|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
US government demands porn data from Google
Lawsuit faces stiff opposition from search giant
Tom Sanders in California, vnunet.com 20 Jan 2006
ADVERTISEMENT
The US government is asking a judge to force Google to hand over data on searches performed by its users, arguing that it needs the information to determine how often users search for pornography.
A request has been filed under an internet child protection law that seeks to prevent minors from accessing websites containing adult material.
The US Supreme Court invalidated the law two years ago because it violates free speech rights and could prevent legal access to porn sites.
The government is now seeking to overturn that ruling, claiming that it needs the Google user data to build its case.
Google declined to hand over the information last year because it considered the request to be "overreaching". The refusal sparked this week's lawsuit.
A report in the San José Mercury News stated that the government had asked for one million random web addresses as well as all search queries for a one-week period.
Other unnamed search engines have complied with the government's request.
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2148905/government-goes-porn-hunt
[Updated on: Sat, 21 January 2006 23:21]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
This is, alas, all too typical of both the American and the British approach. Use the internet to identify those who have accessed illegal sites and you have easy pickings in the Courts. Your clear-up statistics look great, and you don't actually have to make any effort to identify the guys who are illegally exploiting young people.
It all savours far too much of George Orwell's 'Big Brother' in '1984'. We all have moments of weakness, because we're all fallible humans. Yes (blushes!) I've looked at child porn, and yes, it disgusted me. I'd do anything I could to bring the child-exploiters to justice. What I was looking for was, I suppose, a kind of nostalgia - boys loving boys as I loved boys when I was a boy. I very rarely found what I wanted. There are some real monsters out there - by no means all of them are in Russia or the Ukraine - and this preoccupation with internet traffic is a distraction rather than an assault upon those who are truly guilty of sexual exploitation. Or don't you agree?
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Well, you did say that you'd do anything you could to bring the exploiters to justice.
This is one thing.....
I have NO tolerance for child pornographers. None.... I truly believe they should be sent to prison weight rooms to find out what abuse is all about.
Legitimate porn however is another matter, and along with it comes all the moral and legal protections as a person googling up a pot of posies to enjoy looking at. The right for adults to view adult material must not be held in contampt by the moral monitors or right wing politics.
Google as a corporation has a responsibility to adhere to the law.
I do not think users of the Google search engine have any rights to privacy.
Telephone records are not priviledged, nor are email which has been deleted (which most times can be traced and recovered).
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
> A request has been filed under an internet child protection law that seeks to prevent minors from accessing websites containing adult material.
The thing about this is that this request will not do this.
It is not actually about "child pornography" which is abhorrent. It is about children and their access to pornography, which is a parental matter. When raising my son I took the view that he was welcome to visit such sites and to talk about it with him. He thus grew up with a reasonably balanced view of pornography. He learned that there are people who exploited others and that there were people who enjoyed being portrayed in porn.
It is an example of incompetent and imbecilic interference of the state in people's lives. Other parnets may disgaree with my own child raising, and I may disagree with theirs, but I do not see good parenting as a matter for the state to be involved.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Firstly, there's the question of whether the US government is entitled to the information. I would argue that it is not. Release of such information would constitute an infringement of civil liberty on an unprecedented scale. I can't accept your comparison with telephone records - or at least your apparent acceptance of such an intrusion. I have no objection to the police having recourse to telephone records - or indeed internet or any other kind of records - if they need the information in order to solve a specific crime or if they can lay sufficient evidence before a judge to satisfy him that the information is necessary in order to prevent a crime. What the government is seeking here is equivalent to a demand to a telephone service provider that it be supplied with details of a million random telephone connections. That is much too close to Big Brother for my comfort, and I see no justification for such a demand.
As regards Google, I don't see that it can be accused of breaking any law. A search engine is much like a camera; it is in itself harmless but it can be used for illegal purposes. There's no apparent suggestion that Google is promoting illegal sites, and at the end of the day it's pretty well impossible to prevent determined users from using a search engine to access such sites. However, Google has little option but to resist the government demand, since compliance without a struggle could seriously damage its business. For whatever reason, a significant chunk of the world population would not be comfortable with Uncle Sam looking over its collective shoulder as it sits at a keyboard.
The second point it whether we trust the government. Personally, I don't - at least in areas such as this. Far the commonest use made of internet records which come into government hands is the prosecution of those viewing illegal sites, almost exclusively those offering child pornography. There are several ongoing investigations in the UK following up information provided by US agencies; many such sites are apparently US controlled. Now I have no objection to the use of such information; it was obtained in the course of a criminal investigation. What I find worrying is the way in which it is handled. There is currently an almost fanatical abhorrence of any adult charged with an offence involving a child; those charged with viewing child pornography are pilloried in the press with just as much fury as those who have actually assaulted children. Jobs are lost, lives are ruined and the establishment rubs its hands and congratulates itself upon the high detection rate. There are two glaring flaws in this orgy of self-righteousness. The first is the simple fact that whilst there is ample evidence to suggest that those who sexually assault children will also view child pornography, there is no real evidence that viewers of child pornography are especially likely to assault children. As with exposure to violent images, some will be influenced to act our their fantasies, but the huge majority will not. The second flaw is in the moral argument invariably advanced in the courts that by watching child pornography the accused is contributing to the exploitation of children.
Accountants and successful businessmen talk in terms of marginal cost; what matters in fixing prices is an understanding of how much staff or machine capacity costs, and how that figure will be altered by carrying out a particular job. Obviously, this is an oversimplification, but if times are hard and you have staff and machines costing £1,000 per day standing idle, it's sensible to take on a job which will bring in £1,001 a day, even if your normal charge would be twice that amount. And when things are going well, and you are churning out 250000 widgets a month, selling at 25p each, it's sensible to run an extra shift to produce 100000 extra widgets, because these will be hugely profitable as your fixed overheads will not be increased - you'll simply pay for the extra labour, materials an maintenance. Your property costs and machine depreciation will not be significantly different. So what? I hear you say.
Well, what difference does it make to the producer of child pornography if one customer or a hundred customers or a thousand customers are prosecuted and removed from his customer base? The answer, of course, is almost no difference at all; there will be a constant flow of new customers to take their place, and new technology to make detection more difficult. The marginal contribution of a single customer is negligible.
So, whilst I am not attempting to suggest that those who view child pornography should not be prosecuted - they know they are breaking the law, and they should be prepared to take the consequences - I do feel very strongly that the offence should be much more sharply differentiated from actual sexual assault, and I abhor the pious claptrap about conntributing to the exploitation of children. It only serves to deflect attention from the apparent lack of resources directed to the really essential job - that of tracking down an prosecuting the producers of child pornography.
I'd be interested in any objective (rather than emotive) responses because although this is a very emotive topic it is, I think, a metaphor for much that is wrong in today's society - in which, it seems, the facts should never be allowed to get in the way of the spin.
As an afterthought, I should perhaps emphasise that by 'child pornography' I mean the UK definition - that is, any image of a naked person under the age of 18.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
I have no objection to the police having recourse to telephone records - or indeed internet or any other kind of records - if they need the information in order to solve a specific crime or if they can lay sufficient evidence before a judge to satisfy him that the information is necessary in order to prevent a crime.
This was discussed last night on the news in Israel. Apparently, a few years ago the police here demanded information from a mobile telephone company which refused to make the information available. The police appealed to the high court and lost: the justices said that it would be illegal for the phone company to pass that information on (I don't recall what the rquested information was). I suppose that the inevitable result must have been that the police started phone-tapping. But that's illegal too unless permission has been given by the courts in specific cases.
As an afterthought, I should perhaps emphasise that by 'child pornography' I mean the UK definition - that is, any image of a naked person under the age of 18.
OMG. Does that mean that I have to remove from my web photo gallery pictures of me aged 2 months, naked on a bath towel???? Does that mean that I could turn it into a fee-paying porn site????
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
There is a law stating that it is illegal for anyone to access child porn sites. It is illegal to view the pictures. It is illegal to store them on a home computer.
Should these persons be persued and prosecuted?
Should the government use any and all tools available to investigate and bring these people to justice?
My opinion is yes.
As for wether or not prosecuting pornographer's customers will affect their business enerprises... Well that doesnt matter... There also are laws making the taking of these pictures in the first place illegal and they are being persued with legal recourse as well.
I also believe that one child saved is worth a huge price.
If children arent worth the effort then who is? Certainly NOT people that seek to view these pictures and certainly NOT the creators of the pictures.
Now, I ask you... Who's rights do you wish to protect?
Now I don't know if my relpy is emotive or objective and quite frankly I dont give a rats ass if it is one or the other.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
JFR wrote:
>
> OMG. Does that mean that I have to remove from my web photo gallery pictures of me aged 2 months, naked on a bath towel???? Does that mean that I could turn it into a fee-paying porn site????
Reguarding the above comment: I think trivializing the issue is quite beneath you....
I expected better....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
Even so, technically it does mean precisely that. There are a certain group fo peopleonly who may possess naked pictures of you if you were under 18 ehen the picture was taken. This group varies depending upon the legislature you are in.
It makes genuine holiday snaps on a naturist beach rather a challenge.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the sake of peace I will let it rest there. Be well and be happy.
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
Assuming the UK definition that child pornography is a naked individual under the age of 18 when the picture was taken, then our law prohibits the possession of the picture (even if that picture has been manufactured in some manner other than direct photography)
This effectively prohibits the visiting of such a site since the site grants on "possession" of such pictures even for an instant.
The interesting element here is the question "When is it art? When is it pornography?"
Let's look at a bona fide artist, any bona fide artist, whose subjects are naked and under 18. When does this turn into porn?
Let's look at tv adverts for nappied (diapers) whcih show naked infants. Why are there not porn?
It is indisputable that a picture of an individual in a sexual act or a simulated sexual act is porn (legal definition, not subjective opinion), but the law embraces nudity in innocence.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Assuming the UK definition that child pornography is a naked individual under the age of 18 when the picture was taken, then our law prohibits the possession of the picture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Children_Act_1978#Definition_of_an_indecent_photograph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecent_photograph_of_a_child
Does anyone have a link to the legal definition of "indecent"?
Pictures crop up all over the place featuring small children naked. Indecent surely implies "in a sexual context" -- so either something they are doing, or something else in the photograph suggests that the pictures are to be looked at sexually. But a photograph of a child naked is "sexually neutral". After all, what is more innocent than a child? (That's a rhetorical question, and I don't want to know whether you were or weren't -- I'm using the public perception.)
Every family has pictures of their young children in the bath. If they prosecuted every family for taking those photographs even the most hysterical members of the general population would realise that things were going a bit far. Surely?
For that matter, why has no-one prosecuted Stephen Fry, his parents and his publishers for making and distributing child pornography? His autobiography "Moab is my Washpot" has a picture of him aged around four and as naked as the day he was born.
>Let's look at tv adverts for nappied (diapers) whcih show naked infants. Why are there not porn?
To be honest, I can't remember ever having seen a nappy advert that features naked children. Oh, quite possibly they are technically naked (so surely, according to the law, they are being exploited just as much whether their naughty bits are being shown on screen or not, but I'll let that pass) but they are very careful to censor out anything that might cause offence to brain-dead tabloid-reading unemployed single mothers. That said, I don't make a habit of watching nappy adverts.
I don't think it's a good idea to Google for naked toddler television adverts, though... It would certainly raise a few eyebrows in the US government world censorship department.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Nudity and art.....
Well, just take a tour through Italy and you would be hard pressed to not visit a fountain without seeing a gaggle of nude children in close proximity to adults.
Look at Donatello's David...... There is little doubt reguarding the sensual nature of the ptece of art..... yet is it porn?
-
Attachment: david_d.gif
(Size: 11.74KB, Downloaded 327 times)
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Whatever......
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
Precisely the point.
By stigmatising all nude images as pornographic we create a very strange society indeed.
To me it seems that we are fast becoming an ignorant society where simple good taste is not enough.
There is a difference between an image of a naked child and a sexualised image of a naked child. But this difference must be too difficult for juries to understand.
The german legitimate artist Otto Loehmuller seems to have taken his site offline. He sees and expresses the beauty of nude male children "at the point of the start of puberty" in paintings among his many other themes. The images are not erotic, not sexual and not titilating. They are preciely what they are, paintings of unselfconcious nude male children.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
Deeej wrote:
> To be honest, I can't remember ever having seen a nappy advert that features naked children. Oh, quite possibly they are technically naked (so surely, according to the law, they are being exploited just as much whether their naughty bits are being shown on screen or not, but I'll let that pass) but they are very careful to censor out anything that might cause offence to brain-dead tabloid-reading unemployed single mothers. That said, I don't make a habit of watching nappy adverts.
>
> I don't think it's a good idea to Google for naked toddler television adverts, though... It would certainly raise a few eyebrows in the US government world censorship department.
http://www.eaca.be/_upload/documents/research/EASA%20survey%20on%20S-R%20for%20advertising%20and%20children.doc
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
and Otto's paintings are as illegal here as a porn pic online......
Unfortunatly, the reality is that there are far too many people out there capitalizing on children to their detriment.
True, baby pics are a bit over the top.... and not at all harmful... at leasr not until one is able to exploit them at his 30th birthday party.
But the hard fact that children being abused has to ring an alarm bell.
It is an issue that HAS to be addressed.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Deej, your wikipedia links didn't work for me so I haven't read your sources. However, most prosecutions for possession of indecent images of children are heard in magistrates courts, and it's very evident that the line taken is that nudity = indecency. In point of fact, apart from the issue of censorship of art - which is a huge subject in itself - this is not too difficult to understand in the present witch-hunt culture because, realistically, the vast majority of such images will have been obtained for sexual gratification, even if the images themselves are not gratuitously sexual.
In response to JFR, I think that in the investigation of a specific crime it is not too difficult for the UK police to obtain access data such as telephone records. I don't have a problem with this as long as they are only permitted to access relevant information. Of course the circumstances behind the current wave of prosecutions for possession of indecent images are somewhat different; in most cases the offenders are backtracked using credit-card details from the records of illegal pay-sites. Again, it's difficult to quarrel with this, because if the information came into the hands of the enforcement agency in the course of investigating such sites, then each subscriber will have committed an offence by accessing the site and any further investigation is undeniably undertaken in the course of an investigation of a specific crime.
As regards Marc's response, I am a bit confused about his point of view. There has to be a balance between civil liberty and state intervention, otherwise civilisation as we know it will collapse.
I didn't suggest that those who break the law by accessing indecent images of children should not be prosecuted. What I tried to do in identifying a 'second issue' was to make the none-too-subtle point that the witch-hunting of these individuals has, in reality, no effect whatsoever upon the exploitation of children; they are exploited by those who MAKE the images, not those who look at them - but the media vilification of the lookers deflects attention from the fact that relatively little is being done to track down the makers. But that would require intelligent international diplomacy, so perhaps neither the US nor the UK is well-placed to take a lead in this area.
I am not sure what relevance should be attached to the rear-end of a rodent, but I don't think the reference moves the debate forward.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
This is a debate?
Oh ....... I was unaware of this....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... do you find it necessary to be rude and sarcastic? Can't we have a civilised discussion embracing a range of views?
I know from postings over the years that you are a great guy, with a strong commitment to helping those in need of help; I have never criticised you as an individual, nor would I do so beyond the comments I an now making. I may not agree with what you say, but surely that's the right of anyone in a society which professes free speech?
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
What makes his paintings illegal?
If they are, what about the myriad pictures and statues of cherubs?
Is the Manekin Pis fountain in Brussels illegal, too?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
I wonder if I might suggest that we are not "debating" which implies winners and losers, but "discussing" which implies a simple exchange of civilised views. I suggest that may be Marc's point.
Out of such a discussion we may alter the views of those who participate and those who do not. Out of a debate we find sides ae taken and views rarely alter.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Was I rude?
Was I sarcastic?
In a debate forum sides are taken, lines are drawn.....
I am definately pro protection of children..... That is my position...
Now... What side of the bench do you sit on?
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
This is not the way it works here. It never has been.
I do not allow debate. I allow discussion. I will not have sides being taken.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I did not broach the subject.....
but I do want to know where I stand in this.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Timmy, I take your point and fully accept it, insofar as I had no intention of implying any sort of confrontational position - that's precisely what I DON'T want.
However, I just can't resist climbing on my pedantic soapbox to suggest that 'debate' is being defined too narrowly. Concise Oxford definitions:
DEBATE (Noun) ... discussion, public argument.
DISCUSSION (Noun) ... examination by argument, a debate.
University Union debates, and debating societies in general, do indeed involve formal confrontation by proposition and opposition, but in general use the word simply means discussion, and that was the sense in which I used it. Nevertheless, I'll try to avoid using the word again.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... but the answer to your question is crystal clear from my earlier postings - I am on the same 'side' as you are. The point is simply that I tend not to see issues as black or white - Bush's celebrated insistence that 'if you aren't with us, you're against us' is a particularly glaring example of the folly of supposing that only two opposing positions are possible.
I unreservedly agree that those who produce child pornography should be pursued and prosecuted vigorously. What I don't like is the 'witch-hunt' mentality; it's only a step away from lynch law. Penalties for viewing child pornography - and in the UK that includes pretty well any image of a naked person under 18 - are ludicrously harsh in comparison with the penalties imposed for actual sexual assault on a minor. There should be a realistic balance; as I tried to argue, looking at pornography has a negligible influence the incidence of abuse in creation of that pornography. In addition, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that looking leads to molestation; molesters tend to look, but that doesn't mean that lookers will molest. I don't suggest that lookers shouldn't be prosecuted, but the comparison with molesters is like that between a fare-dodger on public transport and the perpetrator of a major fraud.
My other point is that there needs to be a limit on the extent to which the state intrudes upon the freedom of the individual, and that limit is dangerously close. Accessing internet or telephone records in the course of a criminal investigation is fine (or at least it doesn't bother me) but I very strongly oppose the suggestion that the state should be allowed to access such records at random. The lessons of the last century make it abundantly clear that the state cannot be relied upon to act with honesty or integrity - and that's as true of your country and mine as it is of the rest of the world.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
While the two words overlap, and I woudl argue that it is an overlap, not a congruence, my objective here is to allow discussion to flourish rather than to have even the wildest idea crushed by some sort of authoritative statement by any of us.
We should be unafraid to say "tell us about how it feels to be in love withy a sofa?" and should not feel threatened by sofaphilics or sofaphobics.
It does precisley no harm to air a topic. What does harm is to suppress it under the weight of "I am right and thus you are not". This does not prevent strong arguments to be placed pro or con a viewpoint, but it does prevent "You are either with me or against me."
Even the issue of naked pictures of childfren is not clear cut. There is a point at which they become titilating. That point differs for each viewer (though I know people will say "That never happened to me, I have neve found any picture ever of any child naked or clothed to be titilating"), and it is that point that the "moral majority" have taken on board and made their own at zero nakedness.
That simply censors art at the same time as rendering illegal that which is rightly illegal. The Manekin Pis fountain in Brussels shoudl thus be declared unlawful and smashed, if we are to trust the moral majority.
It is good people, ordinary peple, decent people, who are being conned into this. "Those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear". And yet laws are made that make prior lawful activities unlawful. My father was an Austrian Jew. It was lawful to be one. Then they started gassing them because it was no longer lawful to be a Jew and live in Austria. He had, once, nothing to hide, nothing to fear.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
You stand firmly against child nudity in all its forms, if I read your messages correctly, and yet you point out a figure of a naked child in Italy as legitimate art while arguing that another artist's work is unlawful.
I would like to know where you stand, too. And I may or may not agree with your stance
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Once again, I take your point, Timmy, but when have I contravened your rule? And, on the semantic issue, I've accepted what you say and undertaken to avoid using 'debate' in future postings. I don't - ever - want confrontation, just the opportunity to put a point of view to those who share my basic orientation.
Above all, I agree that the mantra that 'those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear' is a recipe for disaster. We all have something to hide; it's simply a matter of acknowledging our imperfections.
Oh, and by the way, I'm REALLY into my sofa!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
For my part, I'm not particularly hung up about nudity; what I don't condone is coercion, abuse and exploitation. I accept that some minors are quite happy to be photographed, but others quite definitely are not, and the law must protect the latter group. But art is a different ball game.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
Oh, and by the way, I'm REALLY into my sofa!
Ferme la porte et assieds-toi.
Ce soir, je n'me dégonfle pas.
Ecoute ça, je t'aime !
Petite sœur, tu croyais bien
Que je t'aimais comme un copain.
C'était pas ça, non, je t'aime !
Tu vois, j'ai mis des fleurs partout.
C'est notre premier rendez-vous
Et tu viendras, dis, je t'aime.
Quand on dit ça à un fauteuil,
Dans une chambre où l'on est seul,
C'est effrayant comme on est seul. ;-D
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
I am not pointing fingers. Just stating my principles for this place
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I stand firmly against the use of a child to promote adult sexual satisfaction.
What is conswidered classical art in Europe and what is considered pornography here are two different things. The David was produced in a time when such was commonplace in art.
I have seen Otto's work....
In Europe it may or may not be considered high art....
Here however, it is naked pictures of little boys....
I don't write the laws....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
As are cherubim. As is the Manekin Pis fountain. As are so many pictures, statues and the like.
Is the USA a particularly sanitised place that what is art may not be seen?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
As I stated.....
I DID NOT WRITE THE LAWS.......
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
And you may be misinterpreting them in your words. And you are yelling.
You are a citizen of your nation. You have a voice and a right to tht voice. Effectively, since you are democracy you delegate the writing of laws to your elected representatives. You vote for them or not and allow yourself to be governed by them.
So, let us her your opinion on other works of art, please.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
Let's look at the UK and its laws:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30042--b.htm#45 is the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the way it ameds earlier legislation.
The Protection of Children Act 1978 seems to be unavailable online from official sources. It is available on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Children_Act_1978 though
It says
>In R v Graham-Kerr (1988), the accused had taken photographs of a young boy at a nudist meeting at a public swimming baths. The Court of Appeal held that the motivation of the photographer had no influence on the decency or otherwise of the photographs taken; a photograph is an indecent photograph of a child if it is indecent, and if it shows a child.
>Whether or not a photograph or pseudo-photograph is indecent is a question of fact, and as a question of fact it is something for a jury or magistrate to decide. The jury should apply the standard of decency which ordinary right-thinking members of the public would set - the "recognised standards of propriety" as R v Stamford [1972] puts it.
This does not state that a nude picture is of itself indecent. However the same picture will "find" that its decency varies over time. Currently public opinion seems to be hardening in a manner that may render all nude pictures "indecent".
This is a dangerous thing. Not for paedophiles, who need to be restrained, but for ordinary members of the public. Decent citizens are choosing to erode their own liberties by accident because they have righteous indignation about things they only half understand.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Other works of art.....
Well, my tastes run toward fantasy art.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Hi, Marc ! 
