Anime and Manga, one step closer to being illegal in the UK!!

[Vexx]

.... I find that if you dig a bit, they're horrified that they secretly fantasize about it so they take it out on everyone else (specially da wimmen since they see 'em and THINK all those thoughts, cover 'em up!!!). Meh.

[Mystique]

an update on what i presume is the same law that this thread was based on...

article on the line between kinky sex and illegal stuff

repeating on what the laws were stating:

Spoiler for As defined by the new Criminal Justice Bill:

An act which threatens or appears to threaten a person's life
An act which results in or appears to result in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals
An act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse
A person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal

So yes, no tentacle sex for you lot anymore :P
But the first 'rule' is BS, tha covers 90% of stuff on TV period. Even if they mean it in a sexual sense, it's too grey an area to define.

So today's update being:

Today a new law gets the final go-ahead which will make it illegal to own violent porn. From next January extreme videos, photos and online material will be banned.

Feel free to follow the story here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/ne...00/7390930.stm

Aparently it gives the right for police to come into our homes and check out our harddrives. I can only suggest, deleting temp files, cookies, if stored on dvd's hide them well away and act normal in society as to not arouse suspcion :P

The only thing that irks me, is how they're meant to know bout this. Are ISP's gonna betray us (tho by DPA they're not allowed to toss details of their customers, unless it's part of a criminal investigation)

Then again come 2009, this will be illegal.

Time for Japan anyone?
(tho they're just as bad on copyright laws tho...)

[X10A_Freedom]

Today a new law gets the final go-ahead which will make it illegal to own violent porn. From next January extreme videos, photos and online material will be banned.

That includes any image where it looks like someone's life could be in danger or where parts of their body could be seriously hurt.

Hold on. From next January, any "extreme" material which doesn't have anything to do with pornography gets banned? So that makes a LOST episode illegal where a 16 year old hostage had a gun pointed at her head and headshotted?

I can understand the likes of Hellsing being scrutinised but Code Geass, has plenty of similar "borderline" scenes. How about GTA? This quote from the BBC really is very vague.

[Vexx]

The writing of this bill is one of the most arm-waving freely interpretable pieces of "feel good" crap I've seen in a while. It has "enforcement abuse" written all over it. Its wording could be used to shut down just about anything.

[Solais]

Originally Posted by Vexx

The writing of this bill is one of the most arm-waving freely interpretable pieces of "feel good" crap I've seen in a while. It has "enforcement abuse" written all over it. Its wording could be used to shut down just about anything.

Shh. Big Brother is Watching You!

[Irenicus]

Is Labour trying to win back the electorate's favor with "Save the Morality!" distraction campaigns again?

And the Tories can't throw their votes in fast enough or risk being accused of "weak on crime."

Pathetic.

[Slice of Life]

So some murder started the whole thing? Learning about the background this whole story begins to look eerie familiar. What we seem to have here is

1. Hysterical people (voters) not willing to accept that there is no such thing as a no risk society and crying for something to be done each time something bad happens no matter how farfetched the connection might be.

(People have forgotten that there is something like the price of freedom and it's not even that high. Statistically, not terrorists and psychopaths threaten your life. Fast food does.)

2. Politicians without backbone not understanding that we have a representative democracy because lawmakers are not meant to be the mere executioners of mob or tabloid rule. And trying to prove their importance at times where their powers are dwindling.

3. Finally, a general disrespect for civil rights on all sides where any freedom that's not considered "important" or "valuable" is negotiable. Good luck fighting for your right to porn under these circumstances.

For once I wish the little Englanders' constant claim of the UK being so "special" was true. But sadly, it feels just like home and could happen pretty much anywhere in Europe these days I guess.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Singapore bans two porn websites

Singapore (24 May 08) - SINGAPORE - Singapore has banned access to two pornographic websites in a "symbolic statement" of the country's societal values, its media regulator said on Friday.

The two sites, which the regulator declined to identify but local media named as YouPorn and RedTube, work in a similar fashion to popular video-sharing website YouTube. The two Web sites allow users to add and download sex videos.

"It should be noted that the hardcore pornographic videos posted on these sites are very easily accessible by the young as each video will start streaming for free once a user clicks on the related link," said Jason Hoong, an official from the Media Development Authority.

The sites, which were banned after the authorities received feedback from the public, are the latest additions to a list of 100 "mass impact objectionable" pornographic websites banned in Singapore.

The above story is indirectly related to the original post about UK's new laws against "extreme pornography", but I thought it's interesting to compare and contrast the same situation in Singapore. Two important points to note:

(1)
The majority of Singaporeans feel that the law needs to represent "societal values". These values, needless to say, tend to be based on religious doctrines. Many Singaporeans feel that if you don't have a religion, you're the spawn of the devil.

These "values" are the same reason why the overwhelming majority of Singaporeans argued against the repeal of an antiquated law that makes anal intercourse between two men illegal. This law is silly because Singapore has just repealed the law that makes anal intercourse illegal, ie, anal sex is now ok in Singapore, as long as it's not two men who perform it. How the heck are you supposed to enforce this stupid piece of law anyway?!

The utter idiocy of my countrymen boggles my mind sometimes.

(2)
As highlighted in the article above, Singaporeans provided the website addresses that are to be banned. Yup, that's right. The majority of Singaporeans are so morally passionate that they volunteer to help the authorities censor those they regard as morally bankcrupt.

=====

The thing here is this: much as I'm incensed by these holier-than-thou attitudes, I have to accept that if the majority of my fellow Singaporeans are uncomfortable with pornography (and other offensive material), then I'll have to live with it. That is how democracy works, I'm afraid.

My personal moral values partly reflects my society's values, after all. I can respect the majority view, if they require me to do so. I only wish they give the same respect in return.

Which is also why I'm ultimately unconcerned about the long-term effects of the new UK laws. The British, in my personal experience, are nowhere near as closeted in an imaginary world as many Singaporeans are. Taken in perspective, Europe in general remains far ahead of many East Asian countries in terms of openess of thought and expression. Singaporeans, in particular, still have a lot to learn.

[shelter]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Which is also why I'm ultimately unconcerned about the long-term effects of the new UK laws. The British, in my personal experience, are nowhere near as closeted in an imaginary world as many Singaporeans are. Taken in perspective, Europe in general remains far ahead of many East Asian countries in terms of openess of thought and expression. Singaporeans, in particular, still have a lot to learn.

Heh. Let's not parade our apparent national obsession with socially enriching, agenda-setting, "harmless" media.

When it comes to laws, they are supposedly enacted on the basis of a majority consensus. Or what the authorities deem is a majority "mandate". I don't want to talk politics, but the best way to prevent a bill/ proposal/ law from going through is to simply state objection.

Unfortunately, we anime/ manga lovers always seem to be in the minority.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by shelter

...Or what the authorities deem is a majority "mandate".

You've missed my point. The authorities, in this case, are responding to what the people want. That's right - the majority of Singaporeans want to be muzzled. Big Brother is not directly to blame. These highly moral Singaporeans prefer to have Big Brother do their thinking for them!

What's even more brilliant - they do so while being fully aware that it's only a "symbolic gesture"! They admit upfront that censorship is pretty useless, but they'd like to keep it around as a statement of the country's moral values. Pfft, values my foot. What values? The values of the '60s? The '70s? Whose values? Certainly not mine.

Anyway, to bring my rant back on topic, this case in Singapore is a good example of how complex any form of censorship can get, especially when you run up against feelings about morality and what constitutes "good behaviour". Too often, we assume the blame lies on big, bad government. In truth, government represents only half the problem. The other half lies with people who feel that blanket bans are the solutions to societal breakdown, as they see it. Government officials would only be most happy to oblige - you can't ask for easier political points to score.

There is also the larger issue of whether a country's legal system should reflect its "societal values". This question is not as straightforward as many of us think. The legal system is, after all, about enforcing and maintaining just society, which necessarily means that it has to be based on at least some moral values. If a given society does indeed deem pornography to be wrong, it's not quite so easy to convince them otherwise.

More often, what happens is that censorship laws change to reflect generational change. On this score, I'm pretty confident that the media environment in Singapore will move in interesting directions in the future. As for the UK, time too will tell, in the end.

[Ending]

The authorities, in this case, are responding to what the people want. That's right - the majority of Singaporeans want to be muzzled.

That's true. Reminds me of another thing said a little while ago: every PM has been elected to his post and that's no small amount of votes.

The other half lies with people who feel that blanket bans are the solutions to societal breakdown

Sadly yes. At least they don't talk about witchcraft anymore.

[shelter]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

You've missed my point. The authorities, in this case, are responding to what the people want.

Ok. Understood. I, too, get a bit unnerved at the self-righteousness of my countrymen (which often I myself can be at guilt for partaking in).

And yes, blanket bans are NOT the solution to everything

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

These "values" are the same reason why the overwhelming majority of Singaporeans argued against the repeal of an antiquated law that makes anal intercourse between two men illegal. This law is silly because Singapore has just repealed the law that makes anal intercourse illegal, ie, anal sex is now ok in Singapore, as long as it's not two men who perform it. How the heck are you supposed to enforce this stupid piece of law anyway?!

In the US we had to enlist the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court, to strike down sodomy laws. As for enforcement, well here's the brief summary from the beginning of the majority decision:

"Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence, Houston police entered petitioner Lawrence's apartment and saw him and another adult man, petitioner Garner, engaging in a private, consensual sexual act. Petitioners were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct."

The "certain intimate sexual conduct" was sodomy. Notice how a "reported weapons disturbance" led to the discovery of two men engaged in sex. Were they firing guns during foreplay? I'm betting a nosy and disgusted neighbor rang the police.

The utter idiocy of my countrymen boggles my mind sometimes.

The CNN page I linked to shows that about 60% of Americans now accept homosexual relations between consenting adults. That's about double the rate of support reported for 1986, but still two out of five Americans responding to surveys think homosexuals should live a life of abstinence (or "straighten out" and find a partner of the opposite sex).

As highlighted in the article above, Singaporeans provided the website addresses that are to be banned. Yup, that's right. The majority of Singaporeans are so morally passionate that they volunteer to help the authorities censor those they regard as morally bankrupt.

After 9/11 a majority of my fellow Americans thought it was just fine to undermine many of the most profound protections of civil liberties that we enjoy. Important legal obstacles to unwarranted prosecution were thrown away in favor of protecting us from "the terrorists." Now our government can investigate you without a warrant, and without your knowledge, and it can impose a gag order, punishable by a prison term, on every person or institution they contact. Doesn't sound much like the "land of the free" that I was taught about in school.

Thomas Jefferson well understood that granting power to democratic majorities creates the possibility that those majorities may choose to impose non-democratic policies. That's why we have a constitutionally-enshrined "Bill of Rights." It just seems lately the "bill" we must pay for those rights seems higher than many Americans would like.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

The CNN page I linked to shows that about 60% of Americans now accept homosexual relations between consenting adults. That's about double the rate of support reported for 1986, but still two out of five Americans responding to surveys think homosexuals should live a life of abstinence (or "straighten out" and find a partner of the opposite sex).

For the record, I have my personal concerns about the supposed rights and wrongs of homosexuality. But that is not what I wish to discuss.

I brought up the issue because I wanted to highlight how it's not always entirely clear if a country's legal system is right or wrong, on principle. It depends on what the first principles are - the US is lucky in that it is possibly the only modern country to be founded on secular principles of democratic government. In many ways, the US is the political and ideological child of the European Enlightenment.

But most other countries in the world are not. Most countries, such as the UK, have to deal with a huge legacy of moral/legal systems and social ethics that are derived from religious principles. Disagreements over the extent of free speech and social freedoms eventually boil down to differences in first principles, differences in worldviews. Depending on which worldview you begin with, limitations on social freedoms can be regarded as both right and desirable.

Social views on censorship will change over time, but this is usually because of generational change, a passing of batons between one generation of decision-makers to the next. It's very seldom the result of one side convincing the other side to adopt a new worldview, to see things in a different light. When all parties in a democractic system believe they are right (in a world of relativism, this is always possible), the minority view does indeed have no choice but to abide by the majority view (at least for the moment).

So, with reference again to the OP, I continue to believe firmly that it is too early to claim that all extreme porn will disappear from the UK. The British government may have passed the law, but time will eventually reveal whether the majority of British people support such invasive laws. I'm willing to bet they would not, based on my firsthand experience of the fierce British tradition of protecting individual liberties.

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

After 9/11 a majority of my fellow Americans thought it was just fine to undermine many of the most profound protections of civil liberties that we enjoy. Important legal obstacles to unwarranted prosecution were thrown away in favor of protecting us from "the terrorists."

We live in interesting times.

I hope some Americans will recognise the irony when they accuse foreign governments of abusing power by implementing restrictions on civil liberties. Of course, even though no one is perfect, some are less "perfect" than others, so there is always room to learn. Provided we don't shut our eyes and ears in the first place.

[maymay]

When I first saw this news I was completely taken aback. This kind of censorship is quite shocking to see in this day and age. I can understand the rationale behind wanting to censor explicit or harmful pornographic material but this goes a bit too far. A certain amount of censorship is perfectly acceptable for society but when James Bond movies become illegal? Thats just absurd. And frankly, although its a little strange and I personally wouldn't do it, if an adult wants to watch hentai or play an h-game in their own privacy the government really shouldn't have much of a say in it. As long as it has nothing to do with kids and doesn't incite crime or hatred its not really a problem. Sex is a part of life, yet its become such a taboo with these stingy governments. Why don't they try censoring violence instead? Look at movies like Hostel and Saw, aren't those more harmful to society? Maybe I'm overreacting a little but in my country this law would never make it past the first reading..

[Ledgem]

Actually, unless they're the ones abusing children themselves to make child pornography, I never understood how going after pedophiles or people downloading child porn made society any safer. I don't see how censoring violence would make things any better, either. If a person has big problems in their life or they have a mental disorder then we need to accept that and try to identify and help them. People seem to think that by making violence unseen people won't be violent, or they just won't be able to think of ways to injure or kill people. I don't really understand where that rationale comes from.

[Circular Logic]

Thought I'd bump with this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7422595.stm

Nice reporting. Nice.

[TinyRedLeaf]

An interesting parallel is also unfolding Down Under, where Prime Minister Kevin Rudd described photographs of naked children taken by Bill Henson as "absolutely revolting".

These examples show how such issues can easily fall into a moral grey area. On the one hand, we all agree that more can be done to protect children from sexual predators. On the other hand, we disagree on what kinds of behaviour can be classified as sexual predation.

To quote the BBC report, Justice Minister Maria Eagle is concerned about "paedophiles [who] may be circumventing the law by using computer technology to manipulate real photographs or videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons".

Now, assuming the original photographs or videos depict real children, then harm may have indeed been caused, in which case justice ought to be served. But if those pictures or videos are changed into drawings or cartoons, the accused can then claim to be merely in possession of something that appears harmful, but is not.

And, as the furore in Australia demonstrates, people have different opinions on when art crosses a line to become pornography, which by definition, implies harmful exploitation. Meaning to say, something that needs to be prevented, or so many people think.

When people disagree, what would be the democratic thing to do? When both sides believe they are right, whose side should have the stronger say? In a democratic system, the side with the larger numbers. The losing side is not wrong per se, merely "less right" than the other side. That's life.

[Circular Logic]

Just as a quick FYI, the Obscene Publications Act already allows you to prosecute someone who changes (and/or owns) a real image into a 'psuedo-photograph'.

This amendment is to ban fictitious material.

[Vexx]

Oh what a bunch of nimrods.... everyone quoted in it doesn't seem to see the wackity thought police of this all.