h a l f b a k e r yTempus fudge-it.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
A recent legal case here in the UK
attempted to link the use of extreme
pornography with rape and murder. As a
result, there have been calls here to ban
access to such sites.
Troublingly though, who decides what is
'extreme'? With child pornography, it's
possibly clear what's illegal and
what's
offensive-but-legal, but with violent
porn,
it's harder to decide. It will be one
person's judgement against another's.
The
government will be checking internet
logs
for downloads from these sites, but will
not be letting the public know which
sites
they deem to be offensive.
I would favour a browser toolbar which
links to a governmental list for your
country. Like a pop-up blocker, it will
block access to sites deemed illegal in
your country. It protects those innocently
stumbling across such material, further,
it
stops those innadvertantly using material
that he/she may believe is ok, but the
government do not.
Summary : A browser toolbar that blocks
access to sites deemed illegal in your
country, powered by a governmental
(federal or state) masterlist.
(?) Spiked: Indecent proposals
http://www.spiked-o...le/0000000CAD3E.htm
"It's not just perverts who should be worried about the government's proposed ban on violent pornography." [jutta, Sep 11 2005]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Please yourself. Personally I feel I abdicate enough responsibility to the government and am unwilling to let them dictate where I wander. Besides, if the government had this nailed down how would kazaa etc. have lasted so long? Can't help feeling trust placed in the government with respect to t'internet is misplaced. |
|
| |
[moomintroll]. I have very little trust in
the government with respect to the
internet *but* they, and the police, are
the legislative body and thus, if they say
'no', then 'no' it is. I'm not asking them
to act as a moral guardian, but of
course that's effectively what they are. |
|
| |
I'm simply asking for a warning or even
a block to stop users going to web
pages that *they* deem we shouldn't. If
their rules on internet access apply,
which they do, why not just tell us
which sites they state are unacceptable?
Fair's fair. |
|
| |
"Warning: your government may not approve of the contents of this site" sort of thing? Hmm. Depends what grounds they disapproved of it. "Warning: this site infringes decency laws in your country" would probably not bother me - until I'd actually gone and had a look and realized how permissive the state really is... |
|
| |
It's a good idea, but I'm still a bit ambivalent. |
|
| |
// "Warning: this site infringes decency
laws in your country" // Exactly. Now, this
toolbar acts exactly like a pop-up blocker.
You then make the *choice* to go and
unblock it, but you do so at your own legal
risk. |
|
| |
The legislation in question is a terrible idea, and I'm surprised you'd want anything to do with it. |
|
| |
Totally agree that the proposed legislation
is a farce, but that said, the law is likely to
be enforced. This tool is not to *enforce*
the law, rather, allow users to keep on the
right side of it. |
|
| |
here goes : The government believes a
list of [x] sites are illegal according to
the new law. It publishes a list - this is
new. |
|
| |
This list is used by the toolbar. It warns
interneters that they are about to go to
a website deemed illegal. You may not
agree, you can still visit if you wish.
However, the police believe it to be
illegal and will be prosecuting if you
visit. |
|
| |
It would not be impossible. It simply
relies on the police publishing a list of
urls that it will prosecute against. This
list, whilst dynamic, already exists since
they use it when performing checks via
ISPs. The change here is making it
public and making it useable by a
toolbar. |
|
| |
Thanks [jutta], interesting article. Leaving aside the horrendous fact of an investigation which prompted 33 innocent people to commit suicide, it's an important question, whether the act of simply looking at something should be illegal. |
|
| |
I dunno. Looking at something might be an important precursor to doing something naughty (stalking, spying, doing bad things to children, etc.), but I'm having difficulty finding a situation where it should be illegal in itself. I agree with the author of that article that we're really straying into precrime territory here. |
|
| |
Therefore, I find it difficult to care whether the government disapproves of my reading matter. Which brings me full circle, to: please yourself. |
|
| |
If you are really bothered as a government I would suggest getting your heads together with other governments and tackling the internet sources.
This, of course, is too difficult. |
|
| |
// I find it difficult to care whether the government disapproves of my reading matter // you'll care when you get arrested for it, that being my point. |
|
| |
I don't wish to debate the whys and wherefores of the practicality of the law, whether viewing material is a precursor to committing a crime or even if viewing material should be a crime in itself. The reality is, it *will* be a crime. This tool I hope allows people who wish to be completely law abiding, to be so, even if they believe the law is an ass. It's like an internet speed camera detector. |
|
| |
if there was such a thing, would it sooner (probably than later) become mandatory in itself? |
|
| |
in the meantime, not possessing one would indicate your guilty intentions. |
|
| |
(Sorry for being so brief but there are just too many reasons to list - and I feel my blood pressure rising for some unknown reason) |
|
| |
I'm not sure governments decide on matters of taste and decency - juries do. |
|
| |
The underlying problem is that violent pornography *does* inspire acts of violence and murder. The Moors murderers were infamously inspired by de Sade's writings, for example. |
|
| |
The key issue is how to distinguish the "normal" portion of the population who can read de Sade, say, and be either amused or appalled, but otherwise unmoved, from the "abnormal" portion, who will read such books and become further depraved. |
|
| |
Ironically, if I had my druthers, people who think they can separate "normal" people form "abnormal" people - especially when it comes to sex - simply wouldn't be allowed to participate in public discourse. Teams in hazmat suits would pop from the ceiling like something in Monsters, Inc. and gently relocate them to fenced-in meadows with no sharp objects where they could mill about and give speeches to each other. |
|
| |
If we're truly making it a crime to engage in communication that inspired acts of violence and murder, churches and polititians have a major problem on their hands. |
|
| |
I'm not at all sure I like the new vagueislation, nor the
principle of getting permission for what I read and watch.
I will however bun this as a good attempt to navigate a
very difficult field. |
|
| |
I’m guessing that none of you guys live in the Middle East. I am so used to visiting sites that are blocked by the national service providers. Literally, anything to do with sex or gambling is blocked. Including, until recently and not surprisingly the website of Scunthorpe United Football Club. |
|
| |
[benindubai] Anything on Clitheroe, Lancashire? |
|
| |
D'oh! Having mentioned that, I doubt you'll find [benindubai] permitted back to this page to comment... |
|
| |
Scunthorpe? not surprising if you think about it. |
|
| |
I think this is a good idea. Same as we cannot buy books and magazines about violent sex acts, it should be made impossible to download. We should leave the discussion of exactly what is made illegal to the politicians, we can vote. |
|
| |