Comments on: There is no HTTP code for censorship http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/2008/12/09/there-is-no-http-code-for-censorship/ Because all the other domain names were taken Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:53:48 +0000 hourly 1 By: Andy Burnham - in ur internetz, classifyin ur sitez | qwghlm.co.uk http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/2008/12/09/there-is-no-http-code-for-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-3173 Andy Burnham - in ur internetz, classifyin ur sitez | qwghlm.co.uk Sun, 28 Dec 2008 14:58:46 +0000 http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/blog/?p=1055#comment-3173 [...] with plans to age-certify the web like is currently done with films and DVDs. Coming in wake of the IWF’s horribly misguided attempt to block Wikipedia, this is another hamfisted approach to regulating the Internet as if it were old media that solves [...] [...] with plans to age-certify the web like is currently done with films and DVDs. Coming in wake of the IWF’s horribly misguided attempt to block Wikipedia, this is another hamfisted approach to regulating the Internet as if it were old media that solves [...]

]]> By: James H http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/2008/12/09/there-is-no-http-code-for-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-3163 James H Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:12:13 +0000 http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/blog/?p=1055#comment-3163 In response to the quote in #1, I found this simply because I searched the net for said "obscure, unpronounceable reference to [sci-fi]". Glad I did too! In response to the quote in #1, I found this simply because I searched the net for said “obscure, unpronounceable reference to [sci-fi]“.
Glad I did too!

]]> By: Becky D http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/2008/12/09/there-is-no-http-code-for-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-3149 Becky D Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:57:42 +0000 http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/blog/?p=1055#comment-3149 If you think the new extreme pornography bill is bad, just consider what their responses are. Not "it's connected to organised crime" from Kenny MacAskill (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2008/01/25142201), or "protect the women/children/protitututes/dead chickens/wolly mammoths" from the feminists (http://www.swapcampaign.co.uk/index.html), no no no, nothing so logical! Quote: Thank you for your various e mails about the proposals to create a criminal offence for the possession of extreme pornographic material. Scottish Ministers are of the opinion that material of this type is so abhorrent that it should not be tolerated. There are concerns about the harm to those involved in the making of this type of pornography. You should note that the selling, distributing and importing of this type of extreme, obscene material is already illegal under the provisions of section 51 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. What the new offence will do is criminalise the possession of such material. It appears from your e mails that you are aware that a joint consultation between the Scottish Government and the Home Office was carried out in 2005. You may not be aware that the majority of the responses to that consultation were in favour of the law being strengthened in that area. I hope this response explains where the draft provisions came from and why they will be included in the Bill. End Quote Yes, that explains everything, thank you. If you think the new extreme pornography bill is bad, just consider what their responses are. Not “it’s connected to organised crime” from Kenny MacAskill (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2008/01/25142201), or “protect the women/children/protitututes/dead chickens/wolly mammoths” from the feminists (http://www.swapcampaign.co.uk/index.html), no no no, nothing so logical!

Quote:
Thank you for your various e mails about the proposals to create a criminal offence for the possession of extreme pornographic material.

Scottish Ministers are of the opinion that material of this type is so abhorrent that it should not be tolerated. There are concerns about the harm to those involved in the making of this type of pornography. You should note that the selling, distributing and importing of this type of extreme, obscene material is already illegal under the provisions of section 51 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. What the new offence will do is criminalise the possession of such material.

It appears from your e mails that you are aware that a joint consultation between the Scottish Government and the Home Office was carried out in 2005. You may not be aware that the majority of the responses to that consultation were in favour of the law being strengthened in that area.

I hope this response explains where the draft provisions came from and why they will be included in the Bill.

End Quote

Yes, that explains everything, thank you.

]]> By: Lib Dig Pig #4 | Liberal Democrat Voice http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/2008/12/09/there-is-no-http-code-for-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-3135 Lib Dig Pig #4 | Liberal Democrat Voice Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:55:33 +0000 http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/blog/?p=1055#comment-3135 [...] the final word on the subject, according to Lib Diggers anyway, goes to Chris Applegate on his blog Qwghlm (honestly, what kind of a fool names their blog after an obscure, unpronounceable reference to [...] [...] the final word on the subject, according to Lib Diggers anyway, goes to Chris Applegate on his blog Qwghlm (honestly, what kind of a fool names their blog after an obscure, unpronounceable reference to [...]

]]>