Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

David Cameron urges internet firms to block child abuse images

articul8 said:
assume so, but is there any evidence for this? And wouldn't it be better to deal with this by being open with teenagers about importance of consent, damaging impact of sexual violence and importance of recognising fantasy as just that?
Click to expand...
No evidence as I said none.

However there is an increasingly vocal number of people who have sadly been raped by people who amongst their various many issues have an unhealthy obsession with rape porn because the offenders and attackers watched it. They also ate cornflakes, drank sharaz and shopped in tesco though of course those things are still all legal and have about as much bearing on it as the porn did.

Unless we now live in a world where watching something means we are uncontrollably compelled to reenact it.

In which case I do hope all those who watch the Woolwich murder on youtube will be handing themselves in instantly the potentially solider killing bastards...
 
GarfieldLeChat said:
Lots. It will in effect criminalise perfectly legal activities between consenting adults.



Again lots already been many convictions for it even when all parties confirmed consent.
Click to expand...


Can you elaborate more on these cases, do you have any links? I don't understand what you mean when you say "even when all parties confirmed consent". we are talking about Section 63 fo the CJIA 2008, yes? That criminalizes the possession of extreme porn images. Who were these consenting adults? The ones who appeared on the photos? and how could a court track down the "performers"?
 
GarfieldLeChat said:
yes as in actually pornography as opposed to child 'porn' which whilst being pornographic isn't pornography but evidence of abuse as is apparent to all but you.

I take it that you classify it as being porn ...there's always been a touch of saville about you :p ;)
Click to expand...

i was surprised about you drawing a distinction between gay porn and 'real porn', by which i suppose you mean straight porn.
 
articul8 said:
That's why I don't see the need for this "simulated rape" stuff - if it's rape, it's a crime. If it's simulated by consent, it's not rape
Click to expand...

As far as Cameron is trying to sell this, though, the assumption to be made (by he and those he's trying to get behind him) is that seeing simulated rape will deprave anyone viewing it, at least if they're members of the lower orders, who don't have the advanced moral development of your average Oxbridger.
 
Itziko said:
Can you elaborate more on these cases, do you have any links? I don't understand what you mean when you say "even when all parties confirmed consent". we are talking about Section 63 fo the CJIA 2008, yes? That criminalizes the possession of extreme porn images. Who were these consenting adults? The ones who appeared on the photos? and how could a court track down the "performers"?
Click to expand...
The case which is most famous and actually the one which has lead to a lot of law being based around it is the R V Brown case where a number of lads nailed their penises to a board for sexual gratification. Even though they all consented they were convicted and it has lead to the start of the extreme pornography laws we have now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Brown
 
weltweit said:
I think the thinking is that even watching simulated consensual rape encourages actual rape and or sexual violence in the real world.
Click to expand...

That's not "thinking", it's the epitome of not thinking, given that 40 years of research hasn't been able to nail occurrence of sexual and physical violence to exposure to representations of sexual and physical violence. That's why the scares about porn (from page 3 to Deep Throat), about "video nasties" and about "violent games" never get aanywhere - because the evidence pro such arguments is thin on the ground and/or partisan.
 
ViolentPanda said:
That's not "thinking", it's the epitome of not thinking, given that 40 years of research hasn't been able to nail occurrence of sexual and physical violence to exposure to representations of sexual and physical violence. That's why the scares about porn (from page 3 to Deep Throat), about "video nasties" and about "violent games" never get aanywhere - because the evidence pro such arguments is thin on the ground and/or partisan.
Click to expand...

Actually I listened to a researcher on the radio not much more than perhaps a month ago who said that they wanted to prove a causal link between violent pornography and actual violence sexual or otherwise but the only way to viably do this was to expose subjects to violent imagery and then monitor the actual violence that they went on to do. And that meant that they, the researchers, would have been liable for any and all actual violence their experiment created. Hence no one has done the research.
 
Pickman's model said:
i was surprised about you drawing a distinction between gay porn and 'real porn', by which i suppose you mean straight porn.
Click to expand...
that's your comparison not mine love.

I said it's like the distinction between real porn as in pornography and child rape material. as in there's no direct correlation between them or indeed between gay porn and child porn as per the original comment

Why, surely gay porn has little to do with rape?
Click to expand...

which of course it doesn't any more than any porn of any type IE real porn as opposed to child rape material.

There's often, I conceed a point to your pedantry, in this case however you've gone far of base and interpretted something which wasn't there and also rather offensive.

If you'd like to cite something where I state that there is a material difference between gay and straight porn and that one would be real and the other not real in terms of pornography, whilst also pointless derailing the thread with mindless and ill informed pedantry be my guest... but you'll be doing it in a party of one.

Alternatively you could just say sorry was being a dick needless for once...

Care to discuss the topic? ever?
 
One interesting thing I saw earlier was a person backing these new laws stating that something needs to be done as pornography these days is not the pornography parents themselves saw as teenagers, as it's much stronger.

Which is exactly the same argument used against cannabis legalisation.

ironically of course, the porn industry these days is in many instances safer and less exploitative than it used to be in the 70's and 80's.
 
GarfieldLeChat said:
The case which is most famous and actually the one which has lead to a lot of law being based around it is the R V Brown case where a number of lads nailed their penises to a board for sexual gratification. Even though they all consented they were convicted and it has lead to the start of the extreme pornography laws we have now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Brown
Click to expand...

Ah, but that's the Spanner case, which goes back to 1993, before the extreme porn images legislation came about. It's about real life activities between consenting adults. Different subject to rape porn or extreme images.

We are discussing watching and possession of porn here, not real life sexual activities. For an update on how the possession of photos taken by the defendant or where the defendant appears or take part, fast forward 19 years to 2012's Fisting Trial of Simon Walsh, who was found to have images of fisting performed at gay clubs and who was charged under the extreme porn images legislation. He was acquitted on all counts.

The most memorable part of the trial was when a proctologist from St Thomas' Hospital, who appeared as expert witness, explained that he had never known of any injuries caused by fisting, but that tit could still cause "a rectal prolapse". Then the defendant was asked during cross-examination:

"Mr Walsh: would you welcome a rectal prolapse?" :D

The Twitterverse went mental.
 
RoyReed said:
Excellent article on Paul Bernal's blog: 10 questions about Cameron’s ‘new’ porn-blocking
Click to expand...

This point in particular:

10 Do you really think these plans will stop the ‘corrosion’ of childhood?

That’s my biggest question. As I’ve blogged before, I suspect this whole thing misses the point. It perpetuates a myth that you can make the internet a ‘safe’ place, and absolves parents of the real responsibility they have for helping their kids to grow up as savvy, wary and discerning internet users. It creates a straw man – the corrosion of childhood, such as it exists, comes from a much broader societal problem than internet porn, and if you focus only on internet porn, you can miss all the rest.

Plans like these, worthy though they may appear, do not, to me, seem likely to be in any way effective – the real ‘bad guys’ will find ways around them, the material will still exist, will keep being created, and we’ll pretend to have solved the problem – and at the same time put in a structure to allow censorship, create a deeply vulnerable database of ‘untrustworthy people’, and potentially alienate many of the most important companies on the internet. I’m not convinced it’s a good idea. To say the least.
Click to expand...


Boris Sprinkler said:
They sound brilliant. A+A that is.
Click to expand...
They're the best ISP I have been with, outstanding service but they're no use for me really (as I found out). Their bandwidth allowance is meagre and if you want extra it's a small fortune for ADSL. Fibre optic / ADSL2 is of course much cheaper but not available nationwide.

Big ISPs are always shit. Stick to the small ones :)
 
Itziko said:
Ah, but that's the Spanner case, which goes back to 1993, before the extreme porn images legislation came about. It's about real life activities between consenting adults. Different subject to rape porn or extreme images.

We are discussing watching and possession of porn here, not real life sexual activities. For an update on how the possession of photos taken by the defendant or where the defendant appears or take part, fast forward 19 years to 2012's Fisting Trial of Simon Walsh, who was found to have images of fisting performed at gay clubs and who was charged under the extreme porn images legislation. He was acquitted on all counts.

The most memorable part of the trial was when a proctologist from St Thomas' Hospital, who appeared as expert witness, explained that he had never known of any injuries caused by fisting, but that tit could still cause "a rectal prolapse". Then the defendant was asked during cross-examination:

"Mr Walsh: would you welcome a rectal prolapse?" :D

The Twitterverse went mental.
Click to expand...

:D

It was the case which started the legislation however and has been used time and again as the precedent as a result of the case outcome to legitimise other ruling since that.

Many, many pro dom/Domme sites have been taken down in the last few months after failing to comply with the ATVOD rules about age verification. They are being taken down under the extreme pornography and also as it's not really their remit but they are treating it as a TV like service allowing them to do it.

There's a massive attack on sex and sex related activities at present in the UK, as with all these things it distracts from the failure of the economic plans...
 
rape_of_lucretia-400.jpg


Titian. Seems to tick all the boxes for a banning.
 
GarfieldLeChat said:
... There's a massive attack on sex and sex related activities at present in the UK, as with all these things it distracts from the failure of the economic plans...
Click to expand...
I am so hoping some tory MPs are outed for dubious porn viewing ....

And I bet there are some journalists on the hunt.
 
Here's the letter sent to the ISPs by the Department for Education, unedited and in full:


Dear All,

I am emailing to ask for some specific action which the prime minister plans to announce shortly. This follows a meeting yesterday at No 10 yesterday to discuss a range of child internet safety issues including parental controls and filters. The prime minister would like to make some further specific requests of industry and his office have asked us to ask you when you could deliver the following actions.

1. Implementing browser intercept

I understand that Talk Talk will be trialling a "browser intercept" to force existing customers to choose either to proceed with parental controls (pre-ticked), choose their own settings or turn them off completely. The prime minister wants to announce that by the end of the year, every household with a broadband internet connection will have had to make a decision to "opt-out" of installing filters. Will the other three ISPs consider making a commitment to adopting this approach - even before it has been trialled?

2. Age-verification systems/closed-loop

The prime minister expects customers to be required to prove their age/identity before any changes to the filters are made. I understand that you will all be implementing "closed-loop" systems which will notify account holders of any changes that are made to the filters and that you have robust systems in place but please could you all confirm the precise information that is required to enable customer to access, set-up and change their filters?

3. Awareness campaign for parents

I understand that it was agreed at Claire Perry's meeting a few weeks ago that Talk Talk, BT and others would undertake some further research to establish what the focus of the campaign should be. The prime minister would like to be able to announce a collective financial commitment from industry to fund this campaign. I know that it will be challenging for you to commit to an unknown campaign but please can you indicate what sum you will pledge to this work that the PM can announce.

4. Using the phrase "default-on" instead of "active-choice +"

The prime minister believes that there is much more that we can all do to improve how we communicate the current position on parental internet controls and that there is a need for a simplified message to reassure parents and the public more generally. Without changing what you will be offering (ie active-choice +), the prime minister would like to be able to refer to your solutions are "default-on" as people will have to make a choice not to have the filters (by unticking the box). Can you consider how to include this language (or similar) in the screens that begin the set-up process? For example, "this connection includes family-friendly filters as default [or as standard] - if you do not want to install this protection please un-tick the box" (obviously not intended to be drafting). Would you be able to commit to including "default-on" or similar language both in the set-up screen and public messaging?

We are all aware of the really excellent work that you are doing and but there are a number of specific areas that the prime minister thinks need further immediate action. You are likely to receive a further message from colleagues in DCMS and the Home Office regarding tackling illegal images but given the short deadline for this work we thought it better to give you some time to work on these issues in the meantime. I need to report back to No 10 by the end of the week on these points so I would be grateful if you could consider this request as a matter of urgency and respond by midday Friday.

Apologies for the very tight deadline and grateful for your help with this work.
Click to expand...
 
GarfieldLeChat said:
:D

It was the case which started the legislation however and has been used time and again as the precedent as a result of the case outcome to legitimise other ruling since that.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree on that. The Spanner case was about real life activities, which incidentally, aren't illegal (think of genital piercing). The Extreme Porn legislation is about possession of 'extreme" images > People have been charged under that legislation not for what thy do, but for what they have in their hard drive.

GarfieldLeChat said:
Many, many pro dom/Domme sites have been taken down in the last few months after failing to comply with the ATVOD rules about age verification. They are being taken down under the extreme pornography and also as it's not really their remit but they are treating it as a TV like service allowing them to do it.

There's a massive attack on sex and sex related activities at present in the UK, as with all these things it distracts from the failure of the economic plans...
Click to expand...

No Por-Dommes website that I know of has been charged under Section 63. You are right about ATVOD, but people have taken their websites down as a preventive measure because ATVOD's guidelines are to put it mildly, very confusing.

In fact, you are wrong about ATVOD: their remit IS to rule which websites that offer "television on demand services".

What ATVOD's remit IS NOT, is to decide on moral policing. That's why they send these websites which (according, again, to their confusing and vague guidelines), don't do enough to prevent minors from viewing their material, to OFCOM. But to get shopped to OFCOM, you have to be declared a TV on demand service first.

So ATVOD have been very lenient in allowing non-adult websites to get scott free, whilst adult ones have been treated very harshly and almost always, declared a "TV on demand service". With the sole purpose of shopping them to OFCOM.

Yes, there is currently a massive attack on everything to do with sex, porn, and specially, the internet.
 
GarfieldLeChat said:
that's your comparison not mine love.

I said it's like the distinction between real porn as in pornography and child rape material. as in there's no direct correlation between them or indeed between gay porn and child porn as per the original comment



which of course it doesn't any more than any porn of any type IE real porn as opposed to child rape material.

There's often, I conceed a point to your pedantry, in this case however you've gone far of base and interpretted something which wasn't there and also rather offensive.

If you'd like to cite something where I state that there is a material difference between gay and straight porn and that one would be real and the other not real in terms of pornography, whilst also pointless derailing the thread with mindless and ill informed pedantry be my guest... but you'll be doing it in a party of one.

Alternatively you could just say sorry was being a dick needless for once...

Care to discuss the topic? ever?
Click to expand...

or you could simply say you expressed yourself poorly and we could move on
 
Itziko said:
The most memorable part of the trial was when a proctologist from St Thomas' Hospital, who appeared as expert witness, explained that he had never known of any injuries caused by fisting, but that tit could still cause "a rectal prolapse". Then the defendant was asked during cross-examination:
Click to expand...

this most important point about this case is the judge said it should be seen as a test case. this exposes the problem with the proposed new laws, which is that if it takes a judge and jury to decide whether looking at something is illegal, then how the fuck is someone supposed to know if they are breaking the law - particularly as the only possible way to even guess whether something is illegal or not is to watch it and therefore commit the offence
 
smokedout said:
this most important point about this case is the judge said it should be seen as a test case. this exposes the problem with the proposed new laws, which is that if it takes a judge and jury to decide whether looking at something is illegal, then how the fuck is someone supposed to know if they are breaking the law - particularly as the only possible way to even guess whether something is illegal or not is to watch it and therefore commit the offence
Click to expand...

People often ask Backlash (who jsut released a statement on the proposed ban of rape porn): is this or that illegal to watch? And the only possible answer is "we don't know, it'd have to be tested in court." It's a total waste of public money.

The good news is that, after acquittals such as Walsh's, the CPS has dropped a few cases they knew weren't worth going to court to for.
 
Does anyone know if they're planning to filter out anything else apart from porn?

what about if say a survivor of sexual abuse as a child searches on google for a forum for other people that had their experiences? would that be blocked too because of the search terms?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jeff Robinson
Thread to document institutional animal abuse
2
Replies
52
Views
2K
bcuster
bcuster
Humberto
David Cameron is a walking disaster. And war criminal.
Replies
12
Views
753
Mation
Mation
Kid_Eternity
David Lammy’s time is up
Replies
11
Views
686
Whagwan
Whagwan
Pickman's model
david cameron's time is up again
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
190
Views
10K
brogdale
brogdale
PTK
Fire in Tower Block in Dagenham, London, Monday 26 August 2024.
Replies
27
Views
1K
moochedit
moochedit
Back
Top Bottom