![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
memevectorWhat an adventure that was.
Big thanks to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
wandra, skibbley, baratron, slightlyfoxed, taimatsu, illusiveash, 36, alexa_robinson, A, W, P and anyone I've forgotten, all of whom helped me to clarify my thoughts, either by commenting on the draft and/or giving me information or by listening to me ranting, plus in wandra's case by joining me in the first mishy mashy "get it all on the table" analysis and taking notes while I did some washing-up :-)
Very pleased in the end with what I'd written, though on re-reading it again just now, there are still a few things I would tweak.
I sent it to my parents too, and rang home saying "you might want to look at this"! And ParentK emailed the Government this afternoon giving (different but similar) arguments against the legislation! How cool is that?!
Maybe I will re-read it again in a while and then put a slightly revised version up as HTML, to inform further debate.
The remaining tweak-potential is a function of not really having had enough time on it, despite giving it almost all my discretionary time (i.e. including the time I have available for earning money) for about a week! thus blowing out of the water my post-BiCon-2005 resolution to limit my activism to one day a month. Oops. But then again yay, as I do love it when I can read something back and think "Yes!" and enjoy agreeing with myself ::haha::
Feeling very affirmed in my identity as a writer.
I think I will complain about aspects of the process of consultation.
I put this paragraph in my main thing:
"It is for the people who are advocating a restriction on privacy and free speech to provide justification for the specifics of the proposed restriction. In my opinion, the campaigners for this law and the writers of this consultation document have tried and failed to do so."
What I've implied there (although I expect that most people not already thinking about this angle already will miss the implication) is that the writers of the consultation document were using the power of rhetoric to argue the case "pro". This is indeed exactly what I think they were doing, but it's rather different from "consultation". Not impressed. But can't say I'm surprised either.
Wondering where my MP stands on this. Think I ought to write to em too. Ze's a really sound person, Alan Simpson (veteran Labour rebel). Don't know where ze stands on porn vs right to privacy, though, and (probably more crucial) don't know the level of zeir Internet smarts.
This is possibly the main thing that stands out to me about the debate so far. There are all these people of goodwill, including in Parliament, who just DO NOT UNDERSTAND how the Internet WORKS. They think that it's a matter of "having the political will" to "do something about these web sites". (= my depiction of the gist of their perspective, not actual quotes, but here is an actual quote...)
Hansard, 13 Oct 2004, Column 358: Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde:
"An important issue is that these sites will prevail as long as the mass of people accept that it is difficult, and maybe impossible, to do something about them. Most people would reject that. The technology we now have has provided these websites and I am amazed that similar technology cannot be used to control them."
I think at least the MPs & Lords have some concept of the Internet being central to the legislation, but some of the other people giving their views aren't even thinking about how it will work in practice - they talk as though the only thing to decide on were "Is extreme porn a bad thing?" (The British Psychological Society's response is like that.) Doh!
For what it's worth, I have a feeling that the Backlash campaign people ought to be thinking more on the Internet/practicality side. I know the BDSM angle naturally leads people to think and say a lot about civil liberties, consent etc., but i.m.o. there is a lot of room for valid subjective disagreement about where to draw the lines on that stuff, and some people will never agree with you about that aspect of it. The ethical points still need to be made, I'm not saying stop making those too; but in this particular case, the sheer ill-informed wishful thinking about how such a law would work in practice is i.m.o. a far weaker side of the pro-legislation argument.
And I'm not just saying that like "We don't want the legislation, therefore look for the weak side to pick on". I started off pretty open-minded about the possibility of "something (sensible) being done", and the sheer ill-thought-out impracticality of the proposal is part of what convinced me it was a bad idea.
Anyway... all very interesting stuff, I think...
Big thanks to
wandra, skibbley, baratron, slightlyfoxed, taimatsu, illusiveash, 36, alexa_robinson, A, W, P and anyone I've forgotten, all of whom helped me to clarify my thoughts, either by commenting on the draft and/or giving me information or by listening to me ranting, plus in wandra's case by joining me in the first mishy mashy "get it all on the table" analysis and taking notes while I did some washing-up :-)Very pleased in the end with what I'd written, though on re-reading it again just now, there are still a few things I would tweak.
I sent it to my parents too, and rang home saying "you might want to look at this"! And ParentK emailed the Government this afternoon giving (different but similar) arguments against the legislation! How cool is that?!
Maybe I will re-read it again in a while and then put a slightly revised version up as HTML, to inform further debate.
The remaining tweak-potential is a function of not really having had enough time on it, despite giving it almost all my discretionary time (i.e. including the time I have available for earning money) for about a week! thus blowing out of the water my post-BiCon-2005 resolution to limit my activism to one day a month. Oops. But then again yay, as I do love it when I can read something back and think "Yes!" and enjoy agreeing with myself ::haha::
Feeling very affirmed in my identity as a writer.
I think I will complain about aspects of the process of consultation.
I put this paragraph in my main thing:
"It is for the people who are advocating a restriction on privacy and free speech to provide justification for the specifics of the proposed restriction. In my opinion, the campaigners for this law and the writers of this consultation document have tried and failed to do so."
What I've implied there (although I expect that most people not already thinking about this angle already will miss the implication) is that the writers of the consultation document were using the power of rhetoric to argue the case "pro". This is indeed exactly what I think they were doing, but it's rather different from "consultation". Not impressed. But can't say I'm surprised either.
Wondering where my MP stands on this. Think I ought to write to em too. Ze's a really sound person, Alan Simpson (veteran Labour rebel). Don't know where ze stands on porn vs right to privacy, though, and (probably more crucial) don't know the level of zeir Internet smarts.
This is possibly the main thing that stands out to me about the debate so far. There are all these people of goodwill, including in Parliament, who just DO NOT UNDERSTAND how the Internet WORKS. They think that it's a matter of "having the political will" to "do something about these web sites". (= my depiction of the gist of their perspective, not actual quotes, but here is an actual quote...)
Hansard, 13 Oct 2004, Column 358: Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde:
"An important issue is that these sites will prevail as long as the mass of people accept that it is difficult, and maybe impossible, to do something about them. Most people would reject that. The technology we now have has provided these websites and I am amazed that similar technology cannot be used to control them."
I think at least the MPs & Lords have some concept of the Internet being central to the legislation, but some of the other people giving their views aren't even thinking about how it will work in practice - they talk as though the only thing to decide on were "Is extreme porn a bad thing?" (The British Psychological Society's response is like that.) Doh!
For what it's worth, I have a feeling that the Backlash campaign people ought to be thinking more on the Internet/practicality side. I know the BDSM angle naturally leads people to think and say a lot about civil liberties, consent etc., but i.m.o. there is a lot of room for valid subjective disagreement about where to draw the lines on that stuff, and some people will never agree with you about that aspect of it. The ethical points still need to be made, I'm not saying stop making those too; but in this particular case, the sheer ill-informed wishful thinking about how such a law would work in practice is i.m.o. a far weaker side of the pro-legislation argument.
And I'm not just saying that like "We don't want the legislation, therefore look for the weak side to pick on". I started off pretty open-minded about the possibility of "something (sensible) being done", and the sheer ill-thought-out impracticality of the proposal is part of what convinced me it was a bad idea.
Anyway... all very interesting stuff, I think...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-03 09:07 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-06 08:22 pm (UTC)Any chance of getting to read your response, b.t.w.? Would be interested to find out whether I agree with it :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-07 11:05 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-08 09:55 pm (UTC)You could have left those comments attached to the other post if you'd wanted, I wouldn't have minded.