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.'"
Why? Beats looking at fat chicks.
"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."
Considering, at least in the US, how many kids are actually dangerously obese...I don't see this as a danger.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
because before viewing the violent porn, this guy was obviously a choir boy...
No, and I don't think that porn (or violent video games) MAKES someone violent. But it does "feed the beast." OTOH, our brilliant supreme court in the US thinks it okay to have kiddie porn if it just LOOKS like kiddie porn. If it's animation or not really an under-aged student, that okay. But tell me that DOESN'T fuel the pedophile to eventually want to go out and get some real action on a kid?
What will the law do? Well it WILL allow charges to be brought without having to wait for some freak to practice his homemade snuff film on an innocent victim.
People complain about government stepping in, but the population at large does nothing to reign in their own vices or show SOME measure of standards as to what society will put up with.
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
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.
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
yeah, and when the guys ejaculate it's just acting as well... it's all fake...
I don't feel like it...