Lady Luck Speaks

Desi dating and desires from the doctor of delight.

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Nanny State Pornography

I just thought I'd write to say I'm a little annoyed by the recent heavy-handedness re: proposed changes to pornography/violent image legislation. I don't see how the changes regarding what is mostly a private act, are going to improve things when 99.5% of viewers don't act upon the consensual adult/photoshopped acts depicted & cause unwanted harm to other people.

Exactly why are the govt reluctant to accept that one can kill without stimulus? Computer games, rap music, films made for adult viewing....are Xmas trees going to be next?

People are talking about acting on here - (not sure if you have to login to view it)

http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/boards/activism/102666/

http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/boards/activism/102808/

http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/boards/activism/102808/

And have organised a campaign here.

This chappie, over on CIF, has articulated my frustrations FAR better than wot I could do myself. Take a look here.

If you're incensed enough to actually DO something about this, then feel free to get in touch with me. Some of my friend's Liberal buddies are working with Backlash and should be able to provide some much-needed political muscle.

2 Comments:

At 8:07 AM, Blogger woodstock said...

i went over some stuff youd linked to.

if the changes are to legality of the excution of a private act, as you said, how will the changes ever be enacted.

and if they cant, whats the worry? :)

 
At 4:59 AM, Blogger budgiebird said...

woodstock.. the charges will not be based on the legality of the execution of a private act.

The charges will relate to possession of images that APPEAR to depict acts which could lead to death or LIKELY to lead to serious disabling injury.

Although all the Governement spin and tabloid headlines are centred around ridding the country of "vile and abhorrent" images that can be downloaded on the internet, the law equally applies to personal pictures taken as memento's of kinky sex between couples intended only for their own personal use. The fact that these pictures were taken of an activity which was fully consensual and where all safety risks were minimised and that no actual harm occurred, is irrelevant in the eyes of these new proposals. The person who has the picture I just described, on their computer, faces up to 3 years in prison and a place on the sex offenders register, along with all the accompanying destruction of their lives that this would entail.

What's the worry? I took part in the democratic process of responding to the original proposals. Although I don't believe I have anything on my computer that would fall foul of this proposed new law, the fact that I made a strong case out against it and the fact that the authorities have my name and address means that I would be one of the first people visited by the police, if the proposals became law.

They would invade my home, probably turn my entire house upside down, confiscate my computer. If there was one photo which might "appear" to show an act that might lead to death or serious disabling injury, I could be prosecuted, sent to prison for 3 years and be labelled a sex offender. In fact I would be treated in a similar manner to a paedophile who molests small children.

People's lives can be ruined because they have one photograph on their computer, it may be a perosnal memento of some kinky sex between themselves and their partner, during which all safety precautions were taken. All of this is irrelevant if a jury decides that the picture presented before them "appears" as though it might be dangerous.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home