Slashdot Mirror
Possession of Violent Pornography Outlawed in UK
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC is reporting that possession of violent pornography is now punishable by three years in prison. This decision was handed down in response to a campaign waged by a grieving mother who lost her daughter to someone obsessed with violent pornography." From the article: "Shaun Gabb, director of the anti-censorship organization the Libertarian Alliance, said: 'If you are criminalizing possession then you are giving police inquisitorial powers to come into your house and see what you've got, now we didn't have this in the past.'"
Steganography is getting more and more attractive every day...
More kneejerk reactionary pandering to tabloid fearmongering by a government that bases policy upon headlines from the Daily Mail.
Dammit, I have no problem with that song, why do they always have to pick on the good bands...
Talk about your slippery slopes!
Pictures don't cause people to commit crimes. Might as well blame crime on convenience stores. Or blame poverty on lotto tickets. It's all a bunch of political bullshit meant to make the middle class feel "safe" while wasting resources investingating pseudo-crimes.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Fetch the Comfy Chair. Now we must browse your pornography to make sure its all in good order.
God spoke to me.
"Shaun Gabb, director of the anti-censorship organization the Libertarian Alliance, said: 'If you are criminalizing possession then you are giving police inquisitorial powers to come into your house and see what you've got, now we didn't have this in the past.'"
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
You might call it violent porn, but I call it HOT!!
I'm obsessed with pie, synthpop, Marx Brothers films, payphones, subways, Tex Avery cartoons, steak, cat-shaped badges, and lime green. If I go out and murder someone, hide all of the above you've got!
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
that out laws B&D! oh shit hide my porn!
But where do you draw the "accidental" line at? Or was that purposely left vague for later interpretation?
There have been plenty of sick creatures such as the Boston Strangler and too many others I've read about and forgotten and who were active BEFORE the internet.
This is a waste.
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
People obessed with Grand Theft Auto have gone on killing sprees. Should violent video games be outlawed as well? What about violent movies? There will always be sick individuals out there, does that mean we have to ban everything that may have inspired their acts? Get real. Violent pornography isn't my thing, but when it comes to goverment censorship or banning of any content, there ought to be a damn good reason behind it and the death of one girl who's killer might have been inspired by a certain type of movie doesn't cut it in my book.
'If you are criminalizing possession then you are giving police inquisitorial powers to come into your house and see what you've got, now we didn't have this in the past.'
There are already things that are illegal to possess. I don't see how adding another thing to that list somehow now grants law enforcement scary inquisitorial powers. As far as I can tell, the only thing that grants law enforcement inquisitorial powers is actually granting law enforcement inquisitorial powers.
UK is becoming the Singapore of Europe....
Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!
http://financialpetition.org/
What about people who died as a result of watching TV shows, like Jackass? Movies, like.. plenty? Playing video games (GTA?)? How many people died by racing cars? This is ridiculous. Thank you for protecting me from myself dad.
Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime does not entail death. Thoughtcrime IS death.
(1984 is the new V for Vendetta).
Rarely results in the solution we want, only the solution we can describe. This mother's witch hunt to blame her daughter's death on the internet instead of on the idiot who strangled her is creating far more than she hoped for.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Does this person not realise that possession of an unlicensed firearm and possession of certain psycho-active chemicals are already illegal? The police can't enter your house and search it without a warrant to search for these, why should violent pornography be any different?
The problem I have with laws like this is that we are treating symptoms of psychoses as crimes. Possession of violent pornography is not, in itself, a bad thing. It can, however, be a symptom of a serious mental imbalance, as was almost certainly the case with the murderer in the article. Now we are making it even harder for people with problems like this to get professional help. We are driving them even further underground, where they are forced to become even more repressed, and even more likely to snap and kill someone.
I would much rather see mentally ill individuals treated before they harm someone than imprisoned afterwards.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Of course Jack the Ripper didn't have violent Internet porn! It was all BBSes back then.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Gee, I think this would eliminate an entire class of movies, the teenage sex and slasher movies. Not that that would be any great loss, except to the producers. But I really don't understand the menality. Posessing a hammer should not be against the law. Bashing a head in with the same hammer should be. Having a tool like nmap should not be against the law, but breaking into a place you have no authorization should be. Having violent porn should not be illegal. Murder with or without violent porn should be.
Isn't it better for these weirdos to have safe outlet for these destructive fetishes? These simulated images do not create the fetish, they only provide an outlet for it. As a parent, I would rather these guys wanking in front of a PC in their parents' basements than strangling my daughter in some alley.
Admittedly, simulated images weren't enough for this guy, but he would have been killing much sooner if the internet hadn't sated his needs.
I live outside the UK. If you want to get rid of your violent porn, just send it to me!
(You're welcome).
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
Mrs Longhurst said: "My daughter Sue and myself are very pleased that after 30 months of intensive campaigning we have persuaded the government to take action against these horrific internet sites
Listen, lady. I don't think you understand how the internet works. See those tubes? We have guards in them so crazy laws don't spread to other countries.
He doubtless would have been a fine, upstanding member of society without the capacity to hurt a single hair on anyone's heads.
Criminal law should not be a knee jerk response to any one event but rather a disspassionate evaluation of deterrent, punishment, rehabilitation and public safety (based on logic and evidence!) made in order to maximise the net gain to society. That is how just laws are written and the biggest benefit is gathered.
Think of the Children; Sleep with your Sister
Why don't we ask Jack Thompson?
Violent Pornography?
Whoo, signature!
DesireCampbell.com
The problem with laws like this is that it implies that people are incapable of seeing graphic events without becoming part of them, and are not responsible for their own actions. It is like if I saw someone murder someone on tv, that will make me a murderer. There will always be people who are sick and easily corruptable. They are not the majority and we should not be held responsible for their actions. They have hospitals and jails for people like that.
This stuff isn't for me, but why should I prevent others from seeing it as long as current laws(rape,murder...) are abided by. Also, where does the line between voilent and rough get drawn?
---- aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Has announced plans...
Doesnt that just mean they want to try and bring this in, and hopefully get shot down by the House of Lords?
The really sneaky thing about this sort of law is that it's so subjective. Drugs, you can send to a lab, and radar guns are pretty darned accurate most of the time, but this sort of thing? Who decides?
For example, suppose you have a video tape with graphic killing, violence, blowing up buildings and stuff as well as sex scenes. Is it violent porn? What if you accidentally taped a few minutes of the playboy channel over a bunch of network news? Or a Hollywood blockbuster? If you say the people have to actually doing the violence while having sex there would be almost nothing that fits the definition. On the other hand, if you say that anything that contains both elements counts, than almost anything could be called "violent porn" with enough twisting.
And even if you could get the definition down, do you suppose they'll actually release the images in question when someone is publicly accused under this law, or just say "Trust us, it was violent porn."
Of course, laws like that never get abused, so this is really all just theoretical.
--MarkusQ
From TFA: The new law will not target those who accidentally come into contact with obscene pornography or affect mainstream entertainment industry working within current obscenity laws.
Bullshit. There's money to be made in court. And, while I can only offer an American viewpoint on this matter since I have never been to the UK, I suspect this will only encourage the abuse of "reasonable suspicion" as a valid motive for police searches. It's bad enough that most police assume that everyone is guilty of something.
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
Violent porn never did me any harm. I say let's strip this meddling bitch naked, tie her up and flog her!
The wording is so slack you will never see a single conviction for this offence.
Knee-Jerk laws only exist to win votes.
Of course Jack the Ripper didn't have violent Internet porn! It was all telegraph networks back then. ;-)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Umm... no it isn’t. FTFA:
The government have announced plans to make it illegal. So it may happen. But also, the civil liberties types have plenty of time to raise objections, get the sentence changed, get exemptions added etc... which has got to be a good thing.
Need to type accents and special characters in Windows? Use FrKeys
In the US, we're developing into a nanny state... I guess the UK is developing into a nanny kingdom.
What a man and a woman... and two dwarves, a donky and a chicken. Do in the privacy of their own home, using thousand island dressing at times, is their own, and the people who pay to watch, buisness.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
I've RTFA and I'm still not clear on exactly what material is covered by this new law and what material is still legal.
I wish they would please post some examples of what is legal and what is not so I'll know for future reference what kinds of things are okay and what I need to avoid.
Thanks in advance.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
I guess its important for us to know this law change because of the overwhelming majority of nerds that enjoy taking their aggression out on their cock by watching violent pornography.
_Vishal www.squad9.com
"It is already a crime to make or publish such images but proposed legislation will outlaw possession of images such as "material featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury".
But beating each other to death on a rugby or soccer field is A-OK! Morons.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
Well, if the study Porn Up, Rape Down is correct... then no. The author shows a strong correlation between increased access to pornography and a statistical reduction in reported rapes. Further, the author showed geographical correlations within the US whereby locally reduced access to pornography occurred in the same locations as areas with high rape rates.
Things that make you go Hmmmm....
First, this law would simply be unconstitutional here in the US. Second, I keep hearing arguments that people who end up being violent criminals were into pornography/violent video games/heavy metal/etc. first -- and all such arguments are logically flawed. Could it simply be that people who enjoy real murder also enjoy simulated murder? Let's see a cause-and-effect relationship proved before we even consider knocking holes in civil rights.
Revive the Constitution.
The problem with this is the question of a clear line. What exactly makes an image violent? The linked article mentions strangulation, what about BDSM? Do we distinguish between "heavy BDSM" and "light BDSM"? What are the defining characteristics? Is spanking allowed or disallowed? Or do we distinguish between "violent spanking" and "play spanking"?
While this may sound silly this law makes it necessary for those questions to be answered. Over time court cases will come up and, lacking any standards, the police will choose between punishing noone unless they commit some other "real" crime (like murder), or punishing anyone whom they don't like. The latter seems a more likely route. This also then raises the issue of costs. Will this bill be enforced or will it fall by the wayside? If it is enforced how will much money will be spent on that?
This is why one needs to be careful when making law, even though few politicians are. Such laws don't solve anything, they typically raise more questions then they answer and pass the actual problems off to others. It's not that I don't believe that people shpuld be protected from such preadators. They should. I'm just skeptical of this law's ability to do so on the face of it.
Stupid legislation. We never outlawed action movies just because they portray immoral behaviour. There is no telling whether the guy who commited the crime would have acted differently if it were illegal to access these pictures. Most likely he would have accessed them anyway, and my bet is that if he couldn't, that would have made his real-life actions worse.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
We almost lost Ronald Reagan because someone was obsessed with Jodie Foster. If only we had thought to ban her, then I wouldn't have been subjected to Nell.
Repeat after me:
There are no bad ideas, only bad actions.
There are no bad ideas, only bad actions.
There are no bad ideas, only bad actions.
Preventing people from having certain information for moral reasons (assertions that the information is "bad") not only fails, it is harmful to the ideas of an open, accepting society that promotes health.
Ideas are just information, and all information has positive value. Once governments get into the business of dictating what people think, totalitarianism becomes possible.
Tell that to the poor sap who had the cops break down his door without an expressed verbal notification of issuance of a warrant! And tell that to a householder who actually shot at peceived intruders and only to be gunned down by the police (Atlanta Georgia, USA) who were (mistakenly) breaking into his house because they thought that that house was the one on the warrant.
Censoring material kills curiosity. Curiositiy is a very primitive and childish feeling... forbidding it makes people mad, unconfortable or stupid :/
You are, however, responsible for mine.
So, was the person having a personality that made him enjoy violent pornography and killing people, or did violent pornography turn him into a killer?
Strangely I find the former case far more logical, but who said legislation follow logics, especially when it grants power to those writing them?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
The UK law on these matters is considerably more subtle and worthy of respect than most correspondents seem to realise. It makes the possession of some materials a strict liability offence. These include child pornography. It makes it an offence to sell or distribute, but not to possess, others. It is not obsessed with sexual content - it covers, and treats similar material in similar ways, material which promotes racial hatred and cruelty to animals. It distinguishes between acts and conspiracy to commit acts. The UK record on civil liberties in recent years is appalling, but on the specific matter of material calculated to promote the commission of crimes of a sexual nature, it is pretty good.
So, does this cover the thousands of movies and TV episodes that deal with this subject matter, often in an exploitive and sensationalist manner? Or does it have to be *explicit* ???
..." series, and let me tell you, one of the scenes was quite fatal *and* sexual. If this is OK because it's considered 'mainstream', what about lesser known stuff like SALO or crappy asian 'snuff' movies?
... what will be the result of laws like these that result in an increasingly authoritative 'pre-crime' society?
I recently watched the latest incarnation of the "I know what you did last summer
How about 'art'? Take a ride on the wild side some time and search for 'fansadox' or 'dolcett' -- just please come back to the real world when you're done, OK?
---
If people attracted to this type of pornography are looking for an outlet for their anger, perhaps due to an authoritative maternal influence
Maybe Jack The Ripper and the Boston Strangler would've had their needs satisfied by violent porn and hence never gone out on their killing sprees.
Aw, man... I can't remember... what was that violent video game that Hitler always played...
1. I mean take a scary movie 7 people die in different violent ways
2. Another movie someone gets fucked while being spanked with a cane or something
1st movie legal.
2nd movie ends u in jail.
Posession of violent pornography *is* a bad thing. Anyone who thinks otherwise is seriously bent. Posession indicates that a pleasure is obtained from having or viewing it, and anyone who obtains pleasure at the expense of others is partaking in a B-A-D thing.
By that argument, wouldn't you have to outlaw BDSM?
Japan's economy has mysteriously crashed.
Would a book by the Marquis de Sade qualify as violent pornography? I remember that my high-school library had a copy of one of his books. I recall the imagery as being quite violent and there was certainly sex involved so I have the feeling it's violent pornography. Someone better call all the libraries so they can burn their illegal books before someone has a chance to read one and get some double-plus ungood ideas.
Isn't this a good sign that we're already a long way down the slippery slope? Rape is illegal. Assault is illegal. Surely violent pornography involves consensual acts otherwise it would be one of those two things? Why should posession of imagry of people engaged in consensual acts be illegal?
I'd say "I'm glad don't live in the UK" but I think the number of countries that remeber the concept of "Freedom" is diminishing so fast that by the time I finished saying it I'd already be living in the equivalent.
-Pinkoir
Wow, what a fucking scientific argument you have there. Let's see if we candisprove it. Let's try the item called curiosity, shall we.
Keep your morals and tastes in your own home asshole.
Rules like this are clearly written by those who do not understand the internet well. What counts as 'possession' on the 'net? If I save a picture to my hard drive, that I would say is clearly possession, but what if I'm just looking at it on the originating website? It's clearly on my computer (in RAM) but is that possession?
-Grey
Silver Clipboard: Time Management Tips
While I am not a psychologist, it has been my observation that obsessive/compulsive behavior is not satiated by providing such "outlets". In fact, it would seem that in only creates the need for further and more intense stimulation. So, an argument can be made that a person possesing a compulsion surrounding violent acts, may be driven by such pictures to actually commit one simply out of the need for more stimulation than pictures themselves provide.
but...I'm not a psychologist.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
Whoever thinks that violent pornography has an effect on people has been a naughty boy and needs a spanking.
"giving police inquisitorial powers"
Police uniform + inquisitorial powers = S & M
I was wondering what real-world applications that quantum cryptography would be have:
http://it.slashdot.org/it/06/08/30/0224245.shtml
In the UK anything can be made a 'crime' just so long as more than one individual is involved - a 'conspiracy' charge can be raised, and the 'conspiracy' charge can then have worse consequences than the actual 'crime'. For instance, in all the recent terror raids, no crime need be committed, just 'conspiracy' proven, two years down the line, once the media hysteria has gone down.
I guess that it cannot be too easy to raise a 'conspiracy' charge against the lone violent-porn-obsessive as he/she/it probably does not 'conspire' with others to watch/download violent-porn. Besides, didn't they nick all the kiddie-porn-rings with Operation Ore?
Many of the folks at GCHQ work very hard (in their little boxes) to keep the world free from kiddie-porn (and presumably now, violent-porn). They need this work because they are spending all day 'reading other peoples private stuff' - whether or not it is dubious/dodgy - and that is only one step removed from randomly going through people's trash, looking for something incriminating. Even though we live in the totalitarian style Big Brother world, 'snitching' is still considered anti-social, and moves like this help the folks at GCHQ feel better about what they actually do all day - spy.
16 color porn didn't make me violent at the time, but now that I've had the real thing....
I'd be all for any laws that depict or show any wish of Prince Charles wishing to be a tampon. No, really I WISH I were making that up
I love that song, damnit!
Jack the Ripper used AOL.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
"Since her daughter's death Mrs Longhurst, 74, from Reading..."
So she has to live under this new law, which doesnt aeffect her at all, for maybe 10 or 20 years. The rest of the country has to live with it forever. All because no one can die meaninglessly. If you don't have many years left in this world, you shouldnt be able to go around making laws that you will not have to experience first hand. Who doesnt have a few S&M pics on their pc that it is now a three year jail term to possess?
I also think you should not be able to make any sexual morality laws unless you are currently able and willing to have sex. How would you ever control for peoples resentment at losing their sex drive? ( you could do the same with wars, forcing presidents to fight along side soldiers, but good luck with that!)
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
While I'm normally anti-censorship, I must say that I would have to agree with this stand by the people of the UK. Each society is a collection of individuals who tacitly agree to behave with each other in generally defined ways. Without society there is anarchy, which serves no purpose, not even itself. If the people disagree to this sort of content being available, owned, or distributed, it is entirely within their rights as a democratic people to enact legislation to protect themselves from those that do.
The key here is that there is a victimization enacted or portrayed in the content. This type of content glorifies the victimization of individuals, and further, links sexuality to this type of behaviour. This is identical to the widely rejected child pornography, in that there is a clear victim of these acts. Neither of these expressions of sexuality are found to be acceptable in today's society and there are clear rules (laws) to deal with perpetrators of this victimization.
Given that, it may still prove less effective and harder to enforce than they assume, as with child pornography. It's arguable however that by weeding out and correcting through therapy and other monitoring of individuals who are deemed to be dangerous to society (i.e. there are clear victims or victimization by these individuals) is potentially a good step. It takes some time to weed these issues out of society, and sociologists and other social scientists are only beginning to grasp the true power of imagery.
It's clear however, that deviant sexual behaviour is and has been historically something that humans in general find unacceptable. This is exactly why we empower ourselves with the rule of law to investigate and prosecute individuals who step outside of our societally effected boundaries.
While I am normally quite 'Libertarian' I believe that Liberty ends where another individual begins in that I am at liberty to live as I wish as long as it doesn't impact another individual, except without their express and informed consent. Sexual behaviour is becoming more and more 'defined' societally, in that what happens between two partners is no longer outside of the jurisdiction of the law because there are external repercussions of certain behaviours. Furthermore, the spread of this 'socially abhorrent' behaviour through media of any type also falls under this jurisdiction for the very same reasons.
While it's true that the Masochists say 'Hurt me!' the Saadists don't and say 'Suffer.'
if I claimed I was emperor just because some watery tart lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me away!
Did he also drink water regularly? Well, let's ban water. Ahhh, he read the newspaper, better ban that too. Watched TV? Good riddance! Wore clothing? Better eliminate that too, might cause other people to go mad too. etc.
Fuck'n A! We need to ban romance novels!
Telegraph porn: "Ooh baby let me fondle your dits and twiddle your dahs"
If we're going to ban dangerous forms of sexual imagery, can we please get rid of the starving anorexics in clothing advertisements inside of women's magazines? Your child is almost definitely not going to get killed from internet pornography, but they have a surprisingly high chance of developing an eating disorder thanks to this crap.
The ______ Agenda
Or you use rubberhose.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
The only reason anyone can have for opposing this ban is that the belief that people have the right to look at this kind of material. I don't agree, but it's an understandable position of principle. Waffling about its being impractical (like that matters with child porn) or being an unwarranted intrusion on privacy (because the police have been given *such* extended new powers) misses the point. Fundamentally, they don't see any problem with people producing, distributing or using such material. As I say, that's an understandable position of principle, but of course, it would lose anyone their hearing as soon as they tried to articulate it in public.
It's actually surprising to me that it took this long for such a law to be passed. It's pretty much the exact same reasoning people use against digital/drawn/fake child porn being banned, because it will supposedly turn people into evil pedophiles.
It's the British Inquisition !
O8<-<
| (<-- sword)
v
^
| (<-- another sword)
O8<-<
i never understood why people get hung up on this issue. it is utterly academic to me at this point: if i watched 10 days straight of ultraviolent movies straight, then went out and punched someone, it would be my fault. if wacked off for 10 days straight to hardcore rape porn then went out and raped a woman, it would be my fault. if i played 10 days straight of ultraviolent videogames, then went out and shot someone, it would be my fault. 100% no grey area whatsoever. why?
the principle of personal accountability... isn't this a concept social conservatives should be familiar with? if it comes out of my mouth, or my hand, it is MY responsibility. "the devil made me do it" is a blame game, an attempt to avoid guilt, and it is a mode of defense as old as rape and murder (which never needed porn, videogames, or movies to happen going back to he dawn of time)
if you play GTA, and then kill a cop in the EXACT same scenario as GTA, GTA BEARS NO RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER. because YOU were the fucked up person to do that, not GTA. if you never played GTA, some other stupid pursuit would give an idea to do something incredibly retarded, get it? YOU ARE THE GUILTY PARTY, AND YOU ALONE. media cannot enable the well-balanced to commit crimes, media can only enable the previously fucked up to commit crimes, and even then, putting retstraints on media means nothing: the previously fucked up will be set off by some other factor you have no control over!
so the point is you lay blame where blame is 100% due: THE FUCKED UP ASSHOLE WHO COMMITTED THE CRIME. if i am psychologically well-balanced, NONE OF THIS MEDIA WILL SO MUCH BREACH THE TINIEST BIT OF MY SENSE OF RIGHT AND WRONG. in fact, in the mid-1990s, when i was quite young, i might add, i must have played hours and hours of doom for weeks on end. and i'm a rabid anti-gun nut
how's that work? it works just fine! in me and 99.99999% of the rest of the well-adjusted population on questions of simple right and wrong... dylan klebold is the fucked up asshole, NOT DOOM!
now, the most amazing thing to me is how the people pushing for controls on videogames, porn, movies: these are the same social conservatives who talk so highly, with such vigor and passion, about the concept of personal responsibility. and yet they defile it with their censorship attempts. THEY DON'T FUCKING GET IT
in fact, i propose we have MORE access to porn, violent movies, and violent videogames. i'm dead serious! the principle of catharsis, the theory of the safety release valve: violence we are complicit to on a video screen is violence we would not have committed in real life. in fact i would wager, if such a study would ever done, that rape and violence is static across all time and history... to think that it is increasing over time is hystorically myopic of you. really
in fact, i might wager violence has gone DOWN slightly over the course of recent history as our access to more realistic media, and would go down even MORE, if people were exposed to more violent and sexual media, and would go down even MORE if our media gets MORE violent and MORE VR full immersion realistic. i really believe that 100%!
do you want people to be more peaceful? well people are inherently violent and sexual, so beam all of those pressures up on a screen in front of them, and voila: release. have you ever looked at your average 3 year old toddler? people are NOT born vessels of purity that are corrupted by exposure to bad things. people are born little demons with no impulse control and a lot of selfishness and are taught to channel those impulses into proper channels
not that i'm going all clockwork orange on y'all and tying people down and prying their eyes open and force them to watch violence and sex, but at least stop trying to PREVENT people from pursing violent and sexual media as a natural instinctual desire to release that which if did not get released harmlessly on videoscreen, would build up and be released in real life. in other words, it all depends upon how
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I could strangle people like you...
First guns ... now porn. The next thing you know the UK will outlaw smoking in pubs!
Thank god I'm an American.....
Can we at least have a follow-up to this after three months, six months, a year, to see if levels of violent crime are affected by the ban? If these people are so attached to the idea that outlawing violent porn will reduce violent crime, we should at least be able to test the hypothesis now, right?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Jack: HOW BOUT SEX QUERY
Hooker: YES STOP
No wonder he was frustrated.
The UK's issue is that our government is obsessed with passing new laws to be seen to be doing something. Pretty much everything that matters is already a crime, but there's a general incompetence and mind-boggling bureacracy in our criminal justice system which renders most laws meaningless (people commit them, often repeatedly and openly).
An example - I was a witness in a court case and things were falling apart through multiple failures. I asked "who's in charge here?" And noone knew. Not the police, not the lawyers, certainly not the administrators, clerks and officials. It took four dates over a year and a half to heaqr a case of very very minor assualt (I was the victim. Believe me, it was minor).
The government's answer is just to keep passing more laws, and enforcing them on the basis of ease of prosecution rather than importance (speed cameras abound, as do parking wardens. Not too many police officers in sight, but plenty of thugs and robbers). I guess that much violent porn would be downloaded on p2p - so the cops can just use simple bots to hunt out the newly-defined miscreants. Leave this country now.
Should knives be banned? It's a very difficult area with no clear anwsers. Many murderers, when given access to a knife, may use it to stab someone. However, billions of people use knives safely every day to prepare food.
Should we limit everyone's ability to use a knife to avoid the few people who are on the border from going across and murdering someone?
Obviously anyone who has had a family member murdered with a knife will feel one way.
Sometimes, you need to accept that bad things will happen. Now let's move on with our knives... I mean lives.
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
System of a Down are going to be pissed...
How are you going to define it? Violent to one person may not appear violent to someone else. What's the difference between violent and merely kinky? So now the police in England can look at the pictures on your hard drive and make a subjective determination about whether they represent violent images or not. How jolly is that?
Over here we don't need stupid laws like that. Gonzales simply declares it legal and Bush goes ahead and does it without a warrant. Our way saves all that getting the public stirred up about government intrusion into people's private lives.
Silly Brits. ;)
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Look, I'm personally disgusted by *violent* pornography, but this law worries me because: A) there is the realistic possibility that it could still be between consenting adults (sadomasochism -- Caution! Could be illegal to click in the UK, because the image will arrive in the cache on your computer, and you'll "possess" the image!!) -- if these people take and possess pictures of *their*own*consenting*acts* could they theoretically be prosecuted? and B) it makes possession a crime when the judgement of "violent" could be interpreted vaguely. I mean, when (in the U.S., mind you) we're told that the PacMan videogame is "violent", how far could a law like this potentially be misapplied?
It's apparently already illegal to make or publish these images, and presumably to import them into the UK from jurisdictions where it might not be. Why isn't that sufficient? Oh, right, it's "on the Internet" now.
Also, won't somebody think of the implications for goatse links?
would be to outlaw all pornography all together.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
"The government has announced plans to make the possession of violent porn punishable by three years in jail."
Announced plans != enacted a law
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
> We do know that many violent sex fiends started with looking at violent pornography.
> if you have someone that is predisposed to being a sick fiend then viewing this material
> can push him over that line. Should we limit everyone's ability to view it to avoid the
> few people who are on the border from going across the line and becoming a violent felon
> is the question
Is that really the question?
Let me ask you a counter question. Of those people on the border, how many have *not* become a violent felon because they can get their violent fix through photos? Could not these pictures and videos be a sort of tranquilizer for the violent?
Think about it. When some people get violently angry and *don't* want to physically harm people, they take out their anger either by getting a punching bag and beating it until their anger is gone or by breaking *things* so they can let it out without physically hurting someone. Suppose these people *didn't* have a punching bag or other stuff to break. Wouldn't that *increase* the amount of physical abuse?
Now suppose one of these violent felons *don't* have violent pictures and videos. Wouldn't that *increase* the number of assaunts?
Is it legal to shoot pr0n movies in the UK?
And if so, possession of "violent" pornography includes the production of such material..so where is it that they draw the lines? What is violent, exactly? And isn't it also wrong to have pr0n produced at all, given that sex with minors can be linked to incentives from erotic entertainment?
I understand stopping the production of something considered morally wrong - this is done under many faiths/cultural systems. But reaching inside people's homes is not ok under any circumstance that is not proven to be lethal.
Seeing where old Pablo dominated most of his late work with Violance and Sex will they have to be removed from the walls? Can an "artist" portray violent acts of sex as a performace art or in a painting or, perish the thought, a photograph?
Civilization maybe? I knew that Sid Meyer guy was up to no good!
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
So now someone can get everyone in Britain arrested by cracking their computers and packing them full of files & calling them in? That's outstanding!
This law ought to be overturned if only for the reason that a computer is connected to systems outside of the person's residence. It leaves a potential of arrest similar to having violent porn on their television or for what someone else says on their phone.
Good Luck Chaps!
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
naked man, nailed to cross, rag on crotch, thorns on head.
wank wank wank!
Everyone declaring so much of this "sick" "disgusting" etc etc.
Please stfu.
Are people being harmed against their will in such images/videos? Any reputable studio has documentation on file showing this not to be the case.
The performers are doing these things without being coerced (a lot are even into it! imagine that).
How long ago was it that people would refer to homosexuality as "sick, disgusting" et al? If I was to start saying those sorts of things I would get modded into oblivion so fast my head would spin. There is an extremely broad range of what people refer to as "violent pornography"
Is violent pornography rough sex?
bdsm related things?
simulated forced?
no one can answer can they? Why? Because it's all so incredibly vague, and it's intended to be that way. The more vague the description is the more the folks enforcing it can cite things like snuff films (without noting of course that posession of snuff porn and the sites serving it are ALREADY illegal because they involve an actual MURDER) whilst shutting down sites that people who happen to be a little kinked like, sites that are harming no one.
This is pure idiocy, and a move by the morality gestapo to push, more and more, "deviants" out to the edge.
Isn't anyone the least bit bothered that this is basically another "mothers against $HORRIBLEVILTHINGTHATWILLSURELYDESTROYSOCIETY" group?
It gets to where I think the US and UK are in a race to see who can come up with the most rediculous legislation the quickest.
Happiness does not come from having much, but from being attached to little.
I know that System of a Down doesn't agree with some people, but isn't this a bit harsh?
http://www.worldspace.nu/Monty_Pythons_Flying_Circ us_--EP15_0202_The_Spanish_Inquisition--_All_three _Spanish_Inquisition_Sketches_avi:watch
over what is essentially still a bunch of monkeys
but the veneer does exist, and it is our creation, and it does matter
we are both animals and a little something else
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Good evening!
The last scene was interesting from the point of view of a professional logician because it contained a number of logical fallacies--that is, invalid propositional constructions and syllogistic forms--of the type so often committed by my wife.
"All wood burns," states Sir Bedevere. "Therefore," he concludes, "all that burns is wood."
This is, of course, pure bullshit! Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted. All of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan. Obvious one would think.
However, my wife does not understand this necessary limitation of the conversion of a proposition. Consequently, she does not understand me. For how can a woman expect to appreciate a professor of logic if the simplest cloth-eared syllogism causes her to flounder.
For example: given the premise, "All fish live underwater" and "All mackerel are fish", my wife will conclude, not that "All mackerel live underwater", but that "If she buys kippers it will not rain" or that "Trout live in trees" or even that "I do not love her any more."
This she calls "using her intuition". I call it "crap" and it gets me very IRRITATED because it is not logical!
"There will be no supper tonight," she will sometimes cry upon my return home.
"Why not?" I will ask.
"Because I have been screwing the milkman all day," she will say, quite oblivious of the howling error she has made.
"But," I will wearily point out, "even given that the activities of screwing the milkman and getting supper are mutually exclusive, now that the screwing is over, surely then, supper may, logically, be got."
"You don't love me any more!" she will now often postulate. "If you did, you would give me one now and again so that I would not have to rely on that rancid Pakistani for my orgasms!"
"I will give you one after you have got me my supper!" I now usually scream, "but not before"--as you understand, making her bang contingent on the arrival of my supper.
"God, you turn me on when you're angry, you ancient brute!" she now mysteriously deduces, forcing her sweetly throbbing tongue down my throat.
"Fuck supper!" I now invariably conclude, throwing logic somewhat joyously to the four winds, and so we thrash about on our milk-stained floor, transported by animal passion, until we sink back, exhausted, onto the cartons of yoghurt....
I'm afraid I seem to have strayed somewhat from my original brief. But in a nutshell, sex is more fun than logic. One cannot prove this, but it IS in the same sense that Mount Everest IS, or that Alma Cogan ISN'T.
Goodnight.
(with apologies to Monty Python's Flying Circus and Salvador Dali.)
Fuck you. Keep your puritanical lifestyle inside your own goddamn walls, leave me and others like me alone and enjoy your Missionary position. We are not bent. You're an asshole.
Anyone remember this Hercule Poirot story where the murders are based on a train schedule?
Are they going to ban train schedules also?
Why not ban the trains too.
Is spanking the monkey gonna be illegal too?
material featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury".
Wouldn't that outlaw many movies in addition to pictures....and no where in that does it say sexual violence. Are murders with no sex illegal too...I guess newspapers need to watch what they print.
The movie Titus (Shakespeare)has a rape in the story where the hands of the woman are cut off and her tongue ripped out...I guess they are going to have to edit Shakespeare in the UK.
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
Of those people on the border, how many have *not* become a violent felon because they can get their violent fix through photos? Could not these pictures and videos be a sort of tranquilizer for the violent? [...] Now suppose one of these violent felons *don't* have violent pictures and videos. Wouldn't that *increase* the number of assaunts?
Yes. And oddly enough, this is also exactly why these censorship laws are passed. The government wants the populace to have some such outlets, within a narrow range of politically and socially "acceptable" ideals, but certainly not too much. Otherwise, we the populace wouldn't need the government to protect us from those who get pushed over the edge, because they were not provided any non-violent outlets for their "unacceptable" aggressions. Ultimately it's just the pathetic self-preservation of a nanny state.
Your 'logic' is unsound.
Not all animals behave like that.
The fact thatw e are animals and we (generality) don't behave that way show conclusivly that animals can behave for the good(generality) of the whole.
Many animals do just that.
ook.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I guess this nixes any plans GWAR had for trouring in England!
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
As another poster in this thread noted, there's empirical evidence to support that kind of things in that access to porn in an area is inversely correlated to incidents of rape.
My personal guess would be that it depends on the kind of person we are talking about:
There are some people who will commit violent acts (sexual and non) regardless of any inspiration or outside motivation. They are simply really sick fucks and outside influences don't matter.
There are some who have an attraction to things like that, but strong enough morals or willpower or fear of the law that they won't act at least if they get their satisfaction in other ways. Thus porn can keep them happy and they never feel a strong enough need to actually go and act on any of these fantasies.
There are probably others who find this kind of thing tempting, but lack the bravery to try it. Watching it happen might help them work up to the point of actually doing it themselves.
Then, of course, there's the largest group that wouldn't do any of these kinds of things because they find it wrong, but can enjoy watching it. The presence or absence of the pron makes no difference to the behaviour of these people.
Now how's it break down? Really hard to say. However, from things like violent movies, which are so very prevalent, it's pretty safe to say that the vast majority of people can enjoy watching something and not actually go and act on it, or indeed even want to. People love watching violence, but very few of them act on it.
I heard of a guy masturbating to the rape scene in Hills Have Eyes, I am assuming this ban would include Hollywood movies that portray such things?
Of course British politicians are well placed to discuss the more sordid end of the sexual response curve...... Like Stephen Milligan MP (Conservative) (died with orange in his mouth, stockings on his legs and a plastic bag over his head) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Milligan Or Mark Oaten MP (Liberal Democrat) (married man. sex with rent boys) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Oaten#Scandal_an d_resignation
Or David Mellor MP (Conservative) (ugly bloke, sex with hooker in Chelsea shirt) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mellor#Scandal
Or Michael Brown MP (Conservative) (Sex with underage boy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Brown_(UK_pol itician)
Or Ron Davies (Labour) (Caught cruising for gay sex. Claimed he was looking for badgers)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Davies
echo $SIGNATURE
A long time ago, back when I was in middle school, I remember watching 'Inside Edition'. Remember all those sensationalist 'news' programs? Anyways they had a story similar to this (but in the US of course).
Boyfriend & girlfriend are having sex and during partake in 'auto-erotic asphyxiation'. It's where you choke your partner, and the lack of oxygen to your brain is supposed to make the orgasm better. The girlfriend proceeded to die and the boyfriend went to prison for manslaughter.
The British incident could've been different, but they didn't say he was necessarily a violent individual. Maybe she was into it too and knew the complications? He's serving time for murder when it seems like this is a definite manslaughter case.
I'm just glad we have a Constitution in the US. It makes censorship and personal liberties easier to protect. Even with all the shit the current administration is trying to pull, a lot of it is getting overturned because of the Bill of Rights.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
Nobody expects the guy to NOT look at violent porn. He's sick. He can't help himself. He *HAS* to look at it.
So, if you make it illegal, the people who are not sick will stop looking at it. Then anybody still looking at it must be a sick person, so you know to arrest them, and you arrest them BEFORE they kill anyone, thus saving lives.
Same philosphy behind gun control - pro-gun lobby often responds to gun control with the argument that "If oyu make guns illegal, only criminals will have guns!" Which is exactly the point - if guns are legal, you can't tell teh difference between a law-abiding firearm owner and a criminal with a gun. If guns are illegal, you just have to arrest everyone with a gun and you get most of the criminals in prison before they manage to commit more serious crime.
At least, that's the way it's supposed to work.
paintball
What about all the people that were into this stuff that will suddenly be denied it? What will they do?
How many men, who would otherwise become rapists, are instead satisfied with fake depictions of rape on the net? If I were a woman, I'm not sure I would feel at all safer at this announcement. It is still debatable whether there is a link between violent porn and people doing it for real, but what about the link between enforced abstinence and people doing it for real? e.g. Catholic Priests for example.
And how do you define the boundaries? Is the film Maitresse starring Gérard Depardieu now considered illegal because of its depictions of sexual violence? I own that film. Maybe I am suddenly a danger to society.
As terrible as the murder that inspired all this was, an angry grieving relative should not be allowed to dictate the laws of a country. Many of these campaigns to "make us safer" actually seem to do more harm. For example, there are also plans here to ban imitation firearms (real ones were banned years ago in case you're not a Brit). Now ask yourself a question, would you rather be mugged by a man with a fake gun or by a man with a big 8 inch knife? Maybe its just me but I would prefer criminals to carry fake guns rather than real knives.
It is good to see they are going to ban the bible and the koran... after all, they have lots of violence and sex with under-aged woman! It is about time they locked up every damn pervert Christian, every damn pervert Muslim, and every sicko priest and immam and throw away the key!
Once they ban the Bible and the Koran, they can move on to Shakespeare!
Aside from how stupid this idea is, who is to decide what qualifes as violent?
Consenting adults should have the right to view other consenting adults. Anythign less is legislating 'morals' and morals are relative. Its as bad as the 'hate crime' garbage.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
or terrified mothers or teatotaling mothers. They are responsible for such great legislation like prohibition, draconian drinking and driving laws. If they're afraid of freedom, they should just lock themselves up.
It's ironic that many Slashdot readers probably agree with George Orwell's 1984 that restrictions placed on language can potentially limit ideas, but at the same time many of the same readers seem to feel (based on scanning a few posts) that preventing viewing violent pornography will have no impact on sexual abuse. That media puts thoughts into people's minds that would probably not be there otherwise, and would probably be less extreme if violent pornography was not so prolific.
Heres a link to the PDF of the paper this article arises from. It's very vaugue as to how the law will be applied and surprisingly actually shows that the majority of respondents were against the proposal. This is not law yet, no by a long way, the govenment is leaving itself plenty of wiggle room to drop this if it becomes unpopular or difficult.
Thoughtcrime.
People who get sexually stimulated by seeing other people being violated, tortured, abused, raped, etc, (whether real footage or staged) are sociopaths. This sociopathic behaviour should not be embraced or protected.
They still haven't banned Twinkies.
If we'd actually banned twinkies, then none of this violence would have happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_Defense
n/t
Next thing you know, they will outlaw cars and possesion of rope.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
How do you determine which is porn and which is an artistic expression? There's a lot of brilliant movies, books, photos, comics, etc. out there that could potentially be challenged with this law.
Will never happen. Ever. Feel free to review that '03 or '04 Economist article showing how the legal "adult" industries (film, print, dancing, toys and internet) were more profitable than the movie, music, and sports industries...combined. People love their porn and spend big on it, and money talks politically.
Sure, go ahead and tell me you don't, but chances are you are lying and protesting a little too much.
Any politician worth his salt knows it wise to be firmly against porn, but back that up with almost no action. It's more available than ever now.
This decision was handed down in response to a campaign waged by a grieving mother who lost her daughter to someone obsessed with violent pornography.
Does it mean that if someone gets killed by someone obsessed with Christina Aguilera, we could ban her music and videos? Now that would be awesome!
You just got troll'd!
Sex and violence makes the world go round...
(Endorphin - Sex & Violence)
It's not exactly rocket surgery.
I guess Steve really has to hide his video collection now.
Posting anonymously for obvious reasons (and using a proxy)
This is complete bullshit. I find violent porn about as hot as scat (Which is not at all), I have a 5 gig image folder full of random stuff from Japanese robots to random text with a cat featured some where. In these folders I'm sure I have at least 1 or 2 pictures of some girl getting slapped/punched and raped (in the totally consenting style), I saved them to freak a friend out years ago and just never removed them.
Am I now breaking the law because I have 300kb of this "illegal evil stuff" or is this law making criminals of innocent guys with a kinky fetish? Sigh.. I guess it's back to GTA for me, I mean when that makes me a killer I can always claim it was Slashdot that gave me the idea right? I mean flame wars make people want to be violent, so clearly Slashdot encourages murder.
The labour gov't in the UK usually make knee-jerk responses promising to do something, and actually take action quite a while later. If the action benefits the people, it's usually postponed many times, if it benefits those in power or the machinery of gov't, it happens more quickly.
I expect this to be argued into the ground, stalled, and then some replacement and probably useless unenforceable idiotic law to replace it, under the guise of protection of children/vulnerable people with the effect of taking away more liberty and achieving NOTHING except incurring big costs for the taxpayer.
Or, you know, people watching horror movies.
Or David Lynch Films.
Or ART.
Or Dramatizations of Crimes.
I'd wave a bloody shirt, but you know, possesion of violent porn and all (someone would be shirtless and bloody)
Hello Kettle,
You, my friend are as black as pitch.
With love, Pot.
I am collecting signatures to put subways out of everybody's sight, say, underground.
If someone wants to go to the subway, they know where to find it.
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
Why?
Seriously, there are films like "Silence of the Lambs" and "Pulp Fiction" which involve extreme depictions of violence, and get Oscars. Violent sexual behavior? "The Accused" and "Rob Roy" come quickly to mind, and there's hordes of others. Are you saying anyone who willingly views any of this stuff is psychologically dangerous? How about the written word involving rape? Time to burn the Bible...
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Pong! Pong always makes me feel genocidal.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Do you get sexual gratification from horror movies and crime dramas? If so, perhaps you need help.
My kids regularly visit the local humane society shelter and play with the homeless pit bulls. I wouldn't own one myself (I prefer English Bull Terriers) but a properly raised pit bull is no more dangerous than any other dog of the same size and weight. The key is training, just like with any other powerful and spirited animal.
Did you know horses can be trained to eat meat, and to aggressively attack, kill and devour humans? It was occasionally done in Eastern Europe during medieval times. Does that mean we should ban horses too?
Do we actually have any data on how many paedophiles are reading violent porn, and whether restricting their access to these materials increases or decreases their propensity to commit crimes? Or are we just trying to cover up our society's total failure to detect and cure violent paedophilia?
Naw, Canadian telegraph convention would have read HOW BOUT SEX EH instead of WANNA HAVE SEX QUERY.
Let me explain. If you skim over the article, you will notice that it says, "Trial jurors had been told of his obsession with strangulation and how he looked at internet sites connected with the fetish." It sounds like they are just trying to outlaw certain material that could lead to the real life act itself.
It is one thing to ban material that depicts an actual crime being committed (i.e., child pornography using an actual child), as opposed to something depicting it but not actually performing it (i.e., computer generated images of a child in a sex act). Although this article says violent pornography, I felt like comparing it to child pornography.
Then again, this is the U.K., where in my opinion, a lot of laws and such are backwards.
This person was obviously negligent. They did nothing to stop their dog from escaping after it had already done so twice and bit someone once and been nearly shot another time. The health and safety of this dog was clearly a distant concern for their owner.
I'm all for exterminating pit bulls.
That's a wonderfully extreme and irrational viewpoint, and while I can understand having that gut reaction in response to this particular dog and their negligent owner, I hope you realize that it really doesn't make any sense. I hope you'd rethink this before signing any petitions with enacting this policy as a goal.
You want to do something to help situations like this? Enact laws for prosecuting negligent pet owners whose actions create mal-adjusted dogs. In fact I believe there already laws like this in many states. It sounds like yours may be one; I don't know. Either way the real problem here is the lack of government response. If "animal cruelty" is a concern, they should have investigated after the first incident and discovered if this animal needed to be taken away from their owner, or just put down.
Pit bulls have established a spectacular record for attacking and maiming and killing people.
Pit bulls only established this spectacular record after becoming popular as guard, attack, and fighting dogs in the 80s. Dogs that were deliberately abused and mal-socialized so as to make them mean, aggressive, and liable to bite anyone who comes near them. People started buying pit bulls, leashing them in the back yard, and basically doing nothing with them other than feeding them so they'd be crazy with boredom and loneliness, because the whole point was to make them mean.
Rottweilers and Dobermans have both had their stints as the popular guard dog as well, and both were canonically "viscious". But really, they're just big strong dogs with traits suitable for guarding, treated or trained in such a way as to make them aggressive.
And as a counterpoint, my grandmother owned a pitbull. This animal was loved and cared for and thus was, like you would expect of most any dog, a loving and harmless animal in return. The dog never harmed anyone. Well, okay, there were a few bruised shins from the dog's tail wagging so much. Nevertheless, the fact is that visciousness is not an inherent trait of pit bulls. Do not allow some peoples' desire for a viscious dog taint your perception of an entire breed.
Though as far as any specific animal who has suffered this fate and is in fact dangerous, then I wholeheartedly (though sadly) support destroying it. But a whole breed? That's stupid.
The enemies of Democracy are
And you can prove a causal relationship?
No. So shut the fuck up. Opinion != Fact.
We should do it the way they recently exterminated thousands of dogs in a Chinese province: send out teams to hunt them down in people's yards, or grab them when people are walking them, and then hack them to death with machetes while their owners watch.
How cute. I felt sympathy for you for the troubles you wrote about in the beginning of your post and thought that the dog should probably have been locked up somewhere (including its owner), but now I just feel sorry for you as your life must really suck for you to wish so much grief on those who own pitbulls. That's borderline sociopathic if you ask me.
Murder, Drunk Driving, Child Pornography, Domestic Abuse, etc...The list goes on...
Why is it that these days its the sexual crimes that get all the attention and the others not?
I would _love_ to see a registry of murderers.
RE: Violent Pornography - its not the violent porn, its not the music, its not the bottle - its the individuals pattern of behavior surrounding that fixation.
Many people drink - it takes that extra special person to kill someone for driving drunk.
Ths whole world watches porn *gasp - say not so!* (admit it - the more you gawk the more you want to watch) - it is one of the biggest industries out there. And the oldest.
Its just not polite. Sex.. isnt polite. Oh well. Its the first thing determined about us when we are born. Sex. Its a [insert gender here] Its the most fundamental thing that defines us.
This guy didnt kill anyone because he watched violent porn. He killed because he was disturbed and those in his life enabled him to continue being disturbed. Most governments perfer to engage in punitive policymaking rather than preventitive. This is punitive and reactionary. And it doesnt solve anything. Moreover - LOL - it wont stop violent porn from being made, and watched. Who do they think they are kidding.
I seriously doubt that, particularly in the case of "Jack" - based on all written accounts I have read and the various photos of his deeds, this dude, whoever he (or she?) was, was messed up in the head, big time. Psychopathic serial killer big time, as a matter of fact...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
"Blame the Jew (and other undesirables)"?
I hear that here in America we have a similar game coming out, except it is called "Blame the Immigrant"...
Stupid humans - they never seem to learn...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Rumor has it that his sick fuck also played... *GASP* Pacman!
"blah blah blah" 1984 "blah blah blah" Orwellian "blah blah blah" I should be able to "blah blah blah" whenever "blah blah blah". "blah blah blah" shrub "blah blah blah" 2000 U.S. presidential elections "blah blah blah".
i guess the left and the right can be guilty of the same irrationality. ultra feminists and liberals that feel a little too much and moral crusading righteous right wingers. same nonsense. i'm sick of these people who do things like pass laws because it feels good and because its politically convenient instead of basing their thinking on reason.
i guess jack the ripper watched violent porn;)
hitler watched internet porn!
I'm not sure where I got this quote from (possibly even a /. post !) but it sums this up quite nicely:
:)
"New Labour see a problem and a headline - then address the headline".
This is such a bad bill it's hardly worth discussing. They might as well make it illegal to own war films (very, very violent and displaying a definite lust for death - You could make a very good case for labelling then as violent pornography)
As in every instance where a twisted individual has forcibly projected their inner sickness onto an innocent third party I have every sympathy for the victim and their family. But this sort of knee jerk legislation will achieve nothing. It will not make anyone safer and it will not prevent further such murders.
So the obvious question is exactly how will "violent pornography" be defined ? From my (very, very) limited watching of current UK TV I suspect that you could class quite a bit of the current output as violent pornography - especially the utter crap put out under the moniker of "soap operas" which seem to feature nothing but fucking and fighting.
Oh well, maybe I suppose I'd best get up early tomorrow so I can take my DVD copy of "Faster Pussycat, Kill! Kill!" down to the local cop shop to check up on its legal status...
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
You've just made it easier for murders to claim it wasn't their fault.
"If it wasn't for the horrible, evil porn on the internet, I could never have done so heinous an act. Thankfully, its influence has been removed and with therapy I'll be out in just a few years. Murder charges had to dropped because of the temporary insanity caused by this evil porn."
You have made all the otherwise law abiding SM fans into criminals, but they were obiously degenerates, so who cares?
Banning the porn will obviously solve all the problems, because once upon a time there was no porn so people never had sex. Beware the evil influence of the all powerful media.
This power could be used for good! What if the media presented images of thin people being beautiful? If only they did this, maybe 2/3 of the US population wouldn't be overweight! Obviously they would diet and execise till they looked like people on TV.
Maybe we could cure these criminals by forcing them to watch romantic movies? Or we could have them repeat doctrines of loving and caring and renouncing sexuality like priests. Just think of how many priests would have become pedophiles otherwise.
Foolish people say things like 'studies show the majority of men and women are aroused by stories of rape' and follow this to the flawed conclusion that people understand the difference between reality and fiction. But obiously this fact merely points to the fact that the MAJORITY of men would become rapists with repeated exposure to these tales. And women would become willing victims... sluts! That's it!
Please help. Someday it will be impossible to even commit a crime. Like if we put the entire population under surveilence. Or in jail. We can only dream.
There is no way you can make a rational argument that dogs actually can cause people to go out and murder people. Son of Sam was a head case as it was and you know, his dog didn't actually talk to him. Now as for pornography, there is an argument to be made that violent porn can encourage someone to further his or her violent fantasies. I don't know if that is true or not but I do know you can make a argument to that effect. I do believe that pornography is used to sexually stimulate the viewer and whether it's women in french maid outfits or kiddie porn, - it's designed to stimulate the intended audience. Kiddie porn is against the law and possession of it is a crime. I think it's even a crime if it's not real children now. The reasoning is because it stimulates pedeophiles to commit crimes against children. It seems to me that if you have and enjoy violent porn the same reasoning should apply. You are someone who is likely to violently assault women/boys/whatever in the future when the pictures don't do it for you anymore. And your civil liberties do not extend to harming other people and society has a right to protect itself from those who will harm it.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
Back then, porn was:
3) Flirt with Violet
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
whats violent and who will decide it? seems like a bummer to me...
One crazy guy kills a girl and ruins it for everybody. Now nobody can enjoy violent pornography.
My other first post is car post.
"There are over 550 million firearms in worldwide circulation.
That's one firearm for every 12 people on the planet.
The only question is:
How do we arm the other eleven?"
. - Nicolas Cage, 'Lord of War'.
The real violence of smoking is still legal.
Tobacco is Terrorism.
Smoke is a biological weapon.
Ban Tobacco - and Europe will save a whole lot more lives.
> BBC is reporting that possession of violent pornography is
I better masturbate more gently now.
Personally, I don't know if freer access to porn has anything to do with lower rape rates. Personally, I think it has to do with the increasing importance of women in society, access to civil and criminal systems to prosecute people, sex education in schools, etc. etc. Although people who have just whacked off are probably about the least likely segment of society to rape someone--I do give you that. Maybe it's just removing the taboo of sex from the public means that more people are going to want to have sex, women and men both, and are going to want to do it the right way and not the wrong way. Once we stop looking at it as a gross animal thing to do, it becomes a beautiful human thing and it's less stressful for all involved.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
*MAN*, that just makes me want to beat the shit out of someone and fuck them in the ass!
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Could you indicate the country in question in your summaries for topics such as this one before posting?
I have noticed this is not done many a times and can be confusing.
We have problems with piracy because people cannot control themselves enough to have "fair use" rights and not redistribute everything they can.
We have problems because people have to sue someone, anyone whenever they get hurt or lose something. They can't take responsibility for their own actions, even when these actions are clearly their fault.
We now want to rail against a law that makes something that could make some people lose control illegal. Why is this a surprise? How is this any different than "tort reform" which is needed because someone burns themselves with hot coffee and sues the restaurant? How is this different than any of the laws in the US like Megan's Law, Polly's Law, etc. etc. etc.
You have seen this coming for a long while and we all deserve it.
Do they realize just how easy it is to put violent porn on someones computer?
.com
www. (favorite search engine)
"violent sex forced"
images
Tada! 3 years in prison.
That would take me about 2 seconds of access to any person's computer.
Then I report them for having violent porn on their computer.
Instant prison.
Really frightening.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Last I read, the penalties for drug dealers were worse than for drug users.
Something is very wrong here.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
It makes sense and seems logical to hold people to account for their actions, that is, no laws to prevent you from reading looking at violent porn, but rather to hold you to account for any rape/murder/crime afterwards. However, even though the person who committed a crime afterwards has been caught and punished, from the point of view of the victim, it doesn't make it any better for themselves that the criminal has been punished. Especially if the victim is dead. The victim would prefer it that the crime never happened in the first place.
Hence, the possible need to take preemptive action eg. laws and action, to prevent these crimes from taking place in the first instance. This is a principle that could be considered where compensation to the victim cannot be fulfilled, eg. they are dead. Other examples are suicide bombers who cannot be caught or punished, G.W.Bush's foreign policy of preemptive action against those who have WMDs. What good is it catching and punishing the criminal who sets off a nuke in a city killing a few hundred thousand? These are only extreme examples to try to show the point and general trend.
I'll tell you where to draw the line. It's absolutely right that violent pornography (and all pornography, if I had my way) should be outlawed and people who mess around with this stuff should go to prison. It's bad stuff, and there's no room for it in a modern society.
So first they took the guns from them
Then they video tape every movement outside of the house
Then they microchip them
Now its illegal to have BDSM porn
They no longer have control of thier government.
Its time for another revolution.
Ohh wait they outlawed that too.
Poor fools.
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
Wish I had mod points. This is perfect.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Wait, the cops captured Mitnick, who had encrypted his disk... he turned over the key, they didn't find what they were looking for... is that what happened? I confess a lack of familiarity with the case.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Lets not forget the Bible....
How many people have been killed, often butaly, by those who were obsesed with the Bible. If we start banning things that are are used to justify violence then we might as well start with the oldest stuff first.
I think it was more along the lines of
"Grand Theft Bicycle", at least on the Dutch.
Older folks have a common joke when they meet Germans,
"Hey where's my bicycle!" because during WWII the Germans took all their bicycles.
Cheers.
Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
No *anything* allowed on planes... now this... the good Marquis's books will be removed from shelves again. They're whittling little freedoms away at a steady pace so that they can get to the state depicted in V for Vendetta. What year is that supposed to be?
> How about the written word involving rape? Time to burn the Bible...
I think you will find the intent of the bible in this case to be a historical record, as opposed to be written for people's sexual gratification. Big difference.
Is that in the statute? That the viewer receive stimuation, or only that such stimulation is possible. Is that how it will be read?
Does BDSM stimulate people, you included. Yep.
I know that somewhere there was an image that involved rubber and flesh and sweat and strained arms and legs that looked like violence to someone that looked like Sunday morning to you.
Maybe Fridays, it's your sordid fantasy, not mine.
Anyway, since there are some clear examples and not so clear examples I leave you with this: Viewers of "Snakes on a Plane" were treated to simulated sex and BARE breasts and a man being bitten by a snake on his penis all in the same scene. Violent Porn, are we all criminals? Up until the snake came into the scene, it was pretty titilting.
Under a broad interpretation of this, we are.
Shame on us.
Hello Kettle,
You, my friend are as black as pitch.
With love, Pot.
what did System Of A Down ever do to the brits?
/duck!
Nathan Friedly
or car jackings?
goodness, what's to become of british porn?
I could have sworn it was Wolfenstein.
I use friend/foe to signal strong [dis]agreement instead of mod points. What else are f/f good for?
Enigma? :>
"All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
if wacked off for 10 days straight to hardcore rape porn then went out and raped a woman, it would be my fault
If you whacked off for 10 days straight and still had the energy to get out of the house, you should be a member of your country's National Pudpounding Team.
"No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
Note that myRedbook logs and tracks Internet-protocol addresses. If you visit the myRedbook website, you may compromise your own privacy.
I don't buy the "feeding the beast" argument. Do you run out and buy a Budweiser everytime you see their commercial? Of course not.
The argument of "feeding the beast" is NOT depicted in your analogy. You are talking abouit "cause and effect"--an almost entirely different argument usually used by social conservatives and certain women's groups. When law enforcement talk about "feed the beast" it isn't psychological conditioning, it is economics. When a paedophile collects and views child pornography he is creating demand, and I'd veture to say that as is the case with habitual consumers of legal porn paedophiles will want new material, so this demand will be sustained and perhaps grow. Supply must meet demand, and to supply new child pornography the producer MUST break the law and exploit and abuse children. "The beast" is the market for child porn, not the paedophile who may (or may not) commit the crime of sexual assault of a minor.
You could eliminate all the child porn, real or simulated, and you would still have pedophiles
Absolutely. Some believe paedophilia is a sexual orientation like heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality except for the fact that it is an unhealthy perversion to be sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. If it is indeed a sexual orientation then nothing could be done to prevent paedophilia--it can only be managed. However, of you did "slay the beast" (eliminate the market for child porn) then THOUSANDS of children would be spared being abused for the purposes of supplying the market. The child abuse rate would go down significantly.
Anyways your reasoning that there would be paedophiles regardless of the availabilty of porn is in fact the very reason it is impossible to eliminate it. So long as there are people out there who are turned on by child sex there will be demand for such material, ensuring there is always food for the beast.
Even today, those extreme anti-abortionists who murder OB/GYN doctors for performing abortions use the Bible as inspiration and justification for their behavior. Would you support calls to outlaw the Bible for "feeding the beast" in those cases?
As I said it is an "economics" argument and your Bible analogy doesn't fit. There is no supply/demand relationship there. Furthermore not only does it require a questionable leap of logic to conclude from the Bible's teaching that killing an abortionist is the Lord's work, but the production of bibles is always done within the law and doesn't require the abuse or death of innocent people, whereas the production of child porn involves illegal activity and harming innocent people.
While I find simulated child-porn to be offensive, as a true freedom-loving American (not the Bush variety), I cannot think of a reason it should be outlawed. If no "actual" children are involved, the fact that most of us find it disgusting is not sufficient reason to criminalize it.
Well, though I'm not American I do truly value my freedom as well, however I also value reasoned, critical thinking and common sense. As such I think we all have to be realistic and sensible. The almost comical "schoolgirl fantasy" pics depicting well-endowed women with pigtails and shortened school uniform skirts with no panties underneath are of no interest to paedophiles. The same goes with written literature or illustrations of that nature which depict slightly questionable but classic fantasy situations. However if you think written literature or artwork that makes a point of demonstrasting that one of the participants in a sexual act is, say, 10 years old, and goes into explicit detail relating to that character's pre-pubescent characteristics, or depicts an old man trying to lure in a little boy or girl then you have to stop kidding yourself. The vast majority of consumers of legal/normal "simulated porn" such as erotic stories, phone sex or drawings are not going to be content with just that if photos and videos are out there too, and you can bet the
Try to tell that to the guy you punched, the woman you raped, and the dude you shot.
They try it out on you, same position, same participants. If you scream in agony, your fucked! If you scream in pleasure, then you fucked as well :)
Actually, the legality of S&M in the UK is dubious. R v Brown (1993) makes it clear that consent to violence is not a defense (goodbye to volenti non fit injuria...)
Tomorrow, I may eat another house plant
If they come for my spanking porn, somebody's getting shot in the face.
...
With a shotgun, you pervert!
they are the victim, so we submit to their interpretation, regardless?
if i punch you in the face, and you blame fred instead of me, and so fred is jailed for what i did to you, does that make sense? is that justice?
i say blame belongs where blame belongs, period
the victim's point of view is what it is: the victim's point of view. it's not the final word
some victims are willing to forgive rape. that doesn't mean we as society don't punish the rapist. some victims believe rapists should be brutally tortured to death. that doesn't automatically mean we follow that formula of punishment
what the victim thinks should be done about the crime committed against them is not the final word in the search for justice
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I wonder when the hypocrisy will stop.
During the sexual act, the male is violent towards the female. This violence is due to instincts: the male applies his force over the female, conquering her, owning her, while the female accepts this violence because she wants to be owned (and that's the reason many women have rape fantasies).
The position of the male in modern society is very difficult. On one hand, society presses men to be gentle, kind, sensitive, understanding, in other words to forget part of their instincts and become soft. On the other hand, women say that true men don't exist any more and we are all sissies and the like.
So it is again one big hypocrisy from society, and that may leads men (mainly) into a sexual subculture, including porn, strip clubs, hookers etc. From that step, it is very easy to reach a stage where committing a crime is not a difficult act to perform...especially because modern society pushes people to the gutter very easily.
Of course all the above is not an excuse for commiting a crime, but I wanted to highlight that modern man is between two stones that are in collision course. There is a social issue behind sex crimes, and that issue is also deeply related to violence and killings in schools and in the street, sexual harassment, rise of the porn industry etc. Unless society looks at the overall problem of its structure, these problems are not going to go away with simple "stop doing that" laws.
If you happen to have violent, spanky, whips and chains sex and you happen to leave a bruise or a cut or anything more than "transient and trifling" you can't say that you consented to it. So if you need to go to the doctor after a heavy session, he may call the police and your partner in the act can be jailed for actual bodily harm. The fact that you consented to get beaten up is no defence. And now they want to make it illegal to even watch two people beating each other up for their own gratification. This, in a country that has a long history of caning and other such fetishy acts - do a search for "English punishment" and see what comes up. Tabloid media, and idiots. Same as usual. Are they now going to ban sales of canes and whips and other toys designed to inflict pain on people for sexual gratification? Sooner or later, someone's going to commit a crime and they'll find a pair of fluffy handcuffs and outlaw those as well. Arrrgh!
"Everybody knows" was once applied to "the world is flat". We learned how to use scientific method to disprove this belief. If you're going to make this kind of statement, point at verifiable research studies from reputable sources which demonstrate your assertion.
Anecdotes from Religious Right blogs or "feminist" anti-porn sites or serial killers trying to get sympathy by telling the crazies they you want to hear don't constitute evidence of anything other than your gullibility.
Tech Public Policy stuff
I live in Denmark. There are no guns. There is virtually no crime. That's the ideal scenario, not a "peace through guns" one. Now, I know it's complicated to change society in the USA, but it has to start some way. Or do you want to have a country full of gun toting rednecks till the end of times?
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
You're an idiot. I was sympathizing with you until I read the last part of your post. Then I noticed your nickname. Does it have anything to do with this idiot? If it does, everything makes more sense.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
is further along the road of trading "security" for civli liberties.
The US has the PATRIOT Act and similar legislation, is surveying the reading habits of people who use public libraries (and citizens have no legal recourse), the UK is doing public survelliance, laws that require turning over passwords apparently, at the whim of any law enforcement bureaucrat, and now, a law that gives the UK government the right to investigate people's HDs for "thoughtcrimes".
Part of this is a common failure of education in both nations, people are not taught that no government can guarantee safety, and that a free country has inherent dangers, and conversely, in a police state, that one may be in danger from one's neighbors, but one is ALWAYS in danger from the government.
For those of you with recent experience with living in both the UK and America, which country is further down the road to tyranny?
Tech Public Policy stuff
Everyone - from the victim's family to the posters in /. - seems to be focusing on the murderer and how there was something wrong with him, I would never do that, yada yada yada.
What about the girl? She wasn't some random rape victim, she was his girlfriend. That would suggest to me (though it's not certain) that this violent-sex tendency was something she already knew about at the least, and probably willingly participated in to some degree. Who here, having such tendencies, would deliberately murder their partner in consensual violent sex? Isn't it more likely that this was an accident of recreation, rather than an act evil?
Please understand, I have every sympathy for the girl's family, and I can certainly see why they would want to pursue this course. However, I think the fact that this crime involved sex, and association with internet pornography, has hit some big buttons in those of a reactionary nature. I couldn't say for certain, but isn't it a reasonable possibility that this man's tendencies were also hers?
On a personal note, I have enjoyed, and occasionally still do, similar practices with my consenting partner. Is it dangerous? Well, it can be painful, even dangerous - as can bouldering, white-water rafting (these aren't sexual terms, as far as I'm aware!) and various other recreational activities. When I go climbing, I and my partner are aware of and accept the risks and, most importantly, trust one another enough to not seriously endanger each other deliberately or carelessly. We may die, it's true, but we're prepared for that and we take safety precautions where possible.
People are talking about this case as though this was an act inflicted upon an unwilling victim - and by association it is implied that all such acts have a similar element. I don't know if that's true or not in this particular case, but to make a sweeping, generalised law that restricts the actions of (I can't stress this enough) responsible, consenting adults in their pursuit of what they enjoy is legal folly at its worst.
I, for one, will continue to enjoy all manner of kinkiness. I will enjoy watching the occasional film clip of such acts, if I come across them, and if that means evading the law with simple steganography then so be it. I know that I'm responsible (and experienced) enough not to seriously endanger another's life in this activity, and certainly not against someone's will!
If (as it may be) the girl was not a willing participant, and (as it certainly seems) the guy was not responsible enough to treat her rights and wishes with care and respect, then socially and psychologically speaking he is a dangerous individual. This has nothing to do with his sexual preferences, however. I enjoy kinky sex, rock-climbing, riding fast on my bicycle without a helmet and so on. If I ever think I'm seriously endangering someone else's rights or liberties (or indeed my own) with my actions, I will stop - whatever it is I'm doing. He didn't. That's his problem - nothing to do with sex - and as such he should be treated as an amoral murderer or a deeply irresponsible manslaughterer (Murder 2, for you Americans), not a sex fiend who is a product of the evil interweb tubes.
In any case, I hardly think it is for parliament to decide to restrict everybody's right to enjoy themselves because one or two socially undeveloped individuals are unable to do so responsibly. They should be watched and guarded where possible, but anything else smacks of suspected-guilty-until-proven-otherwise. Aside from anything else, people who disregard the rigths and safety of another in spite of the law will continue to do so, whatever their fancy, even with this law in place.
As another poster said: Treat the causes, not the symptoms. It's our society that's churning out irresponsible people, not our laws.
Meta will eat itself
Wow. You have a pretty twisted outlook on sexual intercourse. I don't know exactly what you've been exposed to that has so warped your understanding and possibly ruined any and all relationships in your life, but I can take a guess....
Please do not enter into relationships with that attitude, and if you already are in one, apologise to your partner right now.
May the Maths Be with you!
No, we had a _small_ rise in overall violent crime.
We had a drop in the number of violent crimes where a gun was used. We also had a HUGE drop in the number of accidental shootings.
If you want to bring the Swiss into it, sure they have a gun in every home, along with someone who has been trained to use it in a professional manner.
I'm not saying it's the guns' fault that people use them to commit crimes but when there are stacks of them out there and they're very easy to get hold of...well, it makes it just that much easier, doesn't it?
One of my favourite quotes from the West Wing:
"if you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia you've got a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year and they had 112. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws."
Possession of violent pornography hasn't been outlawed in the UK. It has merely been proposed as a possible bill but nothing has gone through Parliament yet. In fact it would be pretty difficult for any new law to be introduced at present because Parliament isn't even sitting, so it can't pass any laws.
Seems the original submitter's about as good at truth as our own Prime Minister.
Bloody hell, I hadn't read such a fallacious statement in the last two months!
It's quite obvious that if you illegalize something, you criminalize a part of the population (regardless of the prudishness of the arguments and people involved in that decision, which shouldn't be a standard in a country other than Saudi Arabia). I can't help but wonder if the parent was modded 'Interesting' because the point of view of a 15th-century witch-hunter is of cultural interest!
Generally speaking, it seems as if those living in countries where they have enjoyed freedom for a long period of time have already forgotten the benefits of said freedom; the fact that a bunch of people want to regulate what someone can or cannot jerk off to is shocking.
Here in Spain we had a dictatorship until 1975, and respect for privacy and individual rights is much greater than in the UK or the so-called 'Home of the Free', and I can't help but feel enraged by the parent post. If you want to jerk off to SM-porn -which should be British heritage or something like that, by the way- it's your damn personal life, and I can't see why anyone should interfere!
That the greatest amount of killing, violence, torture and degredation committed by person to person, has been committed by those holding holy scriptures of one religion or another. Shall we ban that?
I'm not defending violent porn, or anything like that. Far from it; it's just not my thing.
However, it will not cure the problem. The possession of violent porn will not incide a truly meek and mild person to go out and rape and murder.
However, someone who is predisposed to rape and murder by personality is likely to have the urge to go and view violent porn. The possession and viewing of it makes little to no difference. The personality traits are the all important thing.
I'm tired of this blame culture, where nothing can be the fault of an individual committing a crime. It all has to be the fault of something else. Something that can be sued or banned. Life doesn't work like that. It's all down to individuals and their choices. Sometimes there are no bigger reasons, and the truth is exactly what is shown in it's simplest form.
How come you can't post to multiple stories in quick succession. Heck, it only takes me 15 minutes to read and reply to a gaggle of /. stories, but it takes another 15-20 to post them.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
...then he killed her accidentally during consensual sex. That is, it was a violent sex game that went terribly, terribly wrong. Recall the case of Michael Hutchence who initially appeared to have committed suicide but it is suspected accidentally killed himself in the process of autoerotic asphyxiation. I'd wager that this sort of thing goes on a lot more than anyone realises, as it's not exactly the sort of topic you bring up round the coffee table.
But I digress; the point is, if the guy *did* kill her accidentally, then not only is the concept of him being a 'deranged murderer' inaccurate, but the victim was herself in some way an accessory to her own death. Thus the role of violent pornography in her death is questionable at best, as is any campaign to pin the blame on it. Of course this all hinges on the idea that it was an accident and that this story wasn't concocted by the guy (I can't say I've read a lot of analysis on this angle, as the majority of mainstream press articles haven't even mentioned the consensual element, let alone consider if he was telling the truth in saying it).
Another case of the OP really not R'ing TFA. They have not yet banned it, they've just said they plan to, and have done a consultation exercise. The report for that is available on http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-extrem e-porn-3008051/ (pdf link on page.) From that report, most of the concerns either seem to be free speech related, or down to the overly broad definitions they used in their initial proposals.
I repeat: None of this is currently close to becoming law yet.
"How fine you look when dressed in rage."
what a crock, who's to say what is violent what is ok?
are whips and handcuffs now illegal and being restricted from sale?
How about candle wax?
This post 911, ceasing your civil liberties shit is getting out of hand.
Dean
towards the end there - surely it's f'in obvious that media doesn't cause this level of behaviour, it's the behaviour creates the demand that creates the media.
For example look at a magazine rack in a huge store - huge variety of magazines covering every topic under the sun. If you asked a random person why they were buying a particular magazine (let's say Steam-powered touring caravan monthly) - it'd be because they were interested in Steam-powered touring caravans. I think it's highly unlikely they'd say they have no interest - but suddenly feel the inexplicable desire to develop one.
If you like something, you're attracted to media about it. It may introduce you to something related, suggest something you hadn't thought of - but that's it.
I dare say that just because YOU don't get excited by holding or shooting a gun, it doesn't mean that other people don't. A gun can stir emotions as much as porn can (porn just stirs my hormones, not my emotions). As John Lennon (he, himself a victim of a shooting) said:
Happiness is a warm gun.
Does that mean, Kumi Monster has to cancel her tour in UK?
Remember remember, the 5th of november...
This is bullshit. I like rough sex and i like porn that way. Why is this bad? My girlfriend is turned on by this so there's no harm either. I would never do this to a girl who doesn't like it.
This is no better than banning porn with stockings or any other "perversion". But this will get through because no one will stand up against it (/me posting as ac for example)
I guess it's true what the song says, "Sometimes you've got to F her, gently"..... If you are going to videotape it.
"possession of images such as "material featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury"."
Ok, so is S&M porn violent porn? I mean, whipping qualifies as violent, and a whip can easily take out an eye, etc. If we must live under oppressive laws, one would hope to atleast have laws that deal with quantifiable things. Banning things based on emotional knee-jerk reactions never work out too well.
"Trial jurors had been told of his obsession with strangulation and how he looked at internet sites connected with the fetish."
I didn't really see proof that looking at those fetish sites lead this fucked up indivitual to commit the murder. So why ban them? If we are so suspect to media influences, then why is violence allowed in the media? Why is crime shown? Why is un-patriotic activity shown?! If strangulation porn sites caused one previously perfectly healthy indivitual to do this, then imagine how many murders violence in the news is causing!
That's preposterous. Possession of a handgun is also criminal in the UK. The fact that it's criminal does not give the police 'inquisitorial powers to come into your house...' Every country in the world [including America, the land of the free] has laws criminalzing possession of certain things. That doesn't mean the cops can barge into your house without just cause or a reasonable suspicion that you actually have the illegal item in question. Shaun, irrational and reactionary arguements weaken your position.
If this was true, then it would be legal to have simulated kiddie-pr0n. Fractal Poser-style kiddies posed in sexual positions. No bits were hurt in the making of those images, etc. But, there have been successful prosecutions for possession or creation of such.
It seems to me that pre-modern societies were often violent by nature. Yes, there might have been less noted serial killers, rapists, etc, but then it also wasn't really notable when some lord cornered the young serving wench in a back room, and there was less time to go around killing your fellows when there were plenty of heathens out there to put to the sword or crucify, etc.
In the past, some of that sickness was simply commonplace.
This is an interesting thought. I disagree with you philosophically, because I think that the individual (and not the family) is the base unit of society and that each person should be judged and punished according to his or her own merits or weaknesses, but setting that aside for a moment, I think a system like you propose would work.
I'd introduce one more rule, though. Parents, via unanimous consent, could choose at any time to end the life of their child, regardless of how old he or she was. In doing so, the child's assets would be immediately transferred to the state (so they couldn't do it for pecuniary gain). I call this the "Frankenstein Exception." If you and your spouse realize that despite your best efforts, your child has turned out to be a monster -- and that you'll end up being punished alongside them, as per your rule -- then it's only fair to let you pull the plug. In order to make sure that there's no coercion involved, I think not only would both parents have to consent, but both parents would have to participate in the execution in some critical way; no pushing off the responsibility of actually doing the deed on some faceless public servant. (I.e., it wouldn't be like Philip K. Dick's "abortion vans," where you could just call up the county and have them come get your kneebiter for euthanization; this would be very personal.) And perhaps in order to have your children wasted, you'd also have to have yourselves sterilized: no re-dos in this game.
The justification is that if you're going to get punished for someone else's behavior, you have to have some control over it; given that there is a certain amount of randomness in parenting (even good parents can produce a real psycho from time to time), you can't eliminate "bad kids" just by punishing parents. You need to have some method for removing those people who just turn out to be unredeemably evil, without punishing scores of people who have no control over their actions anymore.
Anyway, it would certainly have some interesting consequences on society. I can only imagine that sales of flowers on Mothers' Day would vastly increase.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Perhaps you care to elaborate?
And I would counter-argue that without compelling evidence showing that viewing certain types of entertainment material causes one to become a criminal and engage in particular criminal acts or behaviors, the state has no business banning any particular type of content.
As you pointed out, everyone seems to have heard the argument that viewing certain types of [kiddie|violent] porn causes one to go out and [abuse|kill] other people -- but there seems to be scant hard evidence besides the circumstantial: there do seem to be a lot of criminals who have abused kids or raped women and have also enjoyed porn, but correlation isn't causation. The substantial number of people who do like certain kinds of "deviant" porn and who don't become criminals, suggests to me that in fact the cause of the criminal behavior is separate, and it that it may lead people to both like the porn and to do the behavior later. Similarly, Jack Thompson and his associates have told everyone that violent videogames are "murder simulators" and cause people to lead lives of crime, but there's little convincing evidence of this and much to the contrary. The argument for banning violent pornography and simulated "child" pornography is the exact same argument for banning certain violent video games.
Now, there is a separate argument for banning true child pornography: by making it illegal to possess, you cut off the demand for it, which in turn means there's less of a motivation for people to make it. Since making it inherently involves the abuse of children, this is a Good Thing. Understand that this is a completely separate argument from banning violent porn that's made using consenting adults (or merely actors who simulate violence), or porn that looks like children but doesn't actually involve any (e.g. hentai, CG, or using particularly youthful-looking-but-legal actors).
If at some point there is some convincing and widely-accepted (by the scientific and subject-matter educated communities, not just 'man on the street' "wisdom") evidence showing that viewing certain types of entertainment actually causes criminal behavior, then perhaps we could have a discussion on how best to regulate that type of material. However, in the absence of such evidence, this whole issue is nothing but a political red herring, something that's being created as a "feel good" piece by desperate politicians trying to capitalize on the emotions of people who don't know better.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Until it gets raised again, anyways.
I found this statement rather interesting, being that Canada just raised the age-of-consent. I don't particularly have an issue with it being where it is now (16, I believe), but it does seem to increase over time. I wonder if, 50 years from now, people will have a lifespan of 150, mental maturity will be held back in favour of older 'children', and the AOC will be 25?
I also had a big discussion with a friend over the issues of 'consent between minors' wherein both parties are of a young age, perhaps up to a few years apart. He has a daughter, and argued that the male would automatically be the one in power and thus victimizing the female (and should be charged with rape) regardless of his age. Not exactly my point of view, but I'd imagine it can get scary when the lawyers/politicians have their say in such cases, and/or when some case comes along when two people that had a previously-legal relationship had it suddenly outlawed.
You wrote: probably, none of the actors were actually hurt while those rape scenes were being filmed. (Or at least, not physically hurt more than in filming any normal "fight scene.")
But the article states: proposed legislation will outlaw possession of images such as "material featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury". So, I guess, all this "normal" fight scenes will be outlawed too. Isn't it a good riddance? Next, war reporting. Sick bastards can use Israeli-Palestinian bombimg images to jerk off, so these would be outlawed too... Much more sterile and healthy society would result.
Although there is a motion to pass this is Scotland, this won't be until another 9 months, and the situation is unlikely to end up with a different law in Scotland, however, like many others I See this as a purely kneejerk headline grabbing law and feel Scotland would be better off without this kind of 'pish' http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1284332006
Or not, because that'd be breaking Doctor-Patient confidentiality.
What!? No European Civil Liberties Union (ECLU)??
Porn should be banned in public place where underage children have access to a computer... Yes this means schools and libraries. Our evil friends over at the ACLU won't allow this though because they support the feeding of such content to children. If Ben Bistline wasn't doing polygamy in the name of a religion then the ACLU would be defending him saying its his right to marry as many women as he wants and to arrange weddings for underage children, but because he's doing it in the name of a religion the ACLU won't touch it.. seeing they are working on shoving anything and everything that has to do with a religion into the dark shadows.
And no I don't support polygamy and the guy needs to rot in jail.
My opinions.. Enjoy
Seems to me there's plenty of violent, sociopathic behavior in "Passion of the Christ." Outlaw it?
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Was the point of the movie sexual gratification? Or to portray history? I don't recall that movie graphically depicting sexual violence.
So sociopaths are only affected by viewing violent imagery when there's nudity involved?
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
I am serious. It's absurd that hyterical mothers have such political clout that they are able to curtail our Constitutional rights (for those of us in the USA). Once again sentimentality overwhelms reason. To be fair, it's not just hysterical mothers. It's the same with people that are willing to trade freedom for "security" because they are afraid of terror. Fear is the motivator in both cases.
I never said that. The topic was about sexual violence. Your question opens up an even larger can of worms. :-)
Something doesn't sound right here.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock