www.BoundAnna.com

Mc_ntk wrote:This would only affect the websites IF THE SERVERS are in the UK!
If they are affected they could just go somewhere else.
If you have a site that is affected I would glady pay for canadian or some hosting in india to get around this.

P.S., If you are being filtered from bdsm sites I can set up my computer as a proxy so you can get on them again.

This reminds of a filter my school had for 'game sites' you know, online games, you tube, facebook, the like. Kids had ways of getting around that. Now what makes you think ADULTS aren't gonna find out the same ways

setvie wrote:When does this law start in the UK and which sites will be prohibited?

Since the original post was in September of 2006, I would assume the law is already in effect, if it actually did become law.

mat_slave wrote:to be honest I can't see the government coming after people like us, they're going to be more interested in those collecting rape and snuff kind of pictures. that's my view anyway.

i hate to use this comparison, but i think this would go like the drug laws do in the US. They look for and want to find the dealers/smugglers, but if they find users/buyers along the way, they wont look the other way.

curious_sb wrote:Hi,
..... this new law will only target the so called "snuff" sites and real rape and hardcore stuff ...

Note that UK anti terrorist laws have been used against banks in Iceland and people dropping litter but hardly any terrorists. Be afraid

The problem is, when there are sufficiently strident voices - even if they are few in number - making a sufficient amount of ruckus (as Helen Lovejoy from the Simpsons put it, "Will someone please think of the children!") for or against something, the lawmakers will make laws not to benefit society as a whole, but just to shut those strident voices up. It's for their own image, because if those shrill complainers keep complaining, the politicians' popularity suffers. The silent majority remains silent, either way, because whatever happens doesn't concern their daily lives.

And once the bureaucracy kicks in, you'll have a whole load of aspiring heroes (and paranoid maniacs) who want to save the country from the big, bad, nasty pervs, even if they look ridiculous doing it. It's that kind of mentality that is exemplified in the Quebec "language police", the Office de la Langue Française", who in their excessive zeal can occasionally apply themselves so ludicrously that they take legal action against a pet store for having a parrot that only speaks English.

Any type of legislation that reeks of control will lead to this. Someone somewhere, avid for a promotion, will find any excuse to show their worth, regardless of any form of reason.

To quote a former (and great) Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, "the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation".

Jenny.

Don't forget grandstanding, either. Bad politicians are only too eager to vote for anything they can say will "protect the children." Good politicians aren't immune, since they know the /bad/ politicians will use their apparent "vote against protecting the children" as ammo to stay in office at the expense of those good politicians.

Good Politicians

thedude wrote:Don't forget grandstanding, either. Bad politicians are only too eager to vote for anything they can say will "protect the children." Good politicians aren't immune, since they know the /bad/ politicians will use their apparent "vote against protecting the children" as ammo to stay in office at the expense of those good politicians.

I believe that was the point I was making, just in different words, and including the whiners in the process. Was I too subtle?

onstrangeguy wrote:Good Politicians

I suspect you haven't seen any lately...

Jenny.

bound_jenny wrote:I believe that was the point I was making, just in different words, and including the whiners in the process. Was I too subtle?

Eh, my bad. I thought you were focusing on the way they might pass legislation just to placate the whiny moral-panic types, not so much as a way to maneuver and make themselves look better.

It's not exactly a U.K. law, since it's here in the U.S. but it's the same idea.

Over the past year or so there has been a lot of controversy over laws dealing with public nudity. It all started last year when a local college held their annual (Ten years) "Naked Pumpkin Run". Hundreds of people showed up to whiteness the event. It seems about 150 people participated. the cops caught 12, and charged them with indecent Exposure. If convicted they would have had to register as convicted sex offenders. (Not a good thing).
Attached is a link to a recent followup story (With a video of the run) giving all of the details.
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2009/ap ... d-boulder/
The moral of my post is: enjoy playing outdoors, but do it cautiously. your fun may be misconstrued, and turn into a nightmare.

Public nudity is not illegal everywhere in the US. In Burlington Vermont they have an annual Naked Bike Ride. It is not against the law to be naked in public, just to get naked in public. I believe this was worded this way to shut down a strip club years ago but not penalize the public at large. (bad pun)

These links have a pile of pics and some info; just so show I am not making it up. Not everyone is naked.
http://houseoflemay.blog-city.com/world ... ide_08.htm
http://www.worldnakedbikerideburlington.com/

i just had a diabolical idea for a very stimulating bicycle worthy of Gord's devious mind...

Public nudity laws are just the mildest form of the prudish mentality that governs way too many people - well, just enough of them to be able to sway the lawmakers. If that minority would just shut the heck up the majority probably wouldn't care. Combine that with the general perception that the only way to express one's sexuality is to jump into bed, blandly hump away, and fall asleep afterwards, without any spice added, and there you go. No "sex torture" pictures - with a sufficiently vague definition so anything can be interpreted to be illegal, even a friendly spanking, providing a sufficiently foul-mooded bureaucrat is around to do the interpretation.

If those prudes can't have fun, then no one else can either.

Jenny.

The real laws are almost as strange. As the article I offered (A few posts above) says, there is no real law against public nudity in itself. It seems that someone has to be "Offended" in order for it to be a crime. It appears that in some cases that could be the police themselves. The article explains it better than I can. But it's clear that the laws on this are really messed up. (Blue is my post, Black is a quote from the article).

While indecent exposure and public indecency are clearly different, both depend on the person being more than just naked. To fit the bill, someone else has to be offended.

"You need to have somebody that says they would have been alarmed or affronted," said Andy Schmidt, a lawyer of one of the pumpkin runners, speaking about indecent exposure. "In this situation, that was not going to happen."

Schmidt's client, Ty Tuff, was the only runner who didn't take a plea deal and eventually had all of his charges dropped. In Schmidt's opinion, his client couldn't have been found guilty because he didn't do anything wrong. (The other 11 charged were coorced into a plea bargin deal)

There is no law that prevents people from just being naked in Boulder when no one is offended.

Any more news or info about this law?

Would sites such as Hogtied, Device Bondage and HardTied be illegal under this new law?

im intruiged as to how the nudity laws apply to nudists, since that is just their way of life, so is that technically an hate crime, or indecent exposure, assuming people would be offended?