I was just drifting through, but who knows I might say if the topics are as riveting as this...
I want to point out something no one is thinking. People are judging this as a protection issue or a personal rights issue and generally responding emotionally and no rationally. Now while they are not at fault for doing so they are over looking what this issue really is: a legal issue. Legal issues are cut and dry, they use language very precisely and have obvious boundaries set by that language. Those who create the legal issue may go further, often using emotional responses to get people to ok the law they are trying to pass, but how he wording of the law is interoperated is all that matters.
In this case it is NOT, I repeat NOT, about sex with animals, children or violent images. One has to look at the wording of the law and they will see no reference to these things. The words they will see is "grossly offensive, disturbing or otherwise of an obscene character." That is exactly what it will cover, and while it covers the before mentioned abuses it covers EVERY type of porn as well. Why? Well these words are 'in the eye of the beholder' and nothing more. Someone, even if just one person who truly fits frauds only 'sexual abnormal*,' finds anything offensive then this law bans it!
Considering how many religious nuts the world has this is a under cover means to create a law banning all porn.
I call this a open ended law myself, one that can be used for a WIDE range of things... including things that a reasonable person might never even think it could ever cover. Even the people making these laws might find themselves becoming criminals, as the law is always interoperated as written and open ended ones are always twisted any way the person interoperating them wants.
Australia tried the same crap to ban web pages, making a open ended law and selling it to the people as protecting children, animals, little old ladies... anything that could produce an emotional response. The wording of the law meant it could censor any page, even this one, and indeed it has already been shown the pages we knew they have on the cutting board wouldn't even make up 1% of the pages that deal with already criminalised acts. The excuses offered did not cover the whole of the law. Most where the usual crap the government wants to ban, such as bad mouthing said government or general dissent.
So while it is a issue of civil rights, personal rights and what not you have to vote against such a bill because it is just way too open. Cause if I was was British I would sue the arses off every retail sex store using one religious nut case, easily found in this world, to get your straight up heterosexual porn banned. Why? Cause you would deserve it for being so stupid as to let the words 'disturbing' govern what can and can't be seen!
Now, back to watching unforgotten realms like the Geek I am. Oh and before I go: Heterosexual sex can cause damage to the Vagoo and particularly the anus so if that is the only real boundary it is a flimsy one. How many woman here have hurt after intercourse even though the pleasure was so much greater? Or do I start feeling sorry for you all, that your lovers can't 'make love' to you till you can't walk.
It was once said, by who I can't remember, that you can judge how free a country is by the laws they have against porn. I feel this is true, as it is always the 'hot button' politicians press when they have even bigger censorship laws down the books and the cultures most open to different opinions and criticism being voiced are more open to normal sexual behaviour. Even the strange behaviour....
*Someone who feels no physical attraction at all.
