draft of extreme porn consultation thingy

[memevector]

Finally got a version which I think is pretty much "there"!

Draft is here...
(PDF, <40k.)

If anyone would like to do me the favour of reading it before about 11am - 12am tomorrow (Friday), I would much appreciate it.

I'm not sure if anyone will have time, 'cause it is quite long, but what I would most like pointed out is:
- any obvious bloopers
- any subtle bloopers :-)
- especially, any errors of fact.

I think the bit where I am on most shaky ground factwise is the very last bit where I have put in some stuff about the use of filtering software.

(You see I thought it would be a good idea to have at least an outline of the filtering stuff even though it isn't really my area of expertise, because my impression is that some of the people trying to promote this legislation have only a very vague idea of how the net works.)

I would love to debate the politics too! so please go ahead and comment on that if you want, but I plan to email them a PDF tomorrow and then put a hard copy in the post to follow it up, and I'm supposed to be going out no later than about 13.00 tomorrow to do other stuff. So the priority is to clean it up for sending.

Thanks!

I haven't got time now to HTMLify it; not sure if I will do that eventually. But I will almost certainly stick the final version on the web even if only as PDF.

What an epic that was. And I still could make it better if I had time to simmer it another few weeks, so I'm slightly antsy now like: doh! could have started it earlier etc. etc. But I am fairly satisfied with it and at least I managed to do something.

By the way, I got really aware in the process of writing of how biased the consultation document was. It really did not help with getting the issues clear in my head. People who in the end didn't respond to the consultation partly because of that could still make a brief complaint about the consultation process. I might do that as well - I've already commented on it within the document, but the complaint goes to a different person.

Comments

[taimatsu]

I've read it! I think it's very clear and puts across your views effectively. There are only a couple of comments I'd make, and you may well want to ignore them :)

The footnote about child consent and a 'sex licence test' struck me as a) very sensible but b) far-fetched enough that it might lead people to discount other aspects of your actual argument, if that makes sense.

There were a couple of instances of language which jarred on me as out of register - I think 'dodgy pictures' and 'perve on' were the main instances. They sounded to me rather slangier than the rest of the document, and again might undermine the points you're making.

Feel free to ignore, these are cosmetic issues.

[memevector.livejournal.com]

Hmmm good points both I think. I will mull them overnight.

I hadn't thought about the "far fetched" thing undermining my arguments. Hmm. I sort of couldn't bring myself not to point out the limitations of the age limit thing, but maybe I should restrain myself.

The slang thing, I know I do that and I get great enjoyment from it while I'm writing, although I tend to edit most of them out as I go along. It's something about the mixing of impeccable grammar with colloquial turn of phrase, and the imagining of the enjoyment of the civil service person reading it who has to plod through dull dull dull officialese every day :-)

but will certainly get rid of "dodgy pictures", as I changed my mind about that anyway (decided I don't want to inadvertently be taken as endorsing their biased view of what constitutes "dodgy").

Thanks!

more thoughts welcome...

[baratron.livejournal.com]

For what it's worth, I LOVED the bit about watching the video and "having a wank".

I feel like the whole of your argument was pointing out that the Emperor (or in this case, the legislation) Has No Clothes. It's claiming to be one thing but actually something completely different.

I'm also very leery about the whole "possession" angle, as you say. God knows how much porn goes into my spam filter - I use a text-only email program so I don't look at it. There could be any number of illegal images on my computer. I certainly didn't put them there.

[memevector.livejournal.com]

"Having a wank" is still in :-)

::muses on this::

I've been talking to the Government about people having a wank

::giggling away to myself here::

(and that bit is even written in the second person!)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention once again, now I have more leisure to enjoy it :-)

[memevector.livejournal.com]

p.s. have added to original post now as well - did original upload bit in a hurry.

[baratron.livejournal.com]

For your last point, about "key word" filters, you could also include the examples of breast cancer sites being blocked because they contain the word "breast" and images of naked breasts; sites for survivors of sexual abuse being blocked because of the words "sexual" and "rape"; and (if it's not too hackneyed) references to Scunthorpe and Essex being blocked because of the "swear" words contained within the place names.

I really like it. I have no brain/time/space thing to write my own version. I kinda wish I could co-sign yours, except I don't have any particular "qualifications" to be commenting on it with.

[memevector.livejournal.com]

Thanks - I used just the Breast Cancer example in the end, a really good one I think. It's the kind of example which will make immediate sense to a lot of the people who (with the best of intentions) will have been signing Liz Longhurst's petition. (Although this was aimed specifically into the Govt's consultation process, I also had in mind other potential readers.)

You don't really need any qualifications to comment - it probably wouldn't have occurred to me to put mine in but for the Backlash site suggesting it. But I totally understand the brainspace thing.

[skibbley.livejournal.com]

Excellent. Every time I thought "but what about..." you answered that question and you seem to frame the debate in sensible ways while linking them to ways others frame the same debate. A good level of depth vs document length too.

Two minor points:
The British Psychological Society has sent in an unfortunate response supporting the government proposals (available on their website). There is internal activism going on counteracting this but when you talk about psychology experts' opinion you should know that a body claiming to be those experts has taken an offical position that disagrees with you. Other responses to the consultation by specialists in both BDSM and violent offences oppose the recommendations.

My second point is technical: that as well as phoning other countries if ISPs block certain websites, it is possible to connect to them via the internet and proxy services. Strong encryption has allowed dissidents in some of the most repressive regimes to communicate with the outside world and so has been effectively proven so far. Opponents would counter that esoteric tech knowledge is not the norm but I'd say usability of such methods is increasing and would be supported by anti-censorship activists should censorious laws get onto the statute books.

[memevector.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

Added:
"There are also more technically complex ways of circumventing country-wide internet censorship, which have already been used successfully by dissidents in repressive regimes."

[memevector.livejournal.com]

Every time I thought "but what about..." you answered that question

Oooh good, that's a good sign :-)

Re BPS:
when you talk about psychology experts' opinion you should know that a body claiming to be those experts has taken an official position that disagrees with you

Didn't have time to reply to this before, but have been thinking about it today.

Their conclusion disagrees with mine, but (as I said in my roundup in a later LJ post just now), their conclusion seems to be founded partly on ignorance of the Internet. (They also didn't really look at the whole practicalities-of-policing aspect.) So the argument I've presented against the legislation doesn't rest upon their arguments about porn/people/psychology being wrong. The disagreement - or at least the main areas of disagreement I've presented - is/are outside their field of expertise.

(And my initial impression is that they and I are in fact not that far apart in terms of beliefs about human beings, though I'd want to re-read their thing more carefully before I were sure of that. My impression is that it's in the "OK, so now what?" that we differ.)

So they may think I haven't given some things enough emphasis in my writing or enough weight in my reasoning, but I don't think there's anything they said about psychology which is actually contradicted by what I said. Don't know - it would be interesting to present the writers of their response with my one and see what they thought of it.

Anyway, it was very useful to have their document, because when you pointed me at that, I was just looking for a quote to illustrate the "accidental exposure" issue, and they had a juicy one. So thanks for that too.

[otterylexa.livejournal.com]

I've read it. I think it's very clear. I didn't spot any errors.

[memevector.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

[36.livejournal.com]

The Internet should be capitalised as it is the name of a specific internet (which is a technical term meaning a network made up of inter-connected smaller networks).

[memevector.livejournal.com]

Aaah, good point which would never have occurred to me, but unfortunately just too late to make it into the document!

Thanks anyway, will adopt that policy from now on :-)