 and 44.
* Condoms provide virtually no protection against an STD called the human papillloma virus (HPV). HPV is the most common medical problem seen by gynecologists and causes almost all cervical cancer in the U.S.
If you are a UK resident, and if you value your freedom of thought and conscience, please sign
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/extreme-images/
Thankyou
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/extreme-images/
Thankyou
all i am gona say is i dont want to talk about it any more lol, this is supposed to be my summer before i go back to do more of this crap lol.
But firstly, your absolutely right freedoms and civil liberties are always at risk to someone, the law isn't perfect but its the best system we have, so minorities will always feel oppression untill you can devise a new system of social stability that will always be the case (long live communism)
But this act if passed is not concentrated on pornography, it is more to do with youth offenders and immigration and if you look at other pieces of 'porn law' there really isn't anything new, just a strengthening of already existing laws.
Now im gona get back to my cocktail and bbq,
But firstly, your absolutely right freedoms and civil liberties are always at risk to someone, the law isn't perfect but its the best system we have, so minorities will always feel oppression untill you can devise a new system of social stability that will always be the case (long live communism)
But this act if passed is not concentrated on pornography, it is more to do with youth offenders and immigration and if you look at other pieces of 'porn law' there really isn't anything new, just a strengthening of already existing laws.
Now im gona get back to my cocktail and bbq,
webtease requests? msg me here first then add me to msn, [email protected] (e-mail doesn't work so don't e-mail that address)
what is written below is true
--------------------------------
what is written above is a lie
what is written below is true
--------------------------------
what is written above is a lie