Pirate Party Claims of Using Common Sense Under Investigation by Parliamentary Standards Committee

Hrm, formatting on this one seems really messed up. Any chance of fixing it?

Fixed, sorry about that.

No, it was my fault 100%, but thanks Gavin!

"exercising good moral judgement" Easy to say , not so easy to implement countrywide, not every image will be viewed by elected representatives of the people. Guidelines will be needed for the people who will need to prosecute and "exercise good moral judgement" isn't a guideline. Guidelines need to be as black and white as they come. I think acts like the Obsscene Publications Act are major issue for the PPUK and shouldn't be swept under the carpet of "not in our core policies" because they are!. With freedom of speech and freedom of information comes the problems of the few who will abuse it. The PPUK needs clear ideas/guidelines on how these issues will be addressed. How do we police without infringing on our core policies?

If an act is illegal then so should the resulting image be, not that difficult. If you want to look at pictures of a murder victim for example, it's not a picture of the illegal act so fill your boots, but to desire to watch the act of murder is just wrong.

How does this apply to simulated murder in films? Or historic footage maybe of a war where murder is committed?

"If an act is illegal then so should the resulting image be, not that difficult." I don't mean to be rude, but that is one of the least thought through ideas I've seen on the Internet. I have a picture of my friend smoking pot. Therefore, I'm breaking the law? The BBC reports on the terrorist atrocities of 7/7, showing that famous picture of a bombed bus. Therefore, the BBC has committed a criminal offense? Possessing pictures of child porn should (probably) be illegal, because the existence of an audience for that material might encourage the abuse of children. However, I don't really buy that child porn cartoons should be illegal, never mind photos of ANY ILLEGAL ACTION WHATSOEVER. The images harm no-one, so who the hell are you to tell someone they can't possess them? Continued in next post due to character limit:

Should we ban violent video games? After all, they portray (sometimes very realistically) violent and illegal actions. Somehow, I don't think the Pirate Party will be so quick to jump on the obscenity bandwagon in that case. I was interested in the Pirate Party because I thought it was a progressive movement in favour of free culture. But what I see in this blog post is yet another party trying to tell me what is "moral" to view and what isn't.

In full agreement with TimJ, we need clear thought out responses to these type of questions. From what rancidpunk just said half of Hollywoods major blockbusters, and a massive amount of modern art just got made illegal by one man exercising good moral judgement.

I don't understand the problem, I am not asking to be the censor, I am merely trying to point out that allowing the widespread dissemination of images that show people committing violent or abusive crimes is unecessary. I am not talking about censoring creative media depictions of criminal acts unless you deliberately misunderstand what I have written. What is cool or chic about a picture of someone smoking pot? The BBC self censors in accordance with broadcasting guidlines. This party is not about a free for all, do what you want and we need to show that we are capable of good judgement where there is a need.

1. You don't list any described acts which you would like to censor. Once again, a political party proposes censorship on a very vague range of things. 2. It's not the government's position to decide what is moral or not; what I should like and shouldn't; what I can see and what I can't. 3. Let's just affirm the notion that reading about/observing a crime doesn't make you the criminal. 4. This isn't a good start for a party who are supposed to be fighting for real freedom of speech. Not impressed.

"that allowing the widespread dissemination of images that show people committing violent or abusive crimes is unecessary" So you don't want to be a censor but you also don't want to allow something? How out of the millions of photographs shared online and offline everyday are you going to prevent the 'bad' ones being distributed without being a censor or having censors?

"What is cool or chic about a picture of someone smoking pot?" That isn't for you or any organisation to decide, that isn't at all how freedom of speech works.

I agree that the party cannot be for a free for all, but it needs to know how it is going to answer the basic question on how are we going to stop people abusing any new systems we want to put in place.

So basically you want the right to be able to view snuff, child porn, rape, murder, cannibalism, etc. without any sort of censorship or threat of recrimination because you are capable of exercising your own good judgement and there is no need to protect the more vulnerable members of our society from exposure to any of the above. That's bordering on being on being a sociopath.

There's nothing sociopathic about it. You're supporting government intervention where absolutely none is necessary. If this was a Labour audience, your spiel would be going down a treat, but obviously that isn't the case. We're not interesting in your apologies for censorship, nor are we impressed with your attempts to slander another poster by calling him a "sociopath". You've managed to be deceptive, disappointing and dislikeable all in a very short space of time here. You'd make a great politician.

Snuff and canibalism: There's only one case of snuff videos ever being created, and I've seen it. Criminalizing morbid curiosity serves no purpose, maybe criminalizing sale would be useful to society if you can provide evidence that sale of such footage promotes its production. Child porn and rape: This is a privacy issue, similar to people having illegal copies of my bank details. The punishment should be harsh for the these reasons of violation of privacy, not because they are of a sexual nature or because its frowned upon. Learn to use logic in your arguments.

One of the most important facts about the Pirate Party is that it is a single issue party, looking to fight for a change to copyright and patent laws and protect personal privacy, not to get elected by pandering to public opinions like every other party. There is neither need nor want for the Pirate Party as a whole to take ANY stance on other policies, such as censorship; but if anything one would think that a party whose manifesto calls for the liberation of culture from repression on the basis of evil companies holding copyright for financial reasons would ALSO be in favour of the liberation of culture from repression on the basis of outdated morals. By the way, what you're proposing is in contravention of the basic human right of self-expression as set forth by the United Nations in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.... Read more So shut up and stop wasting all our times and besmirching the already not-so-great name of the Pirate Party UK.

That is just spot on, I'll shut up because you say so. That sounds just great when we're talking about censorship.

I may just have posted a comment multiple times. Sorry if this is the case.

Censorship is wrong in principle and practice and I won't have anything to do with it. There's also a few practical problems with your position here, since it boils down to "things should not be published about illegal acts". This means you either have to have a law which makes a value judgement about the act and the intention of the publication (hello vaguely written laws that can be exploited whenever it is useful to do so), or just flat out bans publication of any description of illegal acts. Lots of films, books, TV series, videogames and any other form of media describe illegal acts. Should they all be banned? This would also ban all court reporting and publishing of any court records, since many of them would contain descriptions of illegal acts which are known to have happened. The Pirate Party should stand for Freedom, in which censorship (and even more so when it is worded using emotional judgements like "perverted" and "good moral judgement") has no part.

I am disappointed to hear such a lack of rational thought and logic from a senior party member, even as an opinion piece. Firstly, what you propose we ought do to books *is* censorship, regardless of the cause. Look it up in a dictionary. The word didn't always have a negative connotation to it, back when peasants thought it was good for the church/king to stop other people being exposed to heretical/treasonous material. So, let me get this straight: You want us to start censoring books, using our "good moral judgement", as defined by our eletorate? How are our (hypothetical) electorate to define what good morals are? What makes you think that there will be any kind of consensus on contentious issues? When they disagree, how do you represent each group? (or do you do something as crude as majority/first past the post?) What happens if you have a religious-right majority who decide to start banning "obscene" books like the Qu'ran and Harry Potter?

Censorship is a road fraught with danger, and it rarely leads to good things. When people realised this, they decided to push for freedom of speech - one of PPUK's 3 core aims. Which is why I am thoroughly perplexed as to why a senior PPUK member is advocating a step in the opposite direction!

I have been [in the past] personally involved in helping the Police recover child porography from someone's computer disk. I saw the images and they sickened me. Not everyone has good morals or good intentions. Stopping these evil people getting hold of the materials in the first place is a good start. What would you think if it where YOUR children? Whilst works of art and religous books should not be restricted, allowing child porn and images of rape etc. (where intent is clearly commiting illegal acts upon vulnerable members of society) should not be encouraged or allowed by any call for greater freedoms.

Sometimes following the public opinion is right, rancidpunk, and sometimes it’s wrong. :-) I wouldn’t like to see society descend back to the level of hanging people. In this case, I believe you’re wrong. The moral highground here is in being as tolerant as possible, as long as behavior isn’t harming others. I'm not saying the party should go round yelling 'child porn!' from the rooftop,but this is a serious issue and I don't like the idea of dismissing certain freedoms of expression so quickly, esp. with so little party debate having been had on the issue. My personal take on this would be, if images or other works accurately depict acts of child abuse (or other acts in which there are alive victims), the works should be censored to protect the dignity of the alive victims. Perhaps a case for censorship could be made in works that threaten national security (HowToBuildANuclearBomb); beyond that, I think there's very little justification for censorship of works in a free society.

Any new laws 'we' as the PPUK propose SHOULD hamper existing laws that are contrary to our 3 core policies, and should be written to NOT hamper existing laws that are not contrary to our 3 core policies.

We certainly should not advocate broad-ranging new laws on censorship because:

1. we are not a censorship party,
2. it is very difficult in such a law to draw a narrow enough line between black and white. Invariably there is not only plenty of grey that ends up on the wrong side, but plenty of black and white too that just makes the specific law a mockery.

I appreciate the author of this article sharing their views - but this is a personal opinion piece and does not reflect official PPUK policies - and as such I am not going to lose sleep over it.

I never proposed changing the law, I just don't see the need for images that are already illegal to be legitimized by giving people the right to possess them. I can't see what is so controversial about keeping the law as it is. This all came from being the question of giving all images the right to remain in existence because all images are culturaly important.

I have one point to make on this rather odious topic. the party will never be in a position to explain why we want profiteering from these creatures who produce said media. without a coherent answer, the media will feast on us. The responses ive heard so far from pirates who oppose my view, and the opposition blogs here, are simply hilarious. Perception is everything when it comes to politics. The media like to apply guilt, by association. If the party were to stand for 100% censorship, it would be a sorry end to the PPUK. i wont be drawn on this subject again, as its a waste of my, & everyone elses time. ps its like 0.0000001% censorship

I've no problem with obscene images being illegal - although I do have problems with the current English/Welsh law on 'extreme porn' - but I'm far more concerned about the comments about 'stories to be published about illegal acts'. Stories are fiction. Photographs of child abuse are evidence of a real event. If you can't tell the difference then this party has failed, since one of its senior members can't tell reality from fantasy. Much like the RIAA can't tell the difference between the reality of the 'cost' of file sharing and the fantasy of thousands of dollars fines per file.

The bit about fantasy books is an issue that I am not really sure about I admit. I'm 90/10 in favour of protecting the written word from censorship. There just seems something not quite right about paedophilia fantasy stories being published, but you are correct, it's a different principle and as such I was wrong to air my personal opinion on it in this blog.

I think that this blog is probably not the best place for any one member of the party to air their personal views at all - there's the forums for discussion or people can set up their own personal blog for their own opinion pieces. Things posted here will end up being perceived as party policy, even if they're really not. I'm also quite concerned about your comments about 'following public opinion', which I really strongly disagree with. A new fringe political party absolutely needs and relies upon idealists, not populists. If the idea behind the party was already widely popular then the mainstream parties would have embraced it and there would be no need for a Pirate Party. A fringe party needs to be able to hold firm in the face of widespread opposition so that, over time, it can act to change the popular view. [continued]

If the party leadership think it's best to follow whatever is popular at the moment, then surely we can't rely on you to stick by the principles of the party? I hope you can see how this kind of post makes me fear for the long-term survival of the party.

[continued] If the party leadership think it's best to follow whatever is popular at the moment, then surely we can't rely on you to stick by the principles of the party? I hope you can see how this kind of post makes me fear for the long-term survival of the party.

"Something not quite right" is an appeal to emotion, which is an invalid argument.

Photographs are not evidence of events (real or fantasized). Photographs can be emotive, but often hold little relationship to past present or future histories. The distinction must be to hold accusations to account through legal systems. An understanding of any form of media and communication must be viewed in a separate way, perhaps with an entirely different (and hopefully calmer) approach. There is no way of stopping bits from flowing. To be mediated is to be removed from being directly involved. Shine.

Agree with semanticist: "I think that this blog is probably not the best place for any one member of the party to air their personal views at all - there's the forums for discussion or people can set up their own personal blog for their own opinion pieces." This, and the follow-up discussion, while valid as far as it goes, is not policy, and should be moved off the main page.

I only posted it 'cos I was bored telling people on different threads that justifying possession of illegal images by endowing them with some philosophical right to exist was opening us up to bad press etc. There was never meant to be controversy over such a simple premise, but who could have guessed?

YOU. YOU should have known it'd be a bloody controversial topic, obviously. The images are illegal because the law is wrong, and just because they have already achieved that status does not make it okay for us to simply abandon that moral cause. You open yourself up for bad press when you come out so strongly against the very principal of freedom of speech you're supposed to be representing.

So blind adherence to 100% freedom of expression at any cost? Didn't know the Pirate Party was just another ideologically fanatical group incapable of thinking through the consequences of our actions. Oh, that's right, we're not. I've admitted my mistake, I don't speak on behalf of the party but you assume that the party stands for your point of view. We both have a different point of view and that's great, but don't try and tell me what principles I stand for.

The problem with following public opinion is that many voters do not think about impinging the rights of others should their views be made law. This is how our courts ended up giving Alan Turing the choice between chemical castration and imprisonment, not all that long ago. Most people believed homosexuality to be wrong, but they did not consider that this meant repressing individuals who actually were not causing harm to anyone. A good democracy will listen to its people, but not necessarily do whatever the majority want.

"The strict adherence to not censoring books in the UK allows perverted stories to be published about illegal acts, and I for one don't understand why this is allowed to continue" I'm seriously worried by this statement. Since no-one's mentioned it yet, I'll point out that the Bible contains plenty of illegal and immoral acts, including incest and sex with underage children. let's be clear. there's a difference between fiction (the censorship of which amounts to thought police) and censorship of eg photographs which are evidence of illegal acts (for which you can construct a stronger moral argument, albeit a debatable one).

I don't agree with your opinion but more importantly I don't think that the MOST COMMENTED on article on this blog should be this article

It sends out the wrong message to new members for two reasons:

> It isn't clear that this isn't a view of the party as a whole, it certainly looks like it is from the first line

> It doesn't show a united front; a stream of people disagreeing with the poster

I suggest that this post be moved to the forum where you can debate it as much as you want

Apologies, I just saw the date on the original post, ignore my last comment, dunno how I managed to think that the article was on the front page