Police set to step up hacking of home PCs

Energize · 5 Jan 2009 at 19:47

fini said:
Why are you so keen on being able to watch someone get beaten up during sex anyway?

What's wrong with not wanting our freedoms to be removed? Or are you not able to come up with a good argument for the law and just want to provoke? Do you support the obscene publications act which makes it illegal to write fictional stories if the government doesn't like it?

Angilion · 5 Jan 2009 at 19:49

fini said:
Why are you so keen on being able to watch someone get beaten up during sex anyway?

Thank you for providing such an excellent example of the slander and ad hominem that supporters of the law use to suppress dissent by people who've pointed out that the law is deliberately vague and not at all what it's claimed to be.

That was your intention, right? You're not really sinking that low, are you?

fini · 5 Jan 2009 at 19:50

Energize said:
What's wrong with not wanting our freedoms to be removed? Or are you not able to come up with a good argument for the law and just want to provoke?

Freedom to masturbate to someone getting beaten up? Is that really a freedom that you want to defend?

Energize · 5 Jan 2009 at 19:51

fini said:
Freedom to masturbate to someone getting beaten up? Is that really a freedom that you want to defend?

I defend the ability for consenting adults to do whatever they want.

Strife212 · 5 Jan 2009 at 19:52

Angilion said:
Thank you for providing such an excellent example of the slander and ad hominem that supporters of the law use to suppress dissent by people who've pointed out that the law is deliberately vague and not at all what it's claimed to be.

That was your intention, right? You're not really sinking that low, are you?

How is it vague?

a) an act which threatens a person’s life,
(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,

It clearly states these acts, or simulation of these acts.

fini · 5 Jan 2009 at 19:55

Angilion said:
Thank you for providing such an excellent example of the slander

Could you point out where I've been slanderous please.

Angilion said:
and ad hominem

Could you point out where I attacked you? Is it not a perfectly valid question to ask when discussing the topic. You are keen to protect your right to watch someone being beaten up whilst having sex. Is it not natural to ask the simple question of 'why'?

Angilion said:
people who've pointed out that the law is deliberately vague and not at all what it's claimed to be.

I presume you understand how common law systems work, in which case I have to ask vague in comparison to what? Statute is by definition broad and non specific, otherwise it is unworkable. It is case law that sets limits - look at the whole of tort for example.

That was your intention, right? You're not really sinking that low, are you?[/QUOTE]

Energize · 5 Jan 2009 at 19:55

Strife212 said:
How is it vague?

Read the bit above, where it goes on about it being "obscene or disgusting or grossly offensive", incredibly subjective.

fini · 5 Jan 2009 at 19:56

Energize said:
I defend the ability for consenting adults to do whatever they want.

So you would have decided differently in the much quoted case of R v Brown? You don't think public policy comes in to any of this at all? Surely by that logic you must also sanction assisted suicide?

Strife212 · 5 Jan 2009 at 19:56

I thought that was just a generic description encompassing the stuff listed below, if it is based on that then yes it is incredibly subjective.

Energize · 5 Jan 2009 at 19:59

Strife212 said:
I thought that was just a generic description encompassing the stuff listed below, if it is based on that then yes it is incredibly subjective.

It says,

(6) An “extreme image” is an image which—

(a) falls within subsection (7), and

(b) is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.

So the act must appear to cause injury, and also be "disgusting", which ofc is ridiculously subjective.

fini said:
So you would have decided differently in the much quoted case of R v Brown? You don't think public policy comes in to any of this at all?

Moral and social values do not have any place in law as far as I'm concerned. Yes I would have ruled differently, like I said earlier I did not agree with operation spanners outcome. It was a gross example of police incompetence, and homophobia.

Surely by that logic you must also sanction assisted suicide?

Yes, like I said I'm pro choice.

SexyGreyFox · 5 Jan 2009 at 20:04

Energize said:
I defend the ability for consenting adults to do whatever they want.

Even if those adults are quite clearly disturbed?
What about the guy who let somebody chop his dick off and then let him eat it?

mmj_uk · 5 Jan 2009 at 20:04

Why don't they just cut to the chase and put CCTV's in everybody's homes? we have nothing to hide so it's okay right? :rolleyes:

Strife212 · 5 Jan 2009 at 20:05

mmj_uk said:
Why don't they just cut to the chase and put CCTV's in everybody's homes? we have nothing to hide so it's okay right?

The difference here is if you have nothing to hide they won't hack your PC in the first place.

fini · 5 Jan 2009 at 20:06

Energize said:
So the act must appear to cause injury, and also be "disgusting", which ofc is ridiculously subjective.

No, it's an objective test - the test is that of the man upon the clapham omnibus.

Energize said:
Moral and social values do not have any place in law as far as I'm concerned.

Surely that is ALL any laws are based on. Why is paedophilia illegal - because it is immoral. Why is bestiality illegal - because it is immoral and offends society's values. Look at any law and ask why is that law there.

Energize · 5 Jan 2009 at 20:06

dmpoole said:
Even if those adults are quite clearly disturbed?
What about the guy who let somebody chop his dick off and then let him eat it?

If someone has a mental illness then they can't consent by definition, don't know what you mean by disturbed, but if suicide isn't a crime, then asking someone to kill you shouldn't be either.

fini said:
Surely that is ALL any laws are based on. Why is paedophilia illegal - because it is immoral. Why is bestiality illegal - because it is immoral and offends society's values. Look at any law and ask why is that law there.

Laws should be based on harm, how can you have a crime without victims? It's senseless.

Tefal · 5 Jan 2009 at 20:06

fini said:
Freedom to masturbate to someone getting beaten up? Is that really a freedom that you want to defend?

So what about boxing?

Those people suffer far worse beatings than the average s&m video, are you saying you'd make that illegal?

Tefal · 5 Jan 2009 at 20:07

fini said:
Surely that is ALL any laws are based on. Why is paedophilia illegal - because it is immoral.

No it;s because a child cannot legally consent.

Why is bestiality illegal - because it is immoral and offends society's values. .

No it's because an animal cannot legally consent.

fini · 5 Jan 2009 at 20:08

Energize said:
If someone has a mental illness then they can't consent by definition

If someone is assaulted then they can't consent by definition.

Energize said:
Laws should be based on harm, how can you have a crime without victims? It's senseless.

Most laws in relation to IP infringement are victimless. Most drug laws are victimless. Most speeding laws are victimless.

fini · 5 Jan 2009 at 20:10

Tefal said:
No it;s because a child cannot legally consent.

They only can't consent because the law says they can't - just like the law says you can't consent to an assault. The question was a legal theory one, not a practical one. Looking at the routes of why paedophilia or bestiality is illegal is because it offends society's morals.

Tefal · 5 Jan 2009 at 20:10

fini said:
If someone is assaulted then they can't consent by definition.

So how about a boxer who dies in the ring?

Surely his opponent should be charged with murder?

And any boxer/wrestler should immediately be banged up for assault right?