UK Vs. Freedom. Round ∞. Fight!

DarkSageRK

DarkSageRK

Banned
From: http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2009/03/09/uk-bans-loli-all-children-are-victims/ [Site is NSFW, but the words aren't, so I just quoted the entire article.]

The UK’s decline under illiberal socialist governance continues with the news that the UK is set to ban all drawn imagery of an erotic nature where the “impression” is that a participant or onlooker is a child, or rather is “under 18”.
The ban officially brands such imagery “disgusting”.
The laws in question, coming as part of the Coroners and Justice Bill, which looks set to come into effect without difficulty, set out a complete ban on possession of drawn pornography featuring underage participants, images where “the impression conveyed … is that the person shown is a child.” In this case child is simply defined as anyone under 18 years of age.
UK law already bans “pseudo-photographs” of underage sex, referring to images which have been Photoshopped or rendered with a computer; this new law is presented as “closing a loophole” as a result.
One of the major proponents of the bill even went so far as to suggest that prosecutions should be made for simple doodles:
“Let us assume that for the purpose of this argument he and I were separately doodling the sorts of images described in the measure and that once we finished we tore them up, threw them away, and showed them to nobody. Would he expect that that doodling should lead us to be prosecuted under the clause?”
​
George Howarth:
“[If] somebody retrieves it, and then it is discovered that it is grossly offensive, disgusting or of an otherwise obscene character—an image that could be of such a nature that it would be solely or principally used for the purpose of sexual arousal—what he had engaged in would be improper and should not be approved of or sanctioned by the law.”
​
An MP raises doubts over the complete lack of evidence underlying the bill, and the lack of any victims, but is told that “all children” are victims of the drawings:
“I am a little concerned that we are legislating without any evidence, because the risk to children could increase. If the evidence showed that having images that were not photographic acted as a release, and therefore reduced the risk of harm to children, legislating could increase the risk of harm. That is why I am concerned that we are legislating without sufficient evidence.”
​
George Howarth:
“If the image in question is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character but does not have a child as a victim, is it not arguable that, by extension, all children are victims of that image?”
​
A victimless crime where all children are victims? You heard it in parliament.
No evidence of any kind is presented in support of the law or claims of the legislators.
The opposition to the bill is muted, with only amendments to change the wording of the law to cover only “publishing by any means whatsoever to another”, instead of the current blanket ban on possession proposed. Freedom of expression is not given any consideration.
The issue of how to tell the age of a character illustrated is hardly considered by the proponents either; in practice this will be left up to police, courts and juries to decide, with predictable results. Most people would likely be unable to reliably discriminate between 18-year-olds and 17-year-olds, and in fact it is legal to have sex with 16-year-olds in the UK.
An opposing MP considers the matter of age, even making specific reference to manga (although not knowing the proper word):
“Clearly, when we have a photograph of an actual person it is much easier to determine someone’s age. We can work out how old they were when the photograph was taken.
When it is an imaginary figure that is drawn, a number of concerns have been raised— including in some of the responses to the consultation—that Japanese art forms in particular are often ambiguous, so it is difficult to decide how old the figure is.
My amendment proposes to delete the entire subsection. I know the thinking behind it is obvious, but I am not sure how it can be properly implemented without pulling into it all manner of things that probably should not be illegal.
For example, images of an 18-year-old who is dressed as a child, such as Britney Spears in a pop video, clearly is not illegal. If it was a drawing, however, it could be illegal because it would be very difficult to work out whether the person in the picture was supposed to be over 18 or under 18 and dressed up as a school girl.”
​
Bizarrely, the minister (Maria Eagle) in response starts rambling about how such images could be used for “grooming” a child:
“One of our major concerns is that the images could be used for grooming a child in preparation for actual abuse.
Amendment 489 would remove images such as cartoons or drawings from the scope of the offence. We believe that that is an unacceptable limitation. Children see cartoon images regularly in day-to-day life.
They are a well-accepted form of entertainment for children, and the characters are often well known. An offender could easily exploit that familiarity, using explicit images created in such formats, and such graphic cartoon images could be a powerful grooming tool.
Reducing the scope of the offences described in amendment 489 by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central could leave explicit cartoon images in circulation and open to serious misuse, and without the provision the police would be unable to remove them from people’s possession.
The amendment would create a loophole in the law and in the new offence, which would be exploited.”
​
She then starts rambling about the need to make illegal disgusting nekomimi shoujo:
“[The amendment proposed] provides that an image of a person should be treated as an image of a child if:
‘the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.’
I appreciate that that last point may sound unusual, but it is important to cover circumstance in which a person may try to avoid prosecution by amending the image of a child slightly—for example, by adding antennae or animal ears, and then suggesting that the subsequent image is not a child. That is a real concern.
The people who seek to exploit the provisions and to continue to create what they call legal child pornography on the internet will use every loophole to try to escape the offence. It has been carefully structured and amendment 491 could create another loophole that would render ineffective the offence that we are seeking to create.
We structured the provision carefully to capture only the images that cause concern.”
​
When finally pinned down as to how to determine the age of a fictional character, she is determined that no “reasonable person” have the opportunity to judge whether an image is of a child and illegal, only police and courts:
“[The amendment] would add a reasonable person test so that an image would be treated as one of a child if a reasonable person would consider the impression conveyed by the image of the person shown to be that of a child.
We believe that that test is unnecessary and unhelpful …”
​
The same spate of legislation also contains a variety of unrelated laws, including a ban, including criminal penalties for manslaughter, on providing information which “encourages or assists” suicide…
You can read what else the wise legislators have to say in the official transcripts of their debate.
This comes hot on the heels of the ban on fetish porn the UK recently passed into law, leaving no doubt as to the fact that UK now harbours one of the most illiberal and oppressively moralistic governments found in the developed world, with the ruling Labour Party consistly having shown no interest whatsoever in preserving essential liberties.
Controversy in the US, or the judicial ban in Australia clearly have nothing on the dedication with which UK legislators seek to stamp out sexual deviance….
Click to expand...
tl;dr: "The UK is set to ban all drawn imagery of an erotic nature where the “impression” is that a participant or onlooker is a child, or rather is 'under 18'."


I'm not really sure how this could be a good thing for anyone, but this is CAG, so I'm looking forward to seeing what the moral police think.
 
Seems like a social-policy based rallying cry for (the UK equivalent of) conservatives. Wonder what the origin of this proposal is; can't have come out of nowhere.

Make sure you thank a liberal today for your ability to have copies of your stupid Japanese teenage cat girl porn comix.
 
:lol: Who cares? It's this silly SAVE TEH CHILDREN crap that got us into this insane politically correct world that we live today.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Seems like a social-policy based rallying cry for (the UK equivalent of) conservatives. Wonder what the origin of this proposal is; can't have come out of nowhere.

Make sure you thank a liberal today for your ability to have copies of your stupid Japanese teenage cat girl porn comix.[/quote]


I don't understand the fascination with Japanese teenage cat girl porn comix, but I will damn sure fight for your right to masturbate to it!
 
I really can't see a problem with this at all, and before a bunch of yanks jump in with some "freedom of this, freedom of that, rights to this" crap remember that there's no constitution in the UK, government can do what they damn well please.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can definitely see both sides to the issue. It's a drawing, what's the harm? What if one day drawing aren't enough? Well, the crime is exploiting the child, not being aroused by them. If pictures are enough to curb the urge... then I guess it's a form of self medication.

However, I find the "grooming" argument preposterous. Couldn't they do the same with adult porn? I think the problem is that the kid is with someone that wants to show them porn to make them have sex, not that porn exists.


Either way, I'm sure they have many more important things they could argue about besides what people fap to.
 
[quote name='Kayden']I can definitely see both sides to the issue. It's a drawing, what's the harm? What if one day drawing aren't enough? Well, the crime is exploiting the child, not being aroused by them. If pictures are enough to curb the urge... then I guess it's a form of self medication.

However, I find the "grooming" argument preposterous. Couldn't they do the same with adult porn? I think the problem is that the kid is with someone that wants to show them porn to make them have sex, not that porn exists.


Either way, I'm sure they have many more important things they could argue about besides what people fap to.[/quote]

I heard about this a few months ago on NPR and its an interest topic. While I would find the drawings to be disgusting and bad taste, but it would just as much as I have found Japanese porn with the women crying disgusting. Does watching women crying in porn lead to rape? I doubt it. Just as much as drawings would lead to pedophilia or watching a snuff film like Hostel lead to the desire to torture someone.

I would hope that as a society we wouldn't arrest someone on something as loose as "what if" when we as a society have accepted other forms of "entertainment" when preformed in the real world would be considered a crime against humanity.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']im all for freedom of speech, but i only dont mind laws banning loli shit.[/quote]

No. That means you're not really for free speech at all.

[quote name='Kayden']However, I find the "grooming" argument preposterous. Couldn't they do the same with adult porn? [/quote]

Glad you asked. See, they did.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7364475.stm
A bill outlawing the possession of "extreme pornography" is set to become law next week. But many fear it has been rushed through and will criminalise innocent people with a harmless taste for unconventional sex.
Five years ago Jane Longhurst, a teacher from Brighton, was murdered. It later emerged her killer had been compulsively accessing websites such as Club Dead and Rape Action, which contained images of women being abused and violated.
When Graham Coutts was jailed for life Jane Longhurst's mother, Liz, began a campaign to ban the possession of such images.
Supported by her local MP, Martin Salter, she found a listening ear in then home secretary, David Blunkett, who agreed to introduce legislation to ban the possession of "violent and extreme pornography".
This was eventually included in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, which gets its final reading this week and will get Royal Assent on 8 May.
Until now pornographers, rather than consumers, have needed to operate within the confines of the 1959 Obscene Publications Act (OPA). While this law will remain, the new act is designed to reflect the realities of the internet age, when pornographic images may be hosted on websites outside the UK.
Under the new rules, criminal responsibility shifts from the producer - who is responsible under the OPA - to the consumer.
But campaigners say the new law risks criminalising thousands of people who use violent pornographic images as part of consensual sexual relationships.
People like Helen, who by day works in an office in the Midlands, and enjoys being sexually submissive and occasionally watching pornography, portrayed by actors, which could be banned under the new legislation.


She feels the new law is an over-reaction to the Longhurst case. "Mrs Longhurst sees this man having done this to her daughter and she wants something to blame and rather than blame this psychotic man she wants to change the law but she doesn't really understand the situation," says Helen.
"Do you ban alcohol just because some people are alcoholics?"
She has an ally in Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer, a Liberal Democrat peer who has fought to have the legislation amended.
"Obviously anything that leads to violence against women has to be taken very seriously," says Baroness Miller. "But you have to be very careful about the definition of 'extreme pornography' and they have not nearly been careful enough."
She has suggested the new act adopt the legal test set out in the OPA, which bans images which "tend to deprave and corrupt".
But the government has sought to broaden the definition and the bill includes phrases such as "an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person's life".
Speaking from her home in Berkshire, Mrs Longhurst acknowledges that libertarians see her as "a horrible killjoy".
"I'm not. I do not approve of this stuff but there is room for all sorts of different people. But anything which is going to cause damage to other people needs to be stopped." To those who fear the legislation might criminalise people who use violent pornography as a harmless sex aid, she responds with a blunt "hard luck".
"There is no reason for this stuff. I can't see why people need to see it. People say what about our human rights but where are Jane's human rights?"

Recently, the much-publicised rompings of Formula 1 boss Max Mosley have served as a reminder that kinky sex is found in all walks of society. And just as Mr Mosley is fighting the expose of his antics, calling it an invasion of private life, so Baroness Miller says the new law also threatens people's privacy.
"The government is effectively walking into people's bedrooms and saying you can't do this. It's a form of thought police."
She says there's a danger of "criminalising kinkiness" and fears the legislation has been rushed through Parliament without proper debate because it is a small part of a wider bill.
Deborah Hyde, of Backlash, an umbrella group of anti-censorship and alternative sexuality pressure groups, has similar concerns.

"How many tens or hundreds or thousands of people are going to be dragged into a police station, have their homes turned upside down, their computers stolen and their neighbours suspecting them of all sorts?"
Such "victims" won't feel able to fight the case and "will take a caution, before there are enough test cases to prove that this law is unnecessary and unworkable".
Another opponent of the new law is Edward Garnier, an MP and part-time judge, who questioned the clause when it was debated in the Commons.
"My primary concern is the vagueness of the offence," says Mr Garnier. "It was very subjective and it would not be clear to me how anybody would know if an offence had been committed."
But the Ministry of Justice is unrepentant, saying the sort of images it is seeking to outlaw are out of place in modern-day Britain.
"Pornographic material which depicts necrophilia, bestiality or violence that is life threatening or likely to result in serious injury to the anus, breasts or genitals has no place in a modern society and should not be tolerated," says a spokeswoman for the ministry.

Yet opponents have also seized on what they see as an anomaly in the new law, noted by Lord Wallace of Tankerness during last week's debate in the House of Lords.
"If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence," he said.
With that partly in mind, the government is tabling an amendment that would allow couples to keep pictures of themselves engaged in consensual acts - but not to distribute them. Lord Hunt, who has charge of the bill in the Lords, admits it is being rushed through to meet a deadline. But he denies the law has not been thoroughly considered and maintains it will only affect images that are "grossly offensive and disgusting".

Source: http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2009/02/03/britain-bans-fetish-porn/ [NSFW, again]
The United Kingdom has succumbed to moral hysteria and banned all possession of what is being called “extreme pornography”, with the law having come into effect on the 26th of January, tacked on to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
Actually committing many of the acts will remain legal for the time being, although in at least one case possessing photographs of the act actually attracts the same sentence as committing the act itself.
With the proviso that “a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real”, the following photographic depictions of “grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise obscene” sexual acts are now given similar sentences to what one might receive for violent crime:
(a) an act which threatens a person’s life
(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals
(c) an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse
(d) a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive)
​
Clearly, most of these are intended to attack BDSM pornography; the law expressly states that whether the participants are consenting, or the act is clearly staged, is irrelevant. The various qualifications about injury are all interpreted by a judge or jury, which suggests convincing them of the material’s illegality and obscenity will not be challenging.
The bill happily provides examples of what is definitely out: “depictions of hanging, suffocation, or sexual assault involving a threat with a weapon; the insertion of sharp objects into or the mutilation of breasts or genitals.”
Bestiality porn is now completely illegal in the UK, though bizarrely the maximum sentence for actually committing bestiality (which is of course illegal in the UK) is 2 years, the same sentence for possessing photographs of it. Perhaps thinking criminal thoughts is as threatening as the actual acts to the proponents of such legislation?
Another bizarre element of the law is that it provides a defence against conviction for those actually photographed engaged in the acts, if they can prove they “directly participated” (photographers looking on still get jail time).
The maximum sentence is 3 years for bondage porn, 2 for the rest. Those convicted of 2 or more years will find themselves placed on the same sex offender register as rapists and similar.
Aside from the “reality” provisions above, drawn depictions are excluded from the law for now, although it does not take much imagination to see what the next iteration of the law will be targeting. The basis for this law is after all preventing people becoming “depraved”, rather than acting in defence of any “victims”, so it is no leap to extend it even further.
The background to the law is that a madman with a substantial collection of fetish porn strangled to death a women for his perverse gratification. Her vengeful mother then launched a moral crusade against the evils of Internet porn (with non-existent “snuff” porn being trotted out to prove their point), which nobody save SM maniacs bothered to oppose.
With the help of a truck driver cum Labour MP, Martin Salter, evidently keen to burnish his anti-porn feminist credentials, the law was promoted as being targeted against “extreme internet sites promoting violence against women in the name of sexual gratification”.
He has this to say:
“No-one is stopping people doing weird stuff to each other but they would be strongly advised not to put it on the internet.”
“At the end of the day it is all too easy for this stuff to trigger an unbalanced mind.”
“These snuff movies and other stuff are seriously disturbing. Many police officers who have to view it as part of their job have to undergo psychological counselling.”
“It simply plugs a hole in the law because the Obscene Publications Act is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard as far as the internet is concerned. This new law is designed to meet the challenge of the internet.”
​
As they discovered it was difficult to ban the “stuff” in such bastions of liberty as the USA, they opted instead to criminalise the people viewing the sites.
Since the British people have no real rights other than those agreed upon by a hall full of rowdy politicians and another populated by appointed favourites of the ruling party, the act passed into law without much difficulty.
Predictably, this is of great interest to Wikipedians. You can find the details collated in some detail on Wikipedia.
The UK’s inexorable slide into becoming a second-rate police state continues; successive leftist governments have shown nary a concern for civil liberties in imposing an increasingly intrusive surveillance society on the British Isles, with cameras even reaching into the classroom, and lately have taken to increasingly moralistic pandering and other illiberal policies, perhaps to distract from their inept economic stewardship.
With an electorate whose only abiding concern appears to be house prices, and a set of “fundamental rights” guaranteed by the EU which are incapable of defending even the most basic freedom of expression, the formerly liberal nature of the UK appears to be giving way to pure democracy, a terrifying prospect if ever there were one.

tl;dr: The UK went ahead and banned possession of BDSM and bestiality pornography.
 
[quote name='DarkSageRK']No. That means you're not really for free speech at all.

[/QUOTE]

so me not being alble to take pictures of naked little girls and boys and distrube them infringes on my right to free speech as well? i tried to specify loli stuff and not the ambiguous "teen" hentai where they look 15 but are "18".
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']so me not being alble to take pictures of naked little girls and boys and distrube them infringes on my right to free speech as well? i tried to specify loli stuff and not the ambiguous "teen" hentai where they look 15 but are "18".[/quote]

I said that if you're for freedom of speech in a limited form, that means you're not really for free speech. If you want to limit freedom of speech that does not, by definition, mean you're a defender of free speech. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']so me not being alble to take pictures of naked little girls and boys and distrube them infringes on my right to free speech as well? i tried to specify loli stuff and not the ambiguous "teen" hentai where they look 15 but are "18".[/QUOTE]

That's a different can of worms since it's exploiting a child.

I don't like cartoon porn of clearly underage kids, aliens, cat girls or whatever else these nerds are into and find it discusting. But I'm for free speech and thus wouldh't support it being banned.

Real kiddie porn, of course I'm against as a real child is being exploited.
 
Again, you have the same predicament.

Is it really a documentation rape/abuse? In that case, yes, it should be illegal. If you record yourself raping someone and then distribute it, it should be a crime for you and whomever receives the video. But what about fantasy rape? I don't get it, but some people do. Who's to say that should be illegal to do/produce/own? They already have disclaimers stating 'yeah, she's 18, here's our office and our paperwork saying she was legal and consented'. Additionally, other people legitimately get off on pain.

Bestiality is a really grey area since animals can't consent verbally, however, I'd think it'd be really hard to hold down a horse or keep a dog from biting your junk off. I know emus actually try to have sex with people...

I think porn of an act should be legal as long as the act itself is. You can't fuck kids, so you can't wank to kids being fucked, by extension, I don't think it's unreasonable to ban animated child porn. Beating your wife is illegal, but BDSM isn't. There's a fine line and I don't think it's the government's place to judge you for your pornographic tastes as long as you don't do things that are already illegal.

Under this law, it sounds like it would be illegal to own a video where a guy hammers a nail into his junk, however, is the act itself legal? If you can't fuck dogs in Britain, then it makes sense that you can't have porn of it in Britain. Whether or not the act itself should be legal is a whole different argument.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Again, you have the same predicament.

Is it really a documentation rape/abuse? In that case, yes, it should be illegal. If you record yourself raping someone and then distribute it, it should be a crime for you and whomever receives the video. But what about fantasy rape? I don't get it, but some people do. Who's to say that should be illegal to do/produce/own? They already have disclaimers stating 'yeah, she's 18, here's our office and our paperwork saying she was legal and consented'. Additionally, other people legitimately get off on pain.

Bestiality is a really grey area since animals can't consent verbally, however, I'd think it'd be really hard to hold down a horse or keep a dog from biting your junk off. I know emus actually try to have sex with people...

I think porn of an act should be legal as long as the act itself is. You can't fuck kids, so you can't wank to kids being fucked, by extension, I don't think it's unreasonable to ban animated child porn. Beating your wife is illegal, but BDSM isn't. There's a fine line and I don't think it's the government's place to judge you for your pornographic tastes as long as you don't do things that are already illegal.

Under this law, it sounds like it would be illegal to own a video where a guy hammers a nail into his junk, however, is the act itself legal? If you can't fuck dogs in Britain, then it makes sense that you can't have porn of it in Britain. Whether or not the act itself should be legal is a whole different argument.[/QUOTE]

I agree with all of this.

Not that I'm for it, but hentai of like..kids having sex..even if it's with adults.. I don't see the problem since it's just..drawings of it. Of course, watching a REAL video of a REAL 45 year old man pounding the cooch of a 12 year old...well, that's different.

A little bit older than that, though, is different..but I've always had pretty liberal views sex.
 
Who knew gay men had sexually liberal views? :lol:
[quote name='lilboo']
A little bit older than that, though, is different..but I've always had pretty liberal views sex.[/quote]
 
[quote name='DarkSageRK']I said that if you're for freedom of speech in a limited form, that means you're not really for free speech. If you want to limit freedom of speech that does not, by definition, mean you're a defender of free speech. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.[/QUOTE]

i didnt put words in your mouth, i asked you a question.

the law is broad, probably too broad. which is why i was specifcally referring to cartoon depictions of little children in sexual acts. theres something more than a little off about that. i would think that most people in this forum would agree with that... but if you can tell me how taking away the ability to distribute cartoons that depicit sexual acts with people that are CLEARLY children infringes on free speech id like to know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top