More Internet Censorship in Great Britian

15. June, 2011

The British government wants to extend the censorship filter lists for undesired content.

Not unexpected. The argument “filter lists are essential to fight child porn” is basically a lie; most child porn is exchanged in private groups which the police either can’t find or can close easily. But since the topic is so touchy, arguments against it were objectionable. It didn’t matter if the tool was useless or even dangerous as long as it looked good.

Now, the road is paved to censor the Internet.

Of course, Britain isn’t China.

They don’t suppress people for political reasons.

Commercial reasons and votes are enough.


Nintendo’s “Paedophile” Game “Dead or Alive Dimensions”

1. June, 2011

If you asked me a week ago, I’d say that “Nintendo” and “Paedophile” are opposites. Nintendo makes family games: Colorful, loud, funny.

Then came two things that also seem unrelated: Sweden and “Dead or Alive: Dimensions

Sweden recently tightened its laws again child abuse. Good.

Nintendo released the 3DS handheld game console. Good.

Nintendo released the game “Dead or Alive: Dimensions” for the 3DS. So what?

Well, the main characters of the game are (according to the manual) 16 and 17 years old. No problem so far.

If you switch to the free camera mode, you can look under their (short) skirts. And suddenly, the game might classify as child pornography.

Something similar happened to a poor professor for Art, who is a renown expert for Manga translation. In a long trial, he was found guilty of possessing child pornography by a Swedish court. Translation: He had some Japanese Mangas on his PC.

The publisher he was working for has kicked the man out after the court sentence but it didn’t kick out the comics. Understandable. It’s immoral to work with a pedophile. It’s not immoral to make money from his work …

Well, to avoid getting bad press, Nintendo’s published decided to fly low and withdrew the game.

My comment: If you’ve followed my blog, you know that I have a sound opinion on child abuse and rape. But my opinion isn’t based on FUD. Instead, it’s based on knowledge and facts.

So I find this troubling. Is a story about child abuse the same as actual bruises? Is a painting about rape the same as real rape? If so, please turn yourself in because I’m sure you have some high quality printings of ancient “adult” artwork, or maybe something printed in the 1960s which contains explicit adverts.

Where to draw the line? If there is no reliable criteria, then there is no way to use such a rule in court. It would always be unjust.

So the problem isn’t Nintendo but the unjust new laws in Sweden.

Unfortunately, there is little to be gained to fight such stupid laws. Parents will object for no good reason but their own insecurities. And it’s laws like this which make the problem worse for everyone. Pedophiles are afraid to seek professional help before something happens. They put more pressure on their victims to keep quiet after the rape. Victims fear even greater humiliation.

Related posts:


Hunting The Innocent

21. February, 2011
child abuse

Image by Southworth Sailor via Flickr

How would you like if the government told thousands of people that you’re a pedophile?

Not much? Well, the “war” against child abuse just caused a little bit of collateral damage: Visitors of 84’000 domains got a warning that they tried to visit a site which is “… affiliated with creating, distributing, and/or storing child pornography.”

Oops. Imagine you spent years to create a reputation and it’s destroyed like that. That’s the reason why the law starts with the presumption of innocence. If you start from the viewpoint of “guilty,” too many innocent bystanders get harmed.

Which is what’s wrong with the current situation, no matter if it’s child abuse or war. The thought “no one is truly innocent” directly leads to the conclusion: “It doesn’t matter how many people we hurt, as long as at least one of them is guilty of something.” It’s an excuse for excessive abuse of power.

Justice means to find a balance between the abstract, idealistic demands of a law on paper and the actual, real-life situations. Bypassing justice is always unjust.