New Regulations on the net

Non-computer-related chit-chat

Moderators: ChriThor, LXF moderators

New Regulations on the net

Postby shifty_ben » Sat Apr 22, 2006 12:13 pm

From BBC News

Now I am all for combating Child Pornography, it is sick. But as always seems to be the case (IMHO) this proposed bill carries stuff that IMHO is unrelated to the matter in question.

Now it would appear that part of the law requires all website operators to label their site. Now that can only really affect sites hosted in the US, (Though Australia seem to be looking at this as well) thats fine. What I find a bit rediculous is the fact that failure to do so could lead to a 5 year prison term. As if the worlds jails are not full enough. Baring in mind this law does not just apply to child pornography, but to every site the government deems to be sexually explicit.
Again not so much of a problem, I don't run a sexually explicit site, until you look at the proposed criteria. Scenes of Sexual activity (obviously).
Laviscous exhibition of the pubic area - which seems obvious until you see that US courts have already found that this includes the wearing of leotards and bathing suits.
So working on that basis (and call me extreme if you must) lets say I have a daughter who wins the national Gymnastics competition. As you would expect I am very proud of her, and put pictures onto my website of her accepting her medal/trophy (what do they win?) and maybe one of her doing that pose thing they do at the end. Now could this be rated - under the rules they have set forward - as child pornography? Its not, just a proud parent showing off the fact that his daughter won a national competition. But could it be construed as that?

I don't live in the US so this law doesn't really affect me, but US laws have something of a habit of being picked up on by other countries, the UK included.

What do people think?

Incidentally I am far too young to be a father yet ;) and even if I was, given the world we live in today, I would have very serious qualms about putting pictures of my daughter in a leotard on the net for all to see.

And just to clarify, I am not suggesting that nothing should be done to stop child pornography. It is vile and sick, but if a law like that is to be brought in the rules need to be properly clarified. And a 5 year sentence for not having rated a site is a bit extreme. I am guessing the reason for this rating system is to a) make sure it doesn't turn up in search engines b) make it easier to filter c) bring another charge against the purveyors and d) remove the "but I didnt know what it was until I clicked on it" defence

edit: Fixing links.... hopefully
LXF regular
Posts: 1293
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:56 am
Location: Ipswich

RE: New Regulations on the net

Postby towy71 » Sat Apr 22, 2006 12:46 pm

It seems to me that the good old US of A put up laws at the drop of a hat knowing that, whatever happens, it will take years for it to be ruled on by the supreme court. The point is to be seen to be doing something rather than just wringing your hands ineffectually. Most of the legislature know that these draconian laws will only affect the poor people who have limited access to the law, big corporations will carry on doing what they do with impunity because "its just business"!
still looking for that door into summer
Posts: 4317
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 2:11 pm
Location: wild West Wales

RE: New Regulations on the net

Postby GMorgan » Mon Apr 24, 2006 9:45 pm

New technology such as file-sharing meant that law enforcement agencies are no longer able to control child pornography.

Nice to see another attack on file-sharing. Don't people realise child pornography can be distributed on books and VHS as well.

Anyway, I'm sure you realise that the issue for the politicians is porn itself. 5-Year penalties, thats really going to make a user of child pornography think twice. Doesn't that particular crime have much larger sentences. No the real issue here and with so much of politics and law is bending over to peoples sensibilties, something is undesirable rather than harmful so we'll legislate against it and hide it behind the topic of child pornography. They want to make it difficult for the online porn industry to exist. Now while this may actually be useful to us, not having our viewing wrecked by all the fallout from spam bots and such thats not justification of censorship.

The same thing is happening in gaming too. If I hear another mother moan about the hot coffee mod I may well go mad. The game is clearly labeled 18 you empty headed idiot. How did 7 year old Timmy get hold of an 18 rated game. It's like buying a game that says it may contain offensive and pornographic imagery then complaining it contains offensive and pornographic imagery.
LXF regular
Posts: 684
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:58 pm
Location: South Wales, UK

Re: New Regulations on the net

Postby CJLL » Sat Apr 29, 2006 2:19 pm

shifty_ben wrote:I don't live in the US so this law doesn't really affect me, but US laws have something of a habit of being picked up on by other countries, the UK included.

What do people think?

That's the effect of being the biggest economic superpower in the world.

For example post 9/11 the US introduced new anti money laundering ledgislation and told the rest of the world, if you want to do business with us, these are the rules you must follow, full stop.

It has had no real effect on crime or terrorisum, just allowed the creation of jobs for box tickers.

Forcing people to label web pages does nothing to prohibit, detect or apprehend serious criminals. It only serves to create a new class of unwitting or ignorant offenders.
LXF regular
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 9:22 pm

RE: Re: New Regulations on the net

Postby crispibits » Sat Apr 29, 2006 10:07 pm

It's a sad state of affairs. My wife is a face painter, and also is the secretary of our local pre-school. The website for the pre-school is devoid of photos of kids playing because parents are scared about them being on the internet. Although Becky has managed to get permission for a reasonable number of photos for her face painting website, she still can't get as many as she'd like. For a start, I can't really see that these are the kind of things that 'that kind of person' is going to want to see, and secondly, why are we letting them rule the way we run our lives, and treat our children? For what it's worth shifty_ben, i probably would put up a picture of Daisy if she won a gym competition, 'coz she's ace. I'd also put up a picture of Sam winning 'drummer of the year' competition, 'coz he's ace too, but falls over far too much to win a gym competition - and I wouldn't 'tag' the page, or even give it a second thought. If we give in to all this kind of thing, then the bad people have won. Anyway, it's now time for bed again - last one out turn the off the light...
I'm not a spammer - honest!
LXF regular
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:33 pm
Location: Bath

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests