UK to censor online videos of 'non-conventional' sex acts

[FridgeMagnet]

You need to look at the amendments e.g. House of Commons Public Bill Committee Amendments: Digital Economy Bill, As Amended pages 1-7

All of them listed here: Bill documents — Digital Economy Bill 2016-17 — UK Parliament

 

[Johnny Vodka]

Fuck it, VPN all the way. The best VPN is actually dirt cheap, less than £4 a month. All should be good until they ban VPN. Utter cunts - we've gone from maybe 15 years of pretty much real freedom (in terms of access to prOn and legal highs) back to the fucking old days. I'd rather online freedom with a few rough, undesirable edges (to which the answer should be education) to this back-to-the-BBFC shit, which we all thought we'd left.

 

[Raheem]

Along with smut sites, David Cameron's porn filter has inadvertently blocked plenty of websites aiming to educate and inform about sex-related issues, as well as those reporting on news of torrent sites. Now the UK government is finally getting to work on allowing access to those wrongly-blocked sites, the BBC reports.

Porn filters have a long history of blocking other stuff besides porn. But what we are talking about here isn't a porn filter.

 

[Obediah Marsh]

All should be good until they ban VPN.

Well yes. This will be pointless unless accompanied by a VPN ban. Is anyone proposing that yet?

 

[Fez909]

Porn filters have a long history of blocking other stuff besides porn. But what we are talking about here isn't a porn filter.

You're right. This story is closer to what will [probably] happen:

Wikipedia ban lifted by UK's Internet Watch Foundation

 

[mather]

And you know what, leaving aside the issue of extended censorship of "proper" politics, the sort of thing that the Guardian might defend - let's be clear, this is already political censorship, it's blocking stuff for political reasons and nothing else. Why should there be an unaccountable body that decides what can be portrayed for their own reasons?

This is a really silly criticism, of course any decision the government takes (on any issue) is going to be political and had the government ruled the other way that too would have been a political decision. I'm not in favour of this policy by the way, just that to criticise this decision because it was political is nonsensical.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

Well yes. This will be pointless unless accompanied by a VPN ban. Is anyone proposing that yet?

Not at the moment. But if suddenly half the uk turn to vpn, there will be..

 

[Raheem]

You're right. This story is closer to what will [probably] happen:

Wikipedia ban lifted by UK's Internet Watch Foundation

That's not a video, so it seems like it wouldn't be covered.

This:

Spoiler: NSFW

File:L'heure du thé.ogv - Wikimedia Commons

Could arguably be caught, which you might disagree with, but you can hardly say it isn't porn.

 

[Fez909]

That's not a video, so it seems like it wouldn't be covered.

This:

Spoiler: NSFW

File:L'heure du thé.ogv - Wikimedia Commons

Could arguably be caught, which you might disagree with, but you can hardly say it isn't porn.

I know it wouldn't be covered, just as Wikipedia shouldn't have been covered by the IWF ban on child pornography sites. But it was.

And things that should not be banned by this new law will be banned. That's the point I was trying to make. Websites will be blocked that this law was not meant to cover, whether they're pornographic or not.

Wikipedia is not a child porn website, but it was blocked using child porn laws/filters. That's why I posted this, as it proves your statement:

It really is difficult to see how you could have a situation where it gets used to apply to something that isn't pornography.

...is, at best, naive.

 

[kittyP]

That's not a video, so it seems like it wouldn't be covered.

This:

Spoiler: NSFW

File:L'heure du thé.ogv - Wikimedia Commons

Could arguably be caught, which you might disagree with, but you can hardly say it isn't porn.

Edited my post as I misunderstood x

 

[Raheem]

I know it wouldn't be covered, just as Wikipedia shouldn't have been covered by the IWF ban on child pornography sites. But it was.

And things that should not be banned by this new law will be banned. That's the point I was trying to make. Websites will be blocked that this law was not meant to cover, whether they're pornographic or not.

Wikipedia is not a child porn website, but it was blocked using child porn laws/filters. That's why I posted this, as it proves your statement:


...is, at best, naive.

OK. So what you're saying firstly is that in a previous case something shouldn't have been covered but was, but in this case it wouldn't be. That's actually the opposite of a problem, isn't it?

Secondly, you think things that shouldn't be banned by this new law will be. Shouldn't as in it's unacceptably illiberal to ban some types of porn I could accept - I don't actual know what types of porn would be excluded.

However, shouldn't as in unintended banning of Teletubbies or whatever - this doesn't seem likely, unless you can give an explanation as to how you think that might happen.

 

[Fez909]

However, shouldn't as in unintended banning of Teletubbies or whatever - this doesn't seem likely, unless you can give an explanation as to how you think that might happen.

If you can't link my previous post with this

However, shouldn't as in unintended banning of Teletubbies or whatever - this doesn't seem likely, unless you can give an explanation as to how you think that might happen.

Then I don't think I can help you. I thought it was clear, and I don't think I can explain it any better.

 

[Raheem]

If you can't link my previous post with this

Then I don't think I can help you. I thought it was clear, and I don't think I can explain it any better.

I don't follow this post - have you messed up a copy 'n' paste?

Your logic seems to be that there was some other non-mandatory system which was structured completely differently and it resulted in a temporary cock-up happening, so the same thing is bound to happen again. Even though you also seem to agree that it wouldn't.

I don't see how this makes sense.

 

[Orang Utan]

No imho it isn't porn.
Those people in the photo could be not in any way indulging in anything more than a kiss on the lips.
It's all just posing.
You see much more explicit stuff in old paintings that nobody really questions

it's a video, not a still and it has explicit sex in it - it's old school porn all right

 

[Fez909]

I don't follow this post - have you messed up a copy 'n' paste?

Your logic seems to be that there was some other non-mandatory system which was structured completely differently and it resulted in a temporary cock-up happening, so the same thing is bound to happen again. Even though you also seem to agree that it wouldn't.

I don't see how this makes sense.

The IWF is not voluntary Forgot the Cameron thing, I said in my second post the Wikipedia story was more likely to be repeated. IWF instructs BT (I believe they run the block) to block a site that carries child pornography. Once it's blocked, there's no way to access it from the UK.

1) Wikipedia is not a child porn website
2) the IWF incorrectly instructed BT to block a Wikipedia article
3) this block meant that some people were unable to access any Wikipedia article
4) a new category of block is coming, but it will likely use the same BT system
5) if Wikipedia can be blocked for one incorrectly categorized image, then a much smaller website could be blocked by a false claim under this new law that has much more ambiguous categories
6) This means that non-pornographic content could be blocked from UK internet users, despite your assertions that you cannot conceive of a way this might happen

 

[kittyP]

it's a video, not a still and it has explicit sex in it - it's old school porn all right

HA! Yes I now see,
I just got it as a still but have gone back and now see it as it is
Thank you for pointing it out

 

[Raheem]

The IWF is not voluntary Forgot the Cameron thing, I said in my second post the Wikipedia story was more likely to be repeated. IWF instructs BT (I believe they run the block) to block a site that carries child pornography. Once it's blocked, there's no way to access it from the UK.

1) Wikipedia is not a child porn website
2) the IWF incorrectly instructed BT to block a Wikipedia article
3) this block meant that some people were unable to access any Wikipedia article
4) a new category of block is coming, but it will likely use the same BT system
5) if Wikipedia can be blocked for one incorrectly categorized image, then a much smaller website could be blocked by a false claim under this new law that has much more ambiguous categories
6) This means that non-pornographic content could be blocked from UK internet users, despite your assertions that you cannot conceive of a way this might happen

No, it doesn't have much more ambiguous categories. AFAICT it only covers video, only covers porn, has a regulatory process involving notices and dialogue, excludes websites with low traffic, exempts any material that wouldn't get an 18 certificate (i.e. it can't apply to simple nudity or fetishes), is open to legal appeal.

There's no guarantee you won't get idiots running it. But that's no more an argument against this than it is against town planning or state education. In fact, it's less of an argument - since we'll never be rid of idiots, this sounds like a less risky place to put them. However, I'm finding it hard to see how there is an unacceptable risk of catching innocent websites in this. "It happened with not very dramatic consequences in another case that wasn't really comparable" isn't really an explanation. Have you actually read the Bill? Where, specifically, is it that you think it falls down?

 

[A380]

would you want your wife or servant watching Fisters of No Mercy #5?

No, but only because I thought that the franchise lost is way in terms of narrative sense of direction and character development in number4...

 

[mauvais]

Not at the moment. But if suddenly half the uk turn to vpn, there will be..

VPN has all kinds of common, legitimate usage - blocking it would be problematic in the extreme.

 

[keithy]

No, it doesn't have much more ambiguous categories. AFAICT it only covers video, only covers porn, has a regulatory process involving notices and dialogue, excludes websites with low traffic, exempts any material that wouldn't get an 18 certificate (i.e. it can't apply to simple nudity or fetishes), is open to legal appeal.

There's no guarantee you won't get idiots running it. But that's no more an argument against this than it is against town planning or state education. In fact, it's less of an argument - since we'll never be rid of idiots, this sounds like a less risky place to put them. However, I'm finding it hard to see how there is an unacceptable risk of catching innocent websites in this. "It happened with not very dramatic consequences in another case that wasn't really comparable" isn't really an explanation. Have you actually read the Bill? Where, specifically, is it that you think it falls down?

Actually it does cover many fetishes and even what I would consider vanilla natural things like female ejaculation and menstruation.

Fisting.

Anything that leaves a mark is considered violent so you cant even have light spanking.

Face sitting.

 

[Athos]

would you want your wife or servant watching Fisters of No Mercy #5?

There'd be no point; she'd not be able to follow the plot, having not seen numbers one to four.

 

[kabbes]

Make be it would turn out to be simpler to ban children?

 

[NoXion]

Female ejaculation ffs. Under what twisted bizarro reasoning is that supposed to be censored?

 

[Raheem]

Female ejaculation ffs. Under what twisted bizarro reasoning is that supposed to be censored?

The kind of reasoning where no-one can be bothered to fact-check, I suspect.

 

[Idaho]

VPN has all kinds of common, legitimate usage - blocking it would be problematic in the extreme.

Yep. People working from home, accessing the company network.

 

[pengaleng]

Female ejaculation ffs. Under what twisted bizarro reasoning is that supposed to be censored?

it's because they cant tell it apart from piss.

god forbid anyone gets a bit of wee wee on their skin.


RIP golden showers

 

[gentlegreen]

Urine used to be a valuable resource and people used to tread cloth in urine-filled tubs.

 

[Athos]

Urine used to be a valuable resource and people used to tread cloth in urine-filled tubs.

You try telling the court that 'Tango and Slash' is a documentary about early cloth production.

 

[pengaleng]

tanners init

 

[Nine Bob Note]

tanners init

"Leather is no longer permissible, heathen! What's wrong with M&S knickers?"