2 ms·

Who is intentionally exploring it? What makes you think this? Can you provide credible news sources to back up this claim that Cameron's intended anti porn meas

by jschuur 13y ago

Who is intentionally exploring it? What makes you think this? Can you provide credible news sources to back up this claim that Cameron's intended anti porn measures (which have already seen conflicting pieces on opt-out vs opt-in) will be applied to books? Other than a sensationalist blog post by someone whose passion for free speech led them to wildly jump to unfounded conclusions, which doesn't help the legitimate discussion around this topic at all?

merlincorey 13y ago
> Who is intentionally exploring it? The person you assigned the identifier "someone whose passion for free speech led them to wildly jump to unfounded conclusions" which is far too long of an identifier, if you ask me, but that's not really the point either. > What makes you think this? The fact that I read the article makes me think that the person who wrote the article is exploring said concept. > Can you provide credible news sources to back up this claim that Cameron's intended anti porn measures (which have already seen conflicting pieces on opt-out vs opt-in) will be applied to books? Can you provide the quoted text from the article we are discussing which makes this exact claim? I never said it did, I said it was exploring the possibility, and to back that up I included relevant passages and information. Furthermore, I made the point, which you ignored, that whether or not books are included, there is currently media that is being consumed and possessed by people in the UK which will certainly be considered illegal very soon. Can you tell me your stance on how good or bad that is?
Tinned_Tuna 13y ago
It's an intentional exploration of the concept, from TFA: "... thus bringing this absurdist tirade to a close and showing the law for what it really is: Propaganda codified as law." The clue is in the "absurdist tirade" -- this is a reduction of the current media coverage of the law into implications which seem technically plausible.

by jschuur 13y ago

merlincorey 13y ago

> Who is intentionally exploring it? The person you assigned the identifier "someone whose passion for free speech led them to wildly jump to unfounded conclusions" which is far too long of an identifier, if you ask me, but that's not really the point either. > What makes you think this? The fact that I read the article makes me think that the person who wrote the article is exploring said concept. > Can you provide credible news sources to back up this claim that Cameron's intended anti porn measures (which have already seen conflicting pieces on opt-out vs opt-in) will be applied to books? Can you provide the quoted text from the article we are discussing which makes this exact claim? I never said it did, I said it was exploring the possibility, and to back that up I included relevant passages and information. Furthermore, I made the point, which you ignored, that whether or not books are included, there is currently media that is being consumed and possessed by people in the UK which will certainly be considered illegal very soon. Can you tell me your stance on how good or bad that is?

Tinned_Tuna 13y ago

It's an intentional exploration of the concept, from TFA: "... thus bringing this absurdist tirade to a close and showing the law for what it really is: Propaganda codified as law." The clue is in the "absurdist tirade" -- this is a reduction of the current media coverage of the law into implications which seem technically plausible.