Government finally names the day for porn ban

KKLEIN wrote:You can still view it. You just can't own it. Why on earth anyone who isn't a bit of a fruitcake would want to view sex with a 'human corpse' or an animal (the "dead or otherwise" bit made me laugh) though is beyond me. Are you looking at this stuff Cal?

Where does the law stand on this? As soon as its downloaded on your computer it will stay on your tempory internet files for ages weather youve viewed it or not. Do you then posess it? to you own it? Has your computer also produced it - and therefore you have produced it?

The only way to make sure is to burn all your computers and not go near the internet ever again.

Gandalf wrote:

Cal wrote:The laws covers 'simulated' extreme sex. It doesn't have to be real. Even if it's consensual sexual roleplay between adults in which nobody was hurt, nobody was raped, nobody was disembowelled or eviscerated, the government is going to criminalise it.

How's that supposed to work? Better start locking up actors. If that's the case people had better get rid of movies like Irreversable, Last House on the Left, I Spit on your Grave and other movies like that.

Read the comments section on the link in the first post - many other posters are making precisely the same point.

This law basically enables the coppers to arrest anyone who owns a PC with an internet connection.

Internet Explorer 8 has "porn mode" if that would help.

But Im sure to actually have a reason to arrest someone that person would have to be downloading AND uploading alot of extreme porn.

Karlprof wrote:This law basically enables the coppers to arrest anyone who owns a PC with an internet connection.

To a degree, that happens already. In huge numbers now, people arrested for completely unrelated incidents such as driving offences or public order offences can find their home PC's confiscated under warrant. Yes, it really is happening. The filth know full well that if they go on a 'fishing trip' on the average home PC they'll turn up something they can put the frighteners on their suspect with. That's because most PC owners haven't a clue what's actually on their PC's HDD. That's why the Police have computer forensic scientists. Works a treat.

This country is forever going tits up!!

We live in a society of freedom, free speech to say what we want (although I hate the BNP - I think being sacked for being a member of this group just because they have an extremist view - granted if they commit discrimination at work sack them - but its their choice = surely its like sacking me for being labour?) yet we can;t have this vile porn! I don't want it but if some people like it why not. Its the mere principle of freedom that keeps getting constrained month after month. ID Cards for one - bloody pointless more cards to carry around, and you can;t use it to replace your passport either. God, when I'm prime minister.

Cal wrote:

Karlprof wrote:This law basically enables the coppers to arrest anyone who owns a PC with an internet connection.

To a degree, that happens already. In huge numbers now, people arrested for completely unrelated incidents such as driving offences or public order offences can find their home PC's confiscated under warrant. Yes, it really is happening. The filth know full well that if they go on a 'fishing trip' on the average home PC they'll turn up something they can put the frighteners on their suspect with. That's because most PC owners haven't a clue what's actually on their PC's HDD. That's why the Police have computer forensic scientists. Works a treat.

Not really though, Cal. I can't see this scenario happening:

Rozzer: So Mr. Brown. You were seen 40mph in a 30mph area, how do you find yourself? Guilty or not guilty.
Mr. Brown: Not guilty
Rozzer: You do realise you have minge on your hard-drive, Sir?
Mr. Brown: Doh! Busted. I'm guilty.

Ignoring the rest of Cal's speculative fear-mongering in this thread, the law mentioned in the first post seems not only utterly unprovoked but completely unenforcable. Unless we're talking about the really sick stuff that could come with associated crimes, what right does the government have to tell people what they can watch in their own homes, especially when it's material taken from an international source (ie the Internet)?

There will come a day when a clean PC is not enough. Your brain will be scanned for memories of web addresses you've visited- or even images you've seen. Why stop at actually having it in your possession? Surely you are already corrupted (and presumably dangerous to society, somehow) if you've seen these things?


It's ridiculous.

Cal wrote:

Karlprof wrote:This law basically enables the coppers to arrest anyone who owns a PC with an internet connection.

To a degree, that happens already. In huge numbers now, people arrested for completely unrelated incidents such as driving offences or public order offences can find their home PC's confiscated under warrant. Yes, it really is happening. The filth know full well that if they go on a 'fishing trip' on the average home PC they'll turn up something they can put the frighteners on their suspect with. That's because most PC owners haven't a clue what's actually on their PC's HDD. That's why the Police have computer forensic scientists. Works a treat.

CCleaner with 35 passes hopefully gets rid of anything I've been on.

bigcheez2k3 wrote:

Cal wrote:

Karlprof wrote:This law basically enables the coppers to arrest anyone who owns a PC with an internet connection.

To a degree, that happens already. In huge numbers now, people arrested for completely unrelated incidents such as driving offences or public order offences can find their home PC's confiscated under warrant. Yes, it really is happening. The filth know full well that if they go on a 'fishing trip' on the average home PC they'll turn up something they can put the frighteners on their suspect with. That's because most PC owners haven't a clue what's actually on their PC's HDD. That's why the Police have computer forensic scientists. Works a treat.

CCleaner with 35 passes hopefully gets rid of anything I've been on.

What do you go on that needs you to be that paranoid?

As far as I know, when you delete something it gets sent to your pc's free space. So it sits there until it is written over by another installed program or big file. So even if something is deleted, it is not really gone. I think Nortons used to have a "free space" cleaner that would fill up all the freespace and wipe it again several times.

Not sure though as I'm no pc expert.

Godzilla wrote:As far as I know, when you delete something it gets sent to your pc's free space. So it sits there until it is written over by another installed program or big file. So even if something is deleted, it is not really gone. I think Nortons used to have a "free space" cleaner that would fill up all the freespace and wipe it again several times.

Not sure though as I'm no pc expert.

Yeah, but even more hilarious than that are all the other places on your OS that files crop up on.

In the defence of bestiality fans everywhere (no I'm not one of them) ...

Committing a crime (such as bestiality) should, obviously, remain a crime. Producing an image of that crime should be a crime. Buying an image of that crime should be a crime. Redistributing an image of that crime should be a crime.

Raping an animal hurts that animal. Producing an image of that crime glorifies (often for profit) the hurting of the animal. Buying an image funds the animal rapists. Redistributing further humiliates that animal and furthermore raises interest in whichever site produced it, potentially increasing their profits, yada yada.

I would, however, draw the line at possessing the image. Mere possession of an image doesn't hurt the animal again, nor does fapping off to it. Yes, having a goat fetish or whatever is very weird, but being very weird shouldn't really land anyone in jail. The coppers should have to have evidence that you, be it by raping, selling snaps of the rape, buying snaps of the rape, or redistributing snaps of the rape, contributed in some way to that crime happening.

Karlprof wrote:In the defence of bestiality fans everywhere (no I'm not one of them) ...

Committing a crime (such as bestiality) should, obviously, remain a crime. Producing an image of that crime should be a crime. Buying an image of that crime should be a crime. Redistributing an image of that crime should be a crime.

Raping an animal hurts that animal. Producing an image of that crime glorifies (often for profit) the hurting of the animal. Buying an image funds the animal rapists. Redistributing further humiliates that animal and furthermore raises interest in whichever site produced it, potentially increasing their profits, yada yada.

I would, however, draw the line at possessing the image. Mere possession of an image doesn't hurt the animal again, nor does fapping off to it. Yes, having a goat fetish or whatever is very weird, but being very weird shouldn't really land anyone in jail. The coppers should have to have evidence that you, be it by raping, selling snaps of the rape, buying snaps of the rape, or redistributing snaps of the rape, contributed in some way to that crime happening.

Okay, who wants to take this one..?

I'm sure I'll find myself lynch mobbed for holding such unpalpable views, but whatever.

EDIT: I am also fully aware that certain people will obviously take that as evidence that I actually like sex with horses or something. I don't.

Karlprof wrote:In the defence of bestiality fans everywhere (no I'm not one of them) ...

Committing a crime (such as bestiality) should, obviously, remain a crime. Producing an image of that crime should be a crime. Buying an image of that crime should be a crime. Redistributing an image of that crime should be a crime.

Raping an animal hurts that animal. Producing an image of that crime glorifies (often for profit) the hurting of the animal. Buying an image funds the animal rapists. Redistributing further humiliates that animal and furthermore raises interest in whichever site produced it, potentially increasing their profits, yada yada.

I would, however, draw the line at possessing the image. Mere possession of an image doesn't hurt the animal again, nor does fapping off to it. Yes, having a goat fetish or whatever is very weird, but being very weird shouldn't really land anyone in jail. The coppers should have to have evidence that you, be it by raping, selling snaps of the rape, buying snaps of the rape, or redistributing snaps of the rape, contributed in some way to that crime happening.

But it's ok if the sheep likes it...right?...

Hexx wrote:But it's ok if the sheep likes it...right?...

All animal sex is statutory rape in the eyes of The Law, you sick strawberry float.

Karlprof wrote:

Hexx wrote:But it's ok if the sheep likes it...right?...

All animal sex is statutory rape in the eyes of The Law, you sick strawberry float.

Hey! You said that amateur rape porn was gonna be a secret

Karlprof wrote:In the defence of paedophiles everywhere (no I'm not one of them) ...

Committing a crime (such as paedophilia) should, obviously, remain a crime. Producing an image of that crime should be a crime. Buying an image of that crime should be a crime. Redistributing an image of that crime should be a crime.

Raping a kid hurts that kidl. Producing an image of that crime glorifies (often for profit) the hurting of the kid. Buying an image funds the child rapists. Redistributing further humiliates that child and furthermore raises interest in whichever site produced it, potentially increasing their profits, yada yada.

I would, however, draw the line at possessing the image. Mere possession of an image doesn't hurt the child again, nor does fapping off to it. Yes, having a Maddy fetish or whatever is very weird, but being very weird shouldn't really land anyone in jail. The coppers should have to have evidence that you, be it by raping, selling snaps of the rape, buying snaps of the rape, or redistributing snaps of the rape, contributed in some way to that crime happening.

Fixed, to illustrate the logic doesn't follow. Surely people shouldn't be allowed to get away with something that horrific just because they were too cheap to pay for it and so sourced it illegally?

Not that it matters, this law is utterly unenforceable, and when they're having so much trouble trying to shut down actual paedophile rings, I can't think that your average kinky video will be high on anyone's to-do list.