Page Summary
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Active Entries
- 1: Interesting Links for 02-10-2025
- 2: Interesting Links for 30-09-2025
- 3: Interesting Links for 01-10-2025
- 4: A thing I don't understand about people
- 5: It's very educational being me
- 6: Interesting Links for 28-09-2025
- 7: Interesting Links for 26-09-2025
- 8: Interesting Links for 18-09-2025
- 9: Oddly recurrent stomach issues
- 10: Whining about online t-shirt purchases.
Style Credit
- Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 11:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 11:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 11:10 am (UTC)I'm gonna have to get my dad to find my copy of that issue in the attic and send it to me.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 11:25 am (UTC)I would love to see fast food chains do different qualities of produce. KFC having an organic/free range chicken option (probably at double the price) for instance.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 11:34 am (UTC)I wonder how much more expensive it would be if it was free range.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 07:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 11:39 am (UTC)And I just can't figure out which is more likely.
Refusing to define what is illegal under the terms of the law opens a huge counter-argument though.
Ach, but the whole law is nonsense anyway. Any image depicting rape, makes it illegal to own any DVD that contains a rape scene.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 11:45 am (UTC)It's not even clear what content the judge and jury objected to in his films. As best I can tell it was the inclusion of puke, but that wasn't specified only implied since there are a billion watersports films out there and none of their producers have been sent to jail.
Lizzy Borden also got sent to prison last year on the same vague charges and again it was unclear what crossed the line - the simulated rape or simulated canabalism.
Either way it's crazy, because I Spit On Your Grave and many other horror films have simulated rape scenes as does Showgirls and simulated canabalism is also a horror film staple.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 12:32 pm (UTC)It sounded like a prosecution team just decided to get the guy, because they personally did not like what he does, so they just kept hounding him until they got a judge who personally did not like him either, and boom, 4 years in jail.
Absolute nonsense. Makes me very nervous when States set about giving themselves power to control peoples morality, and chuck folks in jail just because they are offended. It's a short hop skip and a jump from these extreme porn laws we now have, to the powers that be deciding that somebody can be prosecuted for anal sex, or indeed, being gay.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 12:39 pm (UTC)One of my clients runs both bareback.com and Urine Nation and is constantly terrified that the feds will one day find one or the other "extreme."
If the law simply said "this is what you can not depict" it would be a different thing. But forcing people to simply guess? WTF?
Running an adult company is hard enough work already why make it harder?
Seriously, the law seems designed to trip people up. For example one thing that attracts people to keep coming back to a given site is discussion forums.
So, you need to have them. But he has to spend two hours a day going through them, because dudes like to post pictures of their boyfriends and sometimes with twinks there is no way in hell to know/verify if the dude is at least 18 - and if one of his customers posts a picture of his 17 year old boyfriend it's not the customer who could go to jail, it's my client!
WTF????
When he's on vacation I sub for him as a moderator and do you know what it's like to look at 200 pics and have to ask yourself "Is this one at least 18?" while knowing that if you make a mistake your boss could go to prison?
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 12:56 pm (UTC)I understand the English extreme porn law defines illegal porn as anything in which actual physical harm could result. So theoretically all bondage S&M porn can now get you a jail sentence, likewise anything including anal sex, or indeed anything including unprotected sex, which, theoretically, could result in death. I was amazed there wasn't more fuss about the law when it was passed, but it was one of those things New Labour packed into their final months in office, that didn't get time to be properly looked at and picked apart. And the tories just love the law, because it means they can lock up whichever sick deviants they like.
And yeah, if Max Hardcore went to jail for four years for making movies including freely consenting adults, then I can totally understand why your client is paranoid.
Are you not legally covered by having a disclaimer on the forum saying 'All pictures must be of adults over 18'?
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 12:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 01:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 01:03 pm (UTC)The law says he become liable if he leaves it up for more than 24 hours.
So, the result is once a day he or I have to spend two hours deleting anything questionable.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 01:05 pm (UTC)And for all the time and effort and money spent legislating and policing porn, how many people has your client ever hurt?
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 01:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 01:14 pm (UTC)Which opens the door to anybody dressing up as a schoolgirl being targetted with child pornography prosecutions.
Which just makes me think about that scene in V For Vendetta, where Natalie Portman is dressed as a schoolgirl.
And I guess Leon could never have been made in todays climate.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 01:16 pm (UTC)(For American readers Leon was called The Professional in the United States.)
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 01:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 01:21 pm (UTC)Google won't let you use the word "Lolita" in Google AdWords, even though its the name of a type of fashion.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 01:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 01:12 pm (UTC)While it's jail if a picture of a dude who is 17 is put up, his lawyers tell him the threads where guys post that that they are "Poz and looking to breed neg bottoms" is fine as are the threads about "stealthing."
Now, I don't think anything should be banned, but if you are going to ban something, serocoversion threads and stealth threads would come to mind before pictures of dudes who are old enough to legally fuck.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 01:17 pm (UTC)See, I would have assumed that was already illegal, didn't some guy get sent to jail recently for knowingly having unprotected sex with a girl, and giving her HIV?
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 01:19 pm (UTC)It's their legal problem if they get caught not the sites - as long as it involves words and not images.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 01:21 pm (UTC)And yeah, I totally see your point. How can that be permissable, but pictures of legal-age people... not.
Just. Madness. And exactly why the state has no business legislating sexual morality.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 07:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 09:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 12:37 pm (UTC)http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/26/one_compaint_gets_dvd_banned/
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 12:50 pm (UTC)Yeah, that's the problem with these laws, they exist so that the police can basically decide if somebody should be locked up, if they don't like them.
And I for one do not trust the police and CPS with these powers.
Plus, quite how A Serbian Film got passed anyway, considering its subject matter...
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 01:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 01:59 pm (UTC)Though I must admit, I'm not sure why anybody would want to see it.
I read a review which said 'you might think you want to see this movie, but trust me, you do not.'
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 02:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 02:07 pm (UTC)I'm completely confounded that it got passed by the BBFC though. Or indeed that it got made at all.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 02:12 pm (UTC)And I'm fine with people making things like that, so long as I don't have to watch them.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 02:18 pm (UTC)And I would absolutely defend his right to make it.
Very surprised though that it didn't fall foul of the law of the land.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 02:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 07:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 08:51 pm (UTC)But then I seem to trust the police a great deal less than most.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 08:59 pm (UTC)I think it's a terrible law that is intended to be used in that way. If it was intended to ban something real and specific, it would say so. It's a law of principal just so it can be applied to whateever people want.
It does raise some interesting questions. If rape is okay in a mainstream film, then how about a faked rape in pornography where scenes before and after make it clear that it's consensual? Now what about the same pornographic clip but on a -tube site without the context that shows it's consensual? If that's not okay, then surely it's illegal to watch The Accused.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 09:05 pm (UTC)I wouldn't be surprised if anybody who gets accused under these laws puts together a mix tape of scenes that are available in mainstream films, and plays it in court to ask what exactly the difference is.
Because, the accused aside, I can think of a half dozen movies I've seen where the rape scenes were unquestionably shot and designed to titillate the viewer.
But then, I suppose the legislating and controlling of pornography is an age-old battle waged between Those In Power (who want it to be restricted only for their own personal entertainment, and not available to the proles) and we the people.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 01:14 pm (UTC)So this time I'm saying full-on that I will take off points if they cite any other version. We'll see as the semester progresses how idle this threat is.