d0om on 14/11/2006 at 00:27

---

The violent porn issue does seem a bit over the top though. If two consenting adults want to do something and take photos of it, you shouldn't lock them in jail for it.

Why not simply make it illegal to sell it or something. Making it illegal to possess it seems a little harsh. What if you click on a link in IRC which leads to this sort of porn, and then the police log the hit to the site and raid your computer and find the file on the hard disk?

Paz on 14/11/2006 at 00:58

---

I don't know how we would ever have got the idea you were comparing the Labour Party with the Nazis when you've been expressing your viewpoint with the usual sensible, measured language and clarity of thought.

Matthew on 14/11/2006 at 10:02

---

Er, hasn't the lack of a trial by jury for certain cases been around for about 30 years? I think expansion of that provision is somewhat more accurate.

mopgoblin on 14/11/2006 at 12:58

---

Our electoral reforms of the 80s/90s got started from within a two-party system, and we ended up with MMP (still not great, but much better than FPP, and there have been no more single-party governments since then). It did follow a couple of elections in which the winning party got fewer votes than the loser, though (I do wonder how different the country would be today if Muldoon's government had only got one term. Think Big, Rogernomics, the Springbok tour, the nuclear ship issue, and the Fourth Labour Government's constitutional reforms might all have turned out rather differently). Dunno if the same thing could happen in the UK, as to me it looks like your major parties are after power for its own sake. Maybe if the Liberal Democrats held the balance of power, and required a start to electoral reform as a condition for forming a coalition? Although that's less likely to happen under FPP.


Of course it'd be an interstellar leap. You can't get there all in one go, because it needs a lot of infrastructure and legislation. Some parts of that <em>have</em> to be set up in a lot of very small steps, otherwise too many people will realise what you're up to before you're well enough entrenched and they'll throw you out of power.


Well, no. The idea is that they can get you for "terrorism" if they have some other reason to want to get rid of you. I dunno about Marx, but chemistry and biology textbooks would probably be pretty useful to someone making explosives or poisons. Maps, blueprints, and physics/engineering/mathematics textbooks or software could be used to greatly improve structural damage caused by a bomb. Computer science textbooks can contain information that would assist in attacks on systems and networks, and also increase confidence in the security of machines and communication channels, while secure operating systems and cryptography software/keys provide the mechanisms. Really, just about any part of science or engineering potentially has evil applications, as does any information regarding anything that's a potential target.


I don't think many people want people to be into any of those, but that's not the point. For a start, it sounds like the scope of those laws extends beyond what you're describing. Let's have a look:

The article on the "necrophilia" law implies that it makes an assumption along the lines of "viewing porn causes violence", without considering "unknown factor X causes viewing porn and causes violence", and I'm not convinced that we know which one is more accurate. But this law would seem to cover a fair bit of other stuff - "The new law would outlaw any material that featured violence that was, or appeared to be, life-threatening or likely to result in serious and disabling injury". A number of things that appear dangerous are in fact relatively safe if the participants know what they're doing and aren't overconfident. Similarly, some things that might seem safe can actually be quite dangerous if not done properly. It should also be noted that making a video is one way of showing that consent was given (and not revoked at any time) - depending on your laws, this could make any legal issues somewhat easier if, say, the relationship goes bad, or you make too much noise and the neighbours call the police. But most importantly, if people are making these pictures/films in private with the consent of all involved, it should be none of the government's business.

The focus of the "Man Jailed for Racist Web Messages" article isn't paedophilia, it's racist web messages. Look at the difference between the sentences - five times as long for a handful of bloody stupid internet posts. There's not enough information to say whether the child porn sentence is reasonable or not, but how could 32 months ever be a reasonable sentence for saying nasty things on the internet? "publishing material likely to stir up racial hatred" may be an unpleasant thing to do, but it doesn't actually harm anyone. Leaving aside insanity and accidents, any person who actually causes harm, whether as a result of what they read or listen to or otherwise, is solely responsible for their own actions (unless they've been coerced, or perhaps deceived into thinking they were acting in self-defence against a legitimate and specific threat).

Regarding alcohol, what proportion of crashes involve a driver who had been drinking but wasn't over the limit? Lowering the limit might not actually make any significant difference, and regardless it shouldn't be done in a discriminatory manner. And why should people who drink responsibly pay more for alcohol because other people are being idiots?

Individually, perhaps some of these might not seem like all that much. But if you take them all together, and especially in conjunction with the batshit anti-terrorism stuff, it certainly looks like something's not right - perhaps more so to someone living in another country and not seeing them happen only one or two at a time.

*Zaccheus* on 14/11/2006 at 13:17

---

So putting the two together, it is illegal to possess a document or record containing information which would be useful to a person committing or preparing an act which ... involves serious violence against a person or involves serious damage to property or endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action or creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system with the aim of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause..