quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger


The ol 'the law is badly worded' argument gets pulled out for anythign and everything. The CDA, the CPPA, COPA, CIPA, the PROTECT Act, the CCEA. Every single time the talking points are the same. 'The law is badily worded'. Even just this past month in US V Williams the suporeme court over here spicicifily said that a law was NOT overly broad, and the kneejerk reaction by the kink comunity was 'Oh no, this law is overly broad and badily worded'

quote:

Hardly anyone seems to be screaming conspiracy except for yourself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

quote:

Hardly anyone seems to be screaming conspiracy except for yourself.

Thats cause anyone else who believes the sky is not falling has enough common sence to give up arguing rather quickly. They know they will never win. Me? Im too stubborn.

Just check out the last thread on this topic. http://www.collarchat.com/m_1823515/tm.htm The only other person besides myself who was trying to explain that we are not hours away from having all kinksters rounded up and sent off to fenced in reeducation camps was LaddyEllen. And she gave up by the top of page 2.

Robert Anton Wilsion said it best. " To me, it doesn't matter if your scapegoats are Jews, the homosexuals, the male sex, the Masons, the Jesuits, the Welfare Parasites, the Power Elite, the female sex, the Vegetarians or the Communist Party. To the the extent that you need scapegoats, you simply have not got your brain programmed to work as an efficient problem-solving machine. Show me a movement that doesn't hate somebody and I will join at once."

Screaming that the evil right wing christians who control the government want to force everyone to never have any kind of sex ever is no more going to address the issues that face BDSM today than if you werte to scream that the evil Jews who control all government is going to destroy the world. Government is simply not that high up the list of things kinksters should be worried about. Yet the things that we should be worried about cant be blamed on bible thumpers so they will never be addressed. Its way to simply to just point your fingers at a group and say that its them that are causing all your trouble..... Yet it is ~me~ who is the conspariacy theoriest?????

I will ask again. Show me *ANY* law that is not 'overly broad'. It dosent have to be about BDSM. Dosent have to be about kink. Dosent have to be about pictures. Any topic from regulation of the sale of cabbages, to imports of kid toys, to racatering law. Anything. And it dosent have to be just the UK nor just current laws. Any law on any topic from any culture or nation at any time in all of human history. Can you show me just one law that is not 'baddly worded and overly broad'?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrigandDoom
Have a look at the Counter Terrorism Bill thats currently being proposed, especially section 19, subsection 6, the proposed ability to ber able to introduce evidence into any trial without being able to prove its provenance. CJIA 2008 pales into insignificance to this attempt at perverting trials!

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrigandDoom
Have a look at the Counter Terrorism Bill thats currently being proposed, especially section 19, subsection 6, the proposed ability to ber able to introduce evidence into any trial without being able to prove its provenance. CJIA 2008 pales into insignificance to this attempt at perverting trials!

I was asking for a law that is NOT pooorly worded and overly broad. I wasent asking for a law that is even more porrly worded than the CJIA.

Everyone knows that so called 'counter teriosim' laws are so vague, that they could be used againt anyone. All it takes is for someone in government to not like you, they can false claims that you are a terist, and then they can lock you up for the rest of your life and there is nothing you can do about it.

In fact, there are so many so-called 'anti terror' laws that are overly broad its hard finding the spicific 'section 19 subsection 6' your talking about. A disclosure under this section does not breach (a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person making thedisclosure, or (b) any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).

Since they never define 'other' restriction nor do they define 'however imposed' it could be anything. Anyone in government can take anything they want at all, declare that something to be an 'other' and theres nothign you can do about it. How on earth can you claim this law is clearly worded when they intentionaly leave in a 'anything else we want to' clause and never define what that anything else is?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrigandDoom
..... there are people who are clearly innocent being found guilty, .....

(1) It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an extreme pornographic image.
(2) An “extreme pornographic image” is an image which is both—

(a) pornographic, and (b) an extreme image.

(3) An image is “pornographic” if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.

~snip: rest of the exceptions and exclusions can be read at the link~