SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the what's-non-conventional-to-you-is-a-turn-on-to-me dept.
Web users in the UK will be banned from accessing websites portraying a range of non-conventional sexual acts, under a little discussed clause to a government bill currently going through parliament.
The proposal, part of the digital economy bill, would force internet service providers to block sites hosting content that would not be certified for commercial DVD sale by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC).
[...] Pictures and videos that show spanking, whipping or caning that leaves marks, and sex acts involving urination, female ejaculation or menstruation as well as sex in public are likely to be caught by the ban – in effect turning back the clock on Britain's censorship regime to the pre-internet era.
The scale of the restrictions only became apparent after the BBFC, which has since 1984 been empowered to classify videos for commercial hire or sale, agreed to become the online age verification regulator last month. A spokeswoman for the BBFC said it would also check whether sites host "pornographic content that we would refuse to classify".
[...] . A spokesman for DCMS [Department for Culture, Media and Sport] said the government's aim is to ensure that the same "rules and safeguards" that exist in the physical world also apply online.
Source: The Guardian
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Saturday November 26 2016, @05:03PM
I sometimes feel that reading about the UK is like a script from one of the mainstream cartoons in the USA.
If it were Family Guy, is Peter Griffin really T.May? Imagine scene where two stereo-type Brits having sex would be censored because they were the wrong class.
If it were South Park, it'd probably be wrong hole(s).
If it were Archer, that would be "Spooks reimagined".
See my previous comment - there is no real news, it is just varying degrees of self-parody.
Oh and Homer Simpson has nothing on Boris....Quelle da Fuque?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @06:20PM
Its more like the prequel to 1984....
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @06:55PM
Yes, EVERYTHING that you disagree with is clearly another step towards 1984.
See, this is why fucknuts like you aren't taken seriously, because you elevate every fucking thing to some grand crime against humanity.
At least you didn't roll out the "First Amendment" argument here. You know some ignorant jackass is going to.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @07:04PM
I don't know about 1984, but freedom of speech is a fundamental right and violating it should be considered a crime against humanity (whether it's porn being censored or something else). Authoritarians tend to disagree, of course.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday November 26 2016, @07:06PM
Where do you get that? People here frequently disagree with long copyrights (or sometimes even with any copyright at all), yet I've never seen anyone claim that long copyrights are a step towards 1984.
Do you know what 1984 is about?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Appalbarry on Saturday November 26 2016, @07:13PM
Do you know what 1984 is about?
In my experience the people who are first to cite 1984 almost never have the foggiest idea what it's about, and most certainly have never read it.
Besides, it was already coming true way back in in 1984, despite all of the people claiming otherwise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @09:33PM
Well enlighten us O Sage of Wisdom. What was 1984 really about?
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Sunday November 27 2016, @02:09AM
1984 is about controlling people. From their thoughts, down to their orgasms (literally in the movie).
He was modded insightful because censorship is mind control. If someone writes a column for a magazine my girlfriend happens to read that says something like "The best way to control your man is to cut him off half the time he wants it." that is also mind control and at the same time fucking with my orgasms. So, censorship is great as long as you get to be the censor.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 3, Interesting) by quintessence on Sunday November 27 2016, @04:41AM
I was always more taken by the distrust than the control per se. Every bit of the society was manufactured to a point where people couldn't exercise a choice even if they tried since they were operating in an unreal. Winston and Julia turning on each other was the coup de grace as it meant people couldn't even trust each other or even how they feel (or the homosexual
Relating back to the article, censoring porn by and large is othering human sexuality. Many people explore aspects of themselves through porn that they are too embarrassed to share with their partners, or may be their only sexual outlet. Not strictly mind control, but leaving the only avenue for sexual expression a hole in a sheet. The parallels to the Junior Anti-Sex League should be obvious.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @02:21AM
I disagree with you. Your comment is another step towards 1984.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @08:26PM
At least you didn't roll out the "First Amendment" argument here. You know some ignorant jackass is going to.
Congress shall make no law
Now, you'll excuse if my schoolin' ain't as fancy as yours, but I tend to take shall make no law to mean exactly what it says on the tin.
That would also include congress making a law giving private entities the authority to censor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @09:13PM
Ah! I knew it wouldn't take long to find the jackasses. No indeed, your schooling apparently wasn't as fancy as mine, but I'll spend the time to help you, because that altruism is what you develop in those fancy schools of mine.
Yes, Congress shall make no law. Very grave and solemn words. I want you to read them again and reflect upon them.
Congress . . . shall . . . make . . . no . . . law . . .
Now read them again and reflect.
Congress . . . . . . . . shall . . . . . . . make . . . . . .
Once more.
...
...
Let's take it word-by-word: Congress
...
Ok, now let's look at the article. Start reading with : Web users in the UK will be banned . . . and re-read that as many times as you need until you reach an epiphany.
Congratulations! You've graduated to MY fancy schooling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @09:28PM
Apparently my schoolin' understood arguing from a general case, that had applications to a specific case. You know the whole climate of fear bit.
Or do you honestly believe when someone mentions 1984, they are referencing an animal uprising exclusively? Or that people from other countries can't reference the Constitution as a standard?
It seems your schooling never got that deep.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @01:55AM
...I saw a little boy, perhaps ten years old, driving a huge carthorse along a narrow path, whipping it whenever it tried to turn. It struck me that if only such animals became aware of their strength we should have no power over them, and that men exploit animals in much the same way as the rich exploit the proletariat. - Orwell
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @03:06PM
Yes, you may as well double down on stupidity. You have nothing to lose, we already know you're stupid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @05:18PM
No, I'm sorry, I thought you'd achieve that epiphany.
You are starting to get it. Believe it or not, the Constitution is a document that applies to the United States of America exclusively. I am afraid if you got up in front of your English magistrate and invoked your First Amendment rights, you wouldn't get very far. You might get a little further appealing to your Myanmarese rights. I don't know, give it a shot, but yes, indeed, you look rather foolish appealing to the First Amendment on issues in the United Kingdom.
And you REALLY sound like an ignorant dolt when you start off by saying "As I read Congress shall pass no law . . .". It is really a mystery how the limitations of Congressional power can be used to argue a point of foreign law. If you don't understand THAT point, then I fear your not-so-fancy education is worth about as much as a "degree" from Trump University.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @05:50PM
Actually, the epiphany part was seeing if you could recognize the difference between 1984 and Animal Farm. Apparently you've read neither.
YHBT. YHL. HAND
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fritsd on Saturday November 26 2016, @09:42PM
Ask yourself: what is the purpose of this new law? How is it going to be enforced? Oh it will be necessary to analyze everyone's internet habits, you say? Well I'm not sure if Prime Minister Theresa May likes that sort of policy, she's *never* been into snooping [wikipedia.org] ;-)
An important step towards a police state is, that almost everybody has broken the law.
The police won't arrest *everybody* for peccadilloes, the important thing is that they *can if they want to*.
It doesn't matter anymore if you feel like you've done nothing wrong; the police will have the power and authority to decide what to do with you, regardless. You must be guilty of something, with all those new laws.
This changes the nature of the police force over time: it will attract the kind of people who like to work in such an environment (also in the HR department, i.e. recruiting of the next generation police oficers).
And when the composition of the police changes for the worse, it will repel the kind of "law and order" people that believe things should be mostly done by the (law-)book and common sense. Instead of law and order, you'll get only order.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @01:45AM
Peter Griffin is actually a journalist over at Ars Technica. He usually writes about Microsoft.