Comment by merlincorey | Hacker News Reader

Comment by merlincorey | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think they [the author] are intentionally exploring it. In fact, a good portion of the article is on the definition of "depict"[1], which would probably include books by most people's understanding. The other point is being available online - which books are via kindle and other services.

> Also falling into firmly into this category is Burgess' "A Clockwork Orange". Once again, it's available for Kindle, it definitely depicts rape, and it's read world-wide by millions.

This is both a book and a film - extremely famous, and has a rape scene. Is it going to be illegal (once again)?

Earlier, in the same section he says:

> Given that many contemporary novels (and less-contemporary) novels do deal with sexual abuse and rape, some of which explore the idea of "rape fantasy" (Herein referred to by the more accepted name, "ravishment") between consenting partners means that a large portion of those with an interest in BDSM and kink will fall into this category.

So, whether novels will be included or not, there is definitely already media which is currently legal and consumed by law abiding citizens who have no predilections or desires to rape anyone that may suddenly become illegal. This is a problem, in my opinion.

I'm glad I have the first and second amendments... for now.

[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/depict

> Is it going to be illegal (once again)?

It wasn't really clear in your comment so I figured it would be good to chime in and mention that the movie wasn't actually banned by any government but rather Kubrick had it pulled:

"Kubrick asked Warner Brothers to withdraw the film from British distribution, disliking the allegation that the film was responsible for copycat violence in real life"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_(film)#Briti...

Technically it was illegal to distribute the movie in Britain for 27 years, but it was purely a copyright / distribution rights issue. You may have known that but it's such a huge myth that it was actually banned for content that I wanted to fill in some gaps.

I was aware of it, having spent far too much time discussing this and other movies and the rights related to them.

I think this is a great point, though, and I can only excuse myself for lack of sleep for not at least mentioning it. Thanks for adding it!

Back to my point, which stems from the allegations, and the fact that now the movie has been legal again for some time and yet we are not overrun with copycats, though it continues to be a popular movie.

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?

> 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?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com