Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Saturday November 26 2016, @04:41PM   Printer-friendly
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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @08:26PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @08:26PM (#433375)

    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

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @09:13PM (#433394)

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @09:28PM (#433401)

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @01:55AM (#433498)

        ...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

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @03:06PM (#433641)

        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

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @05:18PM (#433672)

        No, I'm sorry, I thought you'd achieve that epiphany.

        Or that people from other countries can't reference the Constitution as a standard?

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @05:50PM (#433682)

          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