Quote:
Originally Posted by Dj-Zero
Well, the example you gave, of someone concenting to be killed on camera, that kind of film is illegal anyway and, as such, isn't the issue here. i think that people should be free to express themselves without worrying if their art is going to land them in jail, and yes, some artists could go to jail for their work if this legislation is pushed through.
You say you haven't heard of this until i posted, that is why i'm posting about it, to try and make people aware the government are trying to push this through.
|
I gave that example to illustrate that some things are already illegal and considered to "violent" and "extreme" to distribute on film. A main argument on the site is that the ambiguity in the terms "violent" and "extreme" mean that innocents might go to jail or be put on the sex offender registry.
I think it's counter intuitive for them to argue against a legislation based on the ambiguity of the terms it uses, when obviously it would have to rigidly define those terms before being passed.
Do you know anywhere where the original home office proposal is hosted so we could read it and draw our own conclusions? Also, do you think it's appropriate to ask people to sign a political document like a petition in an environment like a night club when they're all pished, and maybe don't know what it's all about? Maybe I'm totally missing something, but when the only source is something that's by definition biased against something it's maybe not the whole story.