?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous | Next

Sacher-Masoch is writhing in his grave

Via londonkds, I read nostalgia_lj's Ten and Donna fic, and it's truly wonderful, though you may need a certain level of fannishness to get it. Donna is beta-reading Ten's Buffy fanfic. HA.

Apparently, if you dress up in a Scooby Doo costume and a pink mohican to sell drugs, you'll get away with it because the cops are amused, basically.

I'm almost fully immersed in Heroes again, what with downloading the new eps, reading the TWoP recaps and forums, and watching the S1 DVDs I just received. mind_expander and I watched the original pilot and the first six eps the other night, and last night I watched 12-15 with the commentaries on. I <3 Jack Coleman. And Grunny.

There may have been a discussion of a World of Darkness/ Heroes crossover, and what would happen if a Hero got vamped. This may have made me think "I could do that for Nano". But I wasn't going to do Nano, because a) I always fail miserably, and b) I'm away the first weekend in November, so that's not a good start. Hmm.

Interesting thread on the Organ Grinder blog in the Guardian - the original column is about whether it was an over-reaction for Peter Fincham to resign as controller of BBC One, but the comments get into a fairly deep and wide-ranging discussion about the state of TV today, the state of the BBC, factual vs entertainment programmes, and so on.

Apparently the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill was being discussed this week again in parliament, and they're still trying to legislate against possessing pictures of BDSM and non-vanilla sex. Specifically, it will be illegal to possess "extreme pornographic images". This is worth keeping an eye on - yet more attempts to meddle in people's private, consensual business. Backlash.org are keeping an eye on the situation, and protesting against it. The relevant part of the Bill is here, and the most worrying bits are things like
(6) An “extreme image” is an image of any of the following -
(a) an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life,
(b) an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
(c) an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse,
(d) a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal, where (in each case) any such act, person or animal depicted in the image is or appears to be real.


The main problem here, clearly, is the use of the phrase "appears to", which seems to imply that our government has no idea how TV in general works. It's not real, dears! Calm down! Labour's Harry Cohen did point this out, so yay for him. But anyway, just another way I'll probably be a criminal if it goes through. I'm quite amazed at the number of ways a relatively law-abiding professional citizen like myself can be criminalised...

Comments

( 8 comments — Comment )
zotz
Oct. 10th, 2007 01:21 pm (UTC)
The main problem here, clearly, is the use of the phrase "appears to", which seems to imply that our government has no idea how TV in general works. It's not real, dears! Calm down!

I've asked a few people whether anyone's asked for a proper lawyer's opinion on this - you know, someone who does that sort of case. I haven't had an answer.

It might be interpreted as meaning " seems at first glance" or it might mean "seems according to the available evidence", which would be entirely different. Frankly I'm rather disappointed with the campaigners against this bill for apparently blithely assuming it will have the meaning which will best provoke outrage when it fact it may be possible to actually check.
pickwick
Oct. 10th, 2007 01:25 pm (UTC)
Hmm, good point. I would have thought that if "appears to" had a specific legal meaning in this context, that would be made clear in the bill, but maybe not.

I don't know if I'd be that happy with even "seems according to the available evidence" - it would depend whether the prosecutor had to prove that it WAS causing hurt, etc, or whether the defendant had to prove it was acting. (And now I have visions of people recreating it in court to prove it was acting, which at least would keep things interesting!)
zotz
Oct. 10th, 2007 01:31 pm (UTC)
I don't like it as a bill on either version, but I'm getting increasingly hacked off with the general tone at the moment - nothing is just unwise, or a bad law. Anything you can mention is a tool of tyranny, and campaigners will settle for nothing less ("What of Magna carta? Did she die in vain?").

And, of course, if you ask people what the law actually says, they don't know, because they haven't read it. Nor do they know what law it's replacing or updating, or whether it loosens or tightens the previous restrictions because they don't know what those are either . . .

Bah humbug.

I just wish people would do their homework when they try to convince me of things.
pickwick
Oct. 10th, 2007 01:42 pm (UTC)
Heh, yes, I do try to do at least a little homework, cos it's easy to get caught out. Like the "Lockheed Martin are doing the census, argh" thing where it turned out they did it last time too. There are issues with the Patriot Act that make it dodgier this time, but not knowing they'd done it before meant I'd already lost the argument, pretty much.
kaiserdad
Oct. 10th, 2007 01:55 pm (UTC)
Doh!
(a) an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life, no murder, war films or westerns?
(b) an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals, no documentaries about the Spanish Inquisition or Gestapo
(c) an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse, Vampires?
sloopjonb
Oct. 10th, 2007 05:05 pm (UTC)
That's Mel Gibson's crucifixion-fest buggered, then. It's an ill wind!
san_valentine
Oct. 10th, 2007 07:53 pm (UTC)
If they're going to bugger it, they'll have to be careful not to seriously injure, or appear to injure, its anus.

Which could well result in some ill wind.
marcella_riddle
Oct. 10th, 2007 05:54 pm (UTC)
My housemates and I are disgusted with that legislation. What people do in their bedrooms is not the business of the government.
( 8 comments — Comment )

Profile

bad wolf
pickwick
Notes from extinction

Latest Month

November 2010
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    
Powered by LiveJournal.com