The only thing that interests a government is keeping hold of power.

Thatcher won a khaki election, does either 'el presidente' think they will do the same?

I understood blair having his hand down slick willy's pants (have you seen either wife?) but what sort of game is he playing now?

Mr Moss said:
"
I don't believe such "worthy" and inherently "artistic" films as Straw Dogs and The Devils should be banned.
"

But he then goes on to mention other stuff....

But who decides what is worthy and artistic ?
The VERY FACT that MANY...
(enough to make them a viable commercial proposition at least)
... people want to watch films you might consider to be obscene Mr. Moss, surely must mean that they have some worth ? Even if you cannot see it yourself. Otherwise why would they be sold ?

The question is why people might want to watch such material. The answer to that is that they might actually enjoy the experience of being grossed out, but WITHOUT the material being real. And if that is what they want, why on earth should they not be free to have it ?
For example decapition was (and maybe still is) siezed by customs, as being obscene... Yet no one really argues that people's heads were chopped off, to make the film... So what is the point in such seizure ?


Unless you can show the material really is harmful to the intended adult audience (harder than you imagine) or has harmed people or other creatures in the making of the work, then it should NOT be censored. That is what freedom of expression is about. Such expression is protected by the (admittedly weak) Human Rights Act. Even if the work is considered somewhat degrading to the people in it, those people should have a right to choose to degrade themselves. After all, they are only playing a part..

Any restriction placed upon freedom of expression within fully consenting factual or fictional cinema is wrong. Adults have freedom of choice whether or not to watch films and documentaries, though warnings as to the content should always be stressed immediately prior to controversial films.

Some bullies killed a schoolboy through imitating the torture sequence in "Reservoir Dogs" a few years ago. This is a very tragic incident, but in no way should Quentin Tarantino be held somehow indirectly responsible for writing and directing a classic film which has entertained millions.

Of course, there are some twisted adults who might copy Travis Bickle. Of course, parents from fractured societies don't vet what their children watch. These are harsh realities, but censorship is definitely not a fair solution.

It stems both freedom of expression and freedom of choice; virtues to which we're all entitled; virtues which make most of us happy.

quote:

---

Of course, there are some twisted adults who might copy Travis Bickle.

---

There was, If you are old enough you might remember that Reagan took a bullet because someone wanted to impress Jodie Foster.

Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of a free society, but is anyone willing to defend CGI kiddie porn?

I had that incident in mind when I referenced it.

What does CGI mean? I'm talking about legitimate films and documentaries, hence "fully consenting".

Obviously, snuff movies and child porn should be outlawed.

CGI means Computer Generated Imagery. It's used in feature films for special effects or, indeed, for entire films (Toy Story, Shrek, etc).

CGI kiddie porn would be computer-generated sexual images of children. As it happens, these images are just as illegal to own or create as are real photographs or digital images on a computer.

I'm certainly not going to defend kiddie porn but from a legal point of view, it would be interesting to know how realistic a computer-generated image would need to be before it was deemed illegal. I can see both sides of the argument but I feel rather uncomfortable with the notion that someone could be put in prison for creating the wrong sort of images on their computer. Obviously, one would question their motives for creating such images that aspect of the law does appear to have "thought crime" overtones.

Freedom of speech is essential, but it is not an absolute freedom.
There must be some limits. This is not a popular opinon but it is the truth.

CGI kiddie porn is the acid test, there are no victims but it is still as indefesable as shouting out FIRE! in a crowded theatre.

Technology is opening up so many new moral questions.

FYI. I am in favour of very little censorship, in fact i am off to town to buy NBK directors cut!

Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre, in itself should not be illegal. Only perhaps any consequences of doing so; for example loss of revenue for the theatre, or anyone injured in the stampede....

...that reckless endangerment of human life by creating panic in an enclosed space with malicious lies *should* never be defended under "Freedom of speech"

It is admittedly an old fashioned example but it was a standard reference in freedom of expression modules of my philosophy degree. (Essex '92)

I take it we all agree:
Censorship for political control = bad
Censorship for "public decency" = necessary evil
(the degree of which to be debated)

Or is someone going to try and defend the rights to create CGI kiddie porn under freedom of expression?

Interesting, CGI kiddie porn.....

Does a person have the 'right' to make such images using freedom of expression?

Lets take a look at this. Who exactly is being harmed by such material? Well, no-one since there is none involved just digital media.

Has the person making it broken any laws? This I'm not sure about, if no-one is involved, ie no motion capture, and if the images are not exhibited then where is than what harm can come from it. That is not to say the film-maker has issues.... But to answer the question, I'm not versed enough in the law to answer, my own view leans towards no; no laws have been broken. Though awful in taste, taste is not grounds for censorship.

So, if no laws are broken, no-one is harmed (because no-one actually exists in the film) and it is not exhibited; should then a person have the 'right' to make it.....

I know in the past BBFC have refused certificates to various animea on the grounds that the cartoon characters depicted are 'child like', so they obviously see none existent characters depicted in sexual situations as a problem for general viewing; so by that ruling they would definately have a problem with any CGI material; but that is if it were being submitted for classification....



Intriguing question Julz


Simon

Favourite Quote, "I like to watch" Chance the Gardner

quote:

---

Originally posted by whiterabbit1000:
So, if no laws are broken, no-one is harmed (because no-one actually exists in the film) and it is not exhibited; should then a person have the 'right' to make it.....

---

A person can create anything within the privacy of his own home... But the material described would promote child pornography as something valid - and that is not acceptable, frankly.

Hey Danno, hows it fella, been a while since we've had a chat :0) How is life treating you old mate?


You know what, never thought of that, you are of course quite correct, and I respectfully withdraw my argument.

Simon

Favourite Quote, "I like to watch" Chance the Gardner

Hi Dan & Simon - Peter Woods here !

There was a fascinating "After Dark" (open-ended discussion program, BBC4) last weekend about paedophilia. They had a paedophile (or "Child Attracted Adult", as he preferred to be known) and a woman who had been serially abused throughout her childhood.

What was particularly fascinating was the revelation that the paedophile had been convicted of importing indecent images. The images, however, were clearly not indecent themselves. They had been taken in a public place (a beach) and were of a naked baby, held by its father. Absolutely outrageous, you might argue, that someone was convicted over innocent pictures that almost every parent has owned and created.

Then the bombshell. The paedophile admitted (live, on air) that not only was he aroused by the pictures but that he masturbated over them.
Furthermore, he couldn't see why society considers people like him to be sick.

Clearly, there is a point at which society decides that some actions are simply wrong, even if the law does not specifically prohibit them. (E.g. cannibalism is not technically illegal but is generally considered to be wrong). CGI kiddie porn is illegal and, although it's easy to pick holes in the law (should an indecent drawing be banned, for example) I feel that the law does reflect our society's attitude, which is exactly the point of the law, isn't it ?


Peter

Peter Woods said
"
Absolutely outrageous, you might argue, that someone was convicted over innocent pictures that almost every parent has owned and created.
"

Since when have we had context based censorship laws ?
If the picture was illegal for the child molester to own, then it should also be illegal for the parents or anyone else to own it.

Clearly such images which often appear in the media, are NOT illegal, otherwise broadcasters and newspapers etc. would be prosecuted.

I have to say, that it seems to me, that by owning a picture which would be perfectly legal in a different context, this person had been punished for his thoughts rahter than his deeds. That cannot be just, regardless of how repulsive those thoughts might be.

quote:

---

I have to say, that it seems to me, that by owning a picture which would be perfectly legal in a different context, this person had been punished for his thoughts rather than his deeds. That cannot be just, regardless of how repulsive those thoughts might be.

---

It may not be just, but you could argue that it is 'right'.
(This is a very sticky wicket, so bear with me.)

Abuse is hard and downright unpleasant to prove.
It will probably damage the victim even more.

Yet those who betray their positions of trust have to be stopped.

By introducing a contextual element to innocent pictures, it allows society to identify and deal with those who may do far worse.

But as pwoods said
"I feel that the law does reflect our society's attitude, which is exactly the point of the law, isn't it?"

Is that right? My head is less sure than my heart.

The law is made to protect the innocent, which is the best way of doing that?

I don't think context sensitive laws such as this would work.

There might be some get outs... For example there could be laws introduced to prevent the picture being taken in the first place of the child, without its parents permission but that would open another can of worms.....

But to make the pictures themselves illegal to own, so the pedo could be prosecuted simply for having them, under a fair system, you'd probably have to make the pictures illegal for the parents or anyone else to own too... This is a step too far IMV, especially considering that the child was not directly harmed in any way, and the images are not generally considered obscene etc. People should be prosecuted for what they do, not what they think...... And before anyone asks I am not an advocate for child abusers... I have two younger children of my own... Aged 9 and twelve.... But I am not sure their protection is best served by such a context sensitive prohibition. Something should be prohibited, or not prohibited...And the prohibition would apply to ALL... Children are certainly not best served by the present paranoia... Their freedom is at stake....In a national newspaper there was once some pictures of nude Afican kids genitals clearly visible. I've also seen this in various films on TV etc. If the pedo had kept those pictures, would he be guilty of illegal possession of children ? Should such a person be jailed just for that ?These are difficult questions. As such they should be thought about rationally, with sensible workable restrictions, not solved by hysterical law making, which would no doubt be mistakenly used against really innocent folk.

Yesterday, I posted an article by Deborah Orr on the topic being discussed. That post has been deleted from the Banned thread - lol. Maybe there were copyright worries?

Read the article here:

http://argument.independent.co.uk/regular_columnists/deborah_orr/story.jsp?story=368076

Hello, In the past years censorship of films has sometimes been use for politcal reasons, this should not happen. There should be a public watchdog to stop this. I also belive that any other sensorship should be based on realistic truth not on government bull.

M Bush

The topic of censorship is a difficult one to have universal agreement on. I think that concentrating on CGI kiddie porn, or snuff films,is leading the debate into a bit of a coldersac. You can pretty much get hold of anything you want to on one form of media or another.
So what should the real queastions about censorship be ? I have no real problem with people expressing sexuality, or political ideas, or using whatever language they like,as long as nobody is harmed in the process of making the film. Most liberal mided people would agree.

The difficulty I have is with the use of violence, I don't mean ultra violence or snuff ( once people are into that there is another set of problems), but rather the less realistic action movie cartoon sort of violence, that can be seen in everything from the A-Team to Jet Li. I really enjoy violent films, I enjoy the escapism of people doing things that would never happen, ot that you would hope never happen, in most of our lives. However as time passed I began to wonder was I becoming desensitised to sceen violence, and how would this effect my response to the real world. I always thought it a tenious link between the two but plenty of people who work on the psychology of advertising, and the money that is spent on promoting products, seemed to indicate that it may be possible to influnece individuals through the modern media that surrounds them.
The opposing point of view mat say that if you look at humanity in a historical context we are no more violent than we ever have been at any point in history, mearly that the violence is directed inwards instead of outwards.
As for the levels of political coercion though cencorship, I would direct my attentions towards multi-national companies and their interests, particularly those the mould od Belasconni, or Murdoch. The combination of Capitalism, adn inumerable media may lead to a "tirrany of the majority" (Torquemarda) with a moral majority being able to enforce their will through a combination of bigitory, and economic blackmail.

h

We need censorship but also a Channel that allows us greater freedom.

I'm a big Anime fan and love their extreme approaches of Art and Fury.

But Kids need guidance.

Shame too about the Jerry springer Show, loved the Violence and Sex.

Let just all relax abit more

peace