More Censorship

[Jack the R]

"The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that online content can be judged by the standards of the strictest community that is able to access it. The court upheld the conviction of pornography producer Paul F. Little, aka Max Hardcore, for violating obscenity laws in Tampa, despite the fact that the 'obscene' material in question was produced and sold in California. From the article: 'The Atlanta-based court rejected arguments by Little's attorneys that applying a local community standard to the Internet violates the First Amendment because doing so means material can be judged according to the standards of the strictest communities. In other words, the materials might be legal where they were produced and almost everywhere else. But if they violate the standards of one community, they are illegal in that community and the producers may be convicted of a crime. ... Jurors in Little's trial were told to judge the materials on the basis of how "the average person of the community as a whole — the Middle District of Florida" — would view the material.'"

Link (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/10/0140245/Appeals-Court-Rules-On-Internet-Obscenity-Standards?art_pos=11)

This is getting out of hand - how much stuff on this site would be considered "obscene" in the fundamentalist parts of America? I've posted stuff here that could be considered sadistic - not for the purpose of pleasuring sadists, but, you know, bad guys can't be good guys. Do I trust a fundamentalist to make that distinction? This is amazingly stupid. If you're afraid of seeing nasty stuff maybe the internet isn't for you.

[dpaint]

It will be overturned in a higher court but yeah it sucks that America is becoming a third world fundamentalist breeding ground of stupidity. When the last administration was in office they went around DC covering the statues that had partial nudity, you know like truth and justice.

[Black Spot]

Should be amusing when the Taliban bring a case against the White House site for Mr President (that's all the Presidents) showing his wife unveiled.

[Jack the R]

Will it be overturned in a higher court? I can see this as the kind of thing Chief Justice Roberts would politely decline to hear.

Maybe in forty years when he retires or dies in office - fat lot of good that will do us.

[Crash]

Link (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/10/0140245/Appeals-Court-Rules-On-Internet-Obscenity-Standards?art_pos=11)

This is getting out of hand - how much stuff on this site would be considered "obscene" in the fundamentalist parts of America? I've posted stuff here that could be considered sadistic - not for the purpose of pleasuring sadists, but, you know, bad guys can't be good guys. Do I trust a fundamentalist to make that distinction? This is amazingly stupid. If you're afraid of seeing nasty stuff maybe the internet isn't for you.


dude...your stuff doesnt even come close to Max Hardcore. There should be a law against him, people like him or maybe just HIM.

[Bill]

So if this ruling stood, one ultraconservative town could impose their sensibilities on the entire country?

That doesn't sound right.

[dpaint]

It will either be overturned in district court on appeal or the ACLU will step in and it will be overturned in a higher court. Just ot let you know how scary the possibility is. I used to work with some fundamentalists (before I worked as an artist)who thought anything fantasy or science fiction was from the devil and pornographic wouldn't let their kids watch any cartoons because of it. Of course they also couldn't spell anything with three syllables in it or find Nebraska on a map, but I digress.

[Jack the R]

dude...your stuff doesnt even come close to Max Hardcore.

I don't disagree with you - but who can say where the magic tripping point for a fundamentalist lies?

[BlightedArt]

It will be overturned in a higher court but yeah it sucks that America is becoming a third world fundamentalist breeding ground of stupidity. When the last administration was in office they went around DC covering the statues that had partial nudity, you know like truth and justice.

Please tell me you're joking, right?

That's almost scary: censor content too much and you'll find that when kids grow up and have to fend for themselves in the big wide world, they won't be ready for it...

I mean censorship in all forms btw: violence in movies, all that stuff...

[Armonah]

Please tell me you're joking, right?

That's almost scary: censor content too much and you'll find that when kids grow up and have to fend for themselves in the big wide world, they won't be ready for it...

I mean censorship in all forms btw: violence in movies, all that stuff...
Because titties and violence in games and movies are mandatory material to prepare kids for the big scary world?

They only serve one purpose, and that's entertainment. There is next to no educational value (depending on your definition of "educational") of letting your kid play GTA.

Other than that, and a bit more on-topic, I agree that this kind of censorship is bullshit, and in the end won't change a damn thing. In the prohibition era people found their way to alcohol, during the war on drugs they manage to get their hands on pot, and if a censorship era ever happens, people will find a way to get their hands on boobs. (Figuratively speaking)

[dpaint]

What gets me is these same people will watch Cable News where most of the women dress like Vegas Hookers and scream about video games or movies being exploitive.

[FightingSeraph]

Chances of this Un-American mind-dump lasting is pretty much zilch.

[Jack the R]

For those who don't think this will last, have you heard of the law that led to Christopher Handley (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/manga-porn/) being sent to jail getting overturned yet?

What about the law that led to the conviction of Mike Diana? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Diana) BTW, the Supreme Court declined to hear that case.

[hippl5]

What about the law that led to the conviction of Mike Diana? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Diana) BTW, the Supreme Court declined to hear that case.

That's the biggest load of bullshit. Wiki doesn't say what really happened since. Is he still not allowed to draw? and all that over a comic? The people who charged and convicted him should be hanged.

[Jack the R]

He "did his time" and is now being published by Angry Drunk Graphics.

[egerie]

Highly disturbing.

[Schnookiefoo]

Lets get real, the internet will never be censored. If it ever is, there will be riots.

There's also a huge difference between the tasteless shit that Mike Diana and Max Hardcore put out and random scifi/fantasy violence/porn/whatever that fundamentalist may find offensive because of their religious extremism. I'm all against censorship, but can't say I care if stuff depicting the assault of children or a substitute for child porn is found obscene and censored.

[hippl5]

I'm all against censorship, but can't say I care if stuff depicting the assault of children or a substitute for child porn is found obscene and censored.

It's the principle of it, why should someone be jailed over a few lines on a piece of paper? Because someone is offended by it?

[forums]

More censorship?It mean..

[nauvice]

Is this thread a joke? yeah screw the law that is based on Universally accepted morals and ethics. Blame "Fundamentalists" for something any sane person would also agree on.

No Jack the R, not everyone is into seeing adults pretending to be kids fisting each other while puking, or drawings of kids getting their limbs severed. that's what they mean by "obscenity" and yeah, it should be censored.

[hippl5]

Is this thread a joke? yeah screw the law that is based on Universally accepted morals and ethics. Blame "Fundamentalists" for something any sane person would also agree on.

No Jack the R, not everyone is into seeing adults pretending to be kids fisting each other while puking, or drawings of kids getting their limbs severed. that's what they mean by "obscenity" and yeah, it should be censored.

If you think about it, those drawings are just a bunch of lines/ink on some paper, it has no meaning other than what people give it. Are you really for tossing someone into a jail cell for drawing something? That's pretty much thought police. As long as they don't actually fuck kids or do any of the things they depict, they should not be censored. Don't like it, don't buy it.

[MikeMakesModels]

Surely responsible adults should be able to tell the difference between what they see on a screen, in a game, or in a comic book and reality...?

[Craig D]

zwarrior

I see extreme violence and pornography in your sketchbook.
The sherriff is on his way.

[nauvice]

no guys. You should accept the fact that there are limits to free speech; no hate speech, and no obscenity (they're both on the same boat). And as far as the US's current ethics goes, goes kind of 'art' are obscene. Im not sure if its different in Japan, since those kind of hentai and scat porn seem common, and those don't reflect their society at all, Im not saying the audience are likely to commit them in real life.

And no, art isnt just ink on paper, or any medium smeared on another. It makes a statement, and the only statement those make is "Look how extremely disgusting I can be to garner attention!". Its puerile, and the only audience those get are emo teenagers and adults who live a depressing life. It shouldn't be a problem to them anyway, they can get those stuff in the depths of the internet just like people who want drugs can get them even if its illegal. And all of those things are illegal in society for a reason, complaining about it is just like any extremist whining because all of society wont share the same views as them.

[Jack the R]

Zwarrior, thanks for making my point for me better than I was making it.

or drawings of kids getting their limbs severed. that's what they mean by "obscenity" and yeah, it should be censored.

Did you know there are poor parts of the world where a mother will take her little child and mutilate it so it'll have better success as a beggar? I can definitely see myself writing and illustrating a scene where a child gets battery acid dumped on its face. Not for shock value, although it should be shocking, but because it's the kind of social commentary needed to burst the bubble of comfortable first world consumers. Illustrating that scene isn't the crime, not illustrating it is.

Lets get real, the internet will never be censored. If it ever is, there will be riots.

Have you heard about this -

France Votes Tuesday On Net Censorship

"French lawmakers will vote next Tuesday on a proposal to filter Internet traffic. Part of a new security bill, the measure is intended to catch child pornographers. However, once the filtering system is in place it will allow the government to censor other material too. Slashdot has previously discussed Australia's proposed ISP-level filter."


Link (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/11/2346225/France-Votes-Tuesday-On-Net-Censorship)

[nauvice]

Zwarrior, thanks for making my point for me better than I was making it.



Did you know there are poor parts of the world where a mother will take her little child and mutilate it so it'll have better success as a beggar? I can definitely see myself writing and illustrating a scene where a child gets battery acid dumped on its face. Not for shock value, although it should be shocking, but because it's the kind of social commentary needed to burst the bubble of comfortable first world consumers. Illustrating that scene isn't the crime, not illustrating it is.

Yeah, they showed (or suggested) that scene in Slumdog millionaire. Not the same thing, the same wiki page you linked to the guy already referenced that:

wiki [...] stating that he found them to be "patently offensive," and that "The evident goal of the appellant's publication is to portray shocking and graphic pictures of sexual conduct so it will be noticed. If the message is about victimization and that horrible things are happening in our society, as the appellant alleges, the appellant SHOULD HAVE created a vehicle to send his message that was not obscene."

yeah. the difference is the 'vehicle'. you suggested one, that guy didnt have one. There's no vehicle in a child getting tenticle raped either or in two girls one cup. Its all for shock value entertainment

[BlightedArt]

Because titties and violence in games and movies are mandatory material to prepare kids for the big scary world?

They only serve one purpose, and that's entertainment. There is next to no educational value (depending on your definition of "educational") of letting your kid play GTA.

Other than that, and a bit more on-topic, I agree that this kind of censorship is bullshit, and in the end won't change a damn thing. In the prohibition era people found their way to alcohol, during the war on drugs they manage to get their hands on pot, and if a censorship era ever happens, people will find a way to get their hands on boobs. (Figuratively speaking)

"Porn is like the warm up exercises before you play the real thing."

Explicit material doesn't directly introduce you to what you need to know to get by in the "big scary world", but it brings up random scenarios that force you to cope with immediate circumstances... is what i was saying.

[Schnookiefoo]

Have you heard about this -




Link (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/11/2346225/France-Votes-Tuesday-On-Net-Censorship)

It's intended for child porn and they're still voting on it. Once again, I have no problem with the censorship of things that are clearly morally wrong. I'd wait until they start abusing the filter and start censoring everything before I get all uptight about it.

[mimer]

It's intended for child porn and they're still voting on it. Once again, I have no problem with the censorship of things that are clearly morally wrong. I'd wait until they start abusing the filter and start censoring everything before I get all uptight about it.


Define clearly morally wrong would you?

I can see a point in regulating imagery of real illegal activities, like not letting people sell films depicting actual rapes etc. ie, profiting from the actual victimisation of another human being should be subject to scrutiny by law. that too, would have to be handled with care, since things like the news is bound to report images that show people victimised by criminal activity, and that should not be illegal.

But "clearly morally wrong"? What is that? How do you decide clearly morally wrong for an entire society?

[Schnookiefoo]

In context I was talking about child porn, which is a perfect example of something morally wrong. There are certain things that are pretty much agreed upon universally as being evil and wrong all around.

I was also referring to stuff by Max Hardcore and Mike Diana from my previous post. ANYTHING depicting the assault of a child or someone pretending to be a child(who actually looks like a child) IS wrong. I really don't see why someone would care if that's censored.

[mimer]

just to clarify, even if its a fictional representation of child porn, it should be cencored in your opinion? Not just actual child pornography? How about something depicting rape in general? or murder? Is it only if its pornographic, or would a graphic representation of an act of child molestation be subject to cencorship even if the intention isnt to be pornographic?

[OmenSpirits]

So if this ruling stood, one ultraconservative town could impose their sensibilities on the entire country?

That doesn't sound right.
Florida?

[Schnookiefoo]

I think anything encouraging pedophilia should be censored. If you need to have child molestation in a story for some purpose, one doesnt need to show it graphically. There's no need for that and I think most people would agree they wouldn't want to see that. It's a disturbing thing that the world could do with out.

I think there's a line that can be drawn for everything. Rape in a porno between two consenting adults, alright, whatever floats your boat. Rape in a movie for a story purpose, alright whatever. Child rape in a movie for a story purpose, alright, just don't be too graphic. Same when it comes to violence. Gory video games? Cool. Gory zombie movies? Cool. Gore on the news when a suicide bomber blows up a crowd? Sad, but lets you know the reality of situations.

But, then you can also have sick videos posted on the internet where Russian teens stab a guy through the eye with a screwdriver and watch him die, all while hes conscious.

There's shit the internet could do without, but that's just my opinion. I'm also 99.9% sure that the internet will never be censored, so nothing to worry about. ;)

[mimer]

I think there's a line that can be drawn for everything. Rape in a porno between two consenting adults, alright, whatever floats your boat. Rape in a movie for a story purpose, alright whatever. Child rape in a movie for a story purpose, alright, just don't be too graphic. Same when it comes to violence. Gory video games? Cool. Gory zombie movies? Cool. Gore on the news when a suicide bomber blows up a crowd? Sad, but lets you know the reality of situations.

But, then you can also have sick videos posted on the internet where Russian teens stab a guy through the eye with a screwdriver and watch him die, all while hes conscious.


theres a rather distinct line between those two paragraphs. the first is examples of fictional representations. the second is a description of an actual murder, apart from the suicide bomber, which is in a news story, as well the video showing the russian murder then could end up becoming?

The debate previously in the thread has largely dealt with people beeing punished for fictional representations of disturbing subjects. Why for example is a comic depicting rape with adult characters ok, but rape involving underaged individuals not ok? Both are disgusting crimes when they happen to real people, but oyu think only one should be subject to censorship in fictional form? isnt both of the something that could be construed to be "encouraging"?

What about movies like hostel? If fictional representations of child molestation encourages actual child molestation, wont movies like hostel inspire torture in those who get off on that?

Personally, I think a case could be made against max hardcore for actual abuse, since what little ive managed to stomach of his movies either show very convincing acting, or people in rather disturbing stress, fear and situations that i personally feel are not entirely in their control.

Theres a difference between my opinion and actually proving that in a court of law though.

censoring fictional accounts of criminal and/or immoral activities is however something i feel you should be extremly careful with, as disgusting as the subject matter may be to you or me.

I agree with you that actively encouraging criminal activity should be subject to scrutiny by the law. As in, if you write a comic dealing with practical tips to get away with rape and encouraging people who read it to try in real life, I'm not going to object to a law governing that.

[TheShadowyPhantom]

Should be amusing when the Taliban bring a case against the White House site for Mr President (that's all the Presidents) showing his wife unveiled.

Best comment.

Do you think they'll suggest an honor killing for the current President's wife?

[nauvice]

wha...? i hadnt noticed that comment, but it makes no sense:

1.) separation of church and state

2.) even so, its an American website, following American morals, just like every country has their rules and laws.

3.) comparing a woman not wearing a veil in front of the Taliban to an adult posing as a child getting fisted in front on anyone, is, like, totally a fitting comparison. Taliban must be the new Nazi, and we, those who oppose those kinds of sites, are punishing them just like them. yep best comment.

[Black Spot]

It was supposed to be humorous. Never mind.

[zerdron]

What this all about?

[Hookswords]

Here we go again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8533695.stm

[TheShadowyPhantom]

It was supposed to be humorous. Never mind.

I thought it was humorous ...

[Kamber Parrk]

What this all about?

Most I can figure: it's about a school janitor in Florida that made some simulated kiddie porn and got his butt tossed in jail.

Now if he makes anymore simulated kiddie porn, his PO can have him thrown back in jail.

Overall, it must not be as important in relation to the U.S. Constitution's 1st Amendment as allowing neo-Nazis to march through the neighborhood of elderly Jewish Holocaust survivors in Skokie, Illinois.

[Wooly ESS]

Simulated kiddie porn vs neo-Nazi rallies. And here I thought it was going to be a boring weekend.

[Jack the R]

French net filtering plan moves forward

French lawmakers voted Tuesday to approve a draft law to filter Internet traffic, a measure the government says is intended to catch child pornographers. The bill will now go on for a second and final reading.

Critics of the catch-all "Bill on direction and planning for the performance of domestic security" say that filtering won't stop the spread of child pornography -- but could allow the government to censor other materials.

Link (http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/article/336563/french_net_filtering_plan_moves_forward/)

US government rescinds 'leave internet alone' policy

Strickling speaking, the Naughties are dead

By Kieren McCarthy • Get more from this author

Posted in Networks, 27th February 2010 00:06 GMT

The US government’s policy of leaving the Internet alone is over, according to Obama’s top official at the Department of Commerce.

Instead, an “Internet Policy 3.0” approach will see policy discussions between government agencies, foreign governments, and key Internet constituencies, according to Assistant Secretary Larry Strickling, with those discussions covering issues such as privacy, child protection, cybersecurity, copyright protection, and Internet governance.

The decision to effectively end the policy that made the internet what it is today is part of a wider global trend of governments looking to impose rules on use of the network by its citizens.

In the UK, the Digital Economy Bill currently making its way through Parliament has been the subject of significant controversy for advocating strict rules on copyright infringement and threatening to ban people from the internet if they are found to do so. The bill includes a wide variety of other measures, including giving regulator Ofcom a wider remit, forcing ISPs to monitor their customers’ behavior, and allowing the government to take over the dot-uk registry.

Link (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/27/internet_3_dot_0_policy/)

[Cleverdart]

Scary.

[alesoun]

And this... http://ow.ly/1aGme while an internet cafe in a pub is being sued for a user pirating a download...

[Jack the R]

And this... http://ow.ly/1aGme while an internet cafe in a pub is being sued for a user pirating a download...

Yep, they're going to fix it where only big corporations can operate wifi. More wealth transfer and socialism for the wealthy.

[MikeMakesModels]

Yep, they're going to fix it where only big corporations can operate wifi. More wealth transfer and socialism for the wealthy.

That is where we're headed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/feb/23/opensource-intellectual-property

[Randis]

not so free, are we?

[septomin]

I think anything encouraging pedophilia should be censored. If you need to have child molestation in a story for some purpose, one doesnt need to show it graphically. There's no need for that and I think most people would agree they wouldn't want to see that. It's a disturbing thing that the world could do with out.

I think there's a line that can be drawn for everything. Rape in a porno between two consenting adults, alright, whatever floats your boat. Rape in a movie for a story purpose, alright whatever. Child rape in a movie for a story purpose, alright, just don't be too graphic. Same when it comes to violence. Gory video games? Cool. Gory zombie movies? Cool. Gore on the news when a suicide bomber blows up a crowd? Sad, but lets you know the reality of situations.

Let's say you're right, and child molestation in fiction has the potential to encourage actual child molestation. By that logic, all murder in fiction has the potential to encourage real murder, yet you don't think we should censor that?

A few people here seem to feel they can draw a line that will be objectively moral. But the fact is obscenity can't be (and legally speaking, isn't) defined objectively. And that's why it's so dangerous to convict people based on it.

[Scarf]

A pedophile only becomes a child molester when they molest a child. So I don't exactly see what this person has done wrong.

To me, if drawn porn of children being raped will keep a guy from actually raping a child in real life, then let it exist. The child in the manga isn't real. Let the person relieve their sexual tendencies on the drawings rather than on the kid walking home from school.

Sure, lolicon and shotacon is sick and disturbing. But so are a lot of other things. I may like watching Higurashi, but it'd disturb the next person and they'd want to turn it off. So should I be thrown in jail because someone finds that "offensive"?

What the janitor deserved at most was being fired. He brought content that wasn't suitable for a school environment in and abused the use of the copier, thus he got the boot like he deserved. But if he didn't touch any children or further harm them, why was he convicted?

Have any of you ever been really angry at someone or something? So angry that you angrily drew on a piece of paper depicting some guy being mauled or something? Then that's how these people are. They are so sexually frustrated that they get it out in art form.

If we throw people in jail for expressing themselves in a non-harmful way, then what's next? What next fundamentalist will determine what's offensive and what's not?

The guy was stupid for bringing the stuff in the school. If he kept it to himself and/or to a group of others that shared this like, he probably wouldn't have been in this mess.

[Baron Impossible]

Forget all that, there are more important moral dilemmas that need sorting out

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1255404/Family-forced-dress-snow-sculpture-naked-woman-bikini-complaints-police.html

[bluefooted]

no guys. You should accept the fact that there are limits to free speech; no hate speech, and no obscenity (they're both on the same boat).

You're in the US, right? As far as I know, there are no laws banning hate speech in the US. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[hippl5]

Forget all that, there are more important moral dilemmas that need sorting out

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1255404/Family-forced-dress-snow-sculpture-naked-woman-bikini-complaints-police.html

I saw this in the paper today. I wonder what the police would have done had the family refused to dress up their sculpture.

[Randis]

Forget all that, there are more important moral dilemmas that need sorting out

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1255404/Family-forced-dress-snow-sculpture-naked-woman-bikini-complaints-police.html

I hate those kind of folks who do the anon complaints, spineless bastards.