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

[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 :-)