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...
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.
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
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!
'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.
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.
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
Well actually this is off the back of a 30 month campaign, 50,000 signature petition and many MPs backing the mother of a victim of a deranged murderer whoes pasttime was viewing violent porn on the internet of the exact manner in which he killed this womans daughter. Its right there in the linked article.
This is anything BUT kneejerk legislation based on media headlines, its coming up from grassroots victims of crime.
Violent Pornography?
Whoo, signature!
DesireCampbell.com
David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) claimed the neighbor's dog told him to kill people. I think we should ban dogs.
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
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?"
because before viewing the violent porn, this guy was obviously a choir boy...
Last time I checked, killing someone is still illegal. Why is this law needed? It's not like it's child porn is it? The 'actors' know exactly what they're getting signing up for the job, being adults and all...
Reminds me of a quote by that evil-incarnate W. Axl Rose (Guns n Roses) in reponse to people wanting to ban some GNR songs:
"If you're going to ban something, ban the Bible. More people have been killed because of/in the name of that any of our songs"
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
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.
Repeated kneejerk reactions over time don't make this a non-kneejerk issue.
Somehow I doubt the sincerity of these signatures. Approach someone in a public place and just start off "Excuse me, sir, do you like violent pornography?" What the hell can you say, even if that's your bag? "Why certainly, stranger. Nothing like a good snuff video while I bugger myself with a coke bottle, yessiree!"
And of course, an MP (I assume that's a politician) coming out in favor of pornography period would be political suicide. That's an even less rational standard.
I always just say "no thanks" and keep walking.
... And so it comes to this.
Aw, man... I can't remember... what was that violent video game that Hitler always played...
Whoever thinks that violent pornography has an effect on people has been a naughty boy and needs a spanking.
Right. Because now that the porn is illegal, he'd just have killed her according to whatever fantasies he was capable of creating in his imagination. That's such a better outcome.
This sounds like his defense lawyer's wet dream: "the porn made me do it! It was the porn!"
This makes about as much sense as if the city of New York had decided to ban dogs after the Son of Sam said his dog told him to kill people. Maybe the problem is just that people are occasionally psychopaths? Like terrorists, there's very little that you can do to stop them, and there's a very great risk that any attempted "cure" can be worse than the "disease." (E.g., an erosion of civil liberties and freedoms in the face of a very small threat.)
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
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
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
Jack: HOW BOUT SEX QUERY
Hooker: YES STOP
No wonder he was frustrated.
The kiddie-porn is illegal not because people will go out and do bad things after watching it.
;-)
It's illegal because a child was 'hurt' in the making of the kiddie-porn in the first place.*
*Traci Lords not withstanding
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
I know that System of a Down doesn't agree with some people, but isn't this a bit harsh?
and a 2nd analogy:
We should ban *any* anti-abortion group because people who go to those meetings, and watch their literature might kill doctors who perform abortions.
You can't ban things based on what people do after the fact. Can 'environment' increase a 'bad' persons tendencies? sure. But I don't want my choices restricted to only the lowest common denomenator safe for everyone. We wouldn't be able to do anything.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
The actions of a few sick and twisted individuals is not typical of the standards of society. Was dear old Jack the Ripper a typical 19th century gentleman?
The problem with your line of reasoning is the incontrivertable fact that violent crime rates have been steadily progressing downwards for decades, especially in areas like youth crime. It's not that there weren't sick and dangereous criminals in decades or centuries past, it's that they weren't as high profile. The fact that we have tabloids, CNN and legions of hungry journalists out looking for the next Manson/Jack/Son of Sam only means that we hear about such individuals more often.
It isn't lack of standards in our society that's the problem, it's an overabundance of boogeymen.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
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
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.
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.
Pit Bulls are popularly trained to fight because they're large, strong dogs, not because they're inherently vicious. Any dog of any breed can be made nice or mean. I used to own a German Shepherd Dog that could easily bite your arm off, but she thought she was a little lapdog and would roll over for a tummy-scratching if she saw you looking at her. I've also had a neighbor with a Pomeranian that would bite the crap out of your leg if it had the chance. "Man Bitten By Toy Dog" doesn't make the headlines, though, because the subheading of "Man Reacts By Punting It Into Street" takes away the dramatic impact.
Your neighbor was a scummy person who raised his dog to fight, and yet you're holding it against the breed? Honestly, that's the animal kingdom equivalent of rounding up all the African Americans because some of them commit crimes.
For what it's worth, I own two Malteses and a Boston Terrier. Your stupid proposal wouldn't affect me one bit, but you're still not going to get my support.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
How could you possibly illegalize simulated child porn in the form of two young-looking adults of legal age?
Easy, we just kill off all the flat chested women. If men see flat-chested women, they will obviously be driven to screw little girls since they're incapable of telling them apart. If you don't have a C cup by your 18th birthday, off you go to the gas chamber to save our children.
Of course, before we start selecting for early bloomers, we'll have to kill off all the girls that develop a C cup before their 16th birthday, just to make sure the men don't get any "bad ideas". Eventually we'll evolve into a species that develops all sexual characteristics right at the age of consent, and it will finally cease to be an arbitrary number. Until it gets raised again, anyways.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
But tell me that DOESN'T fuel the pedophile to eventually want to go out and get some real action on a kid?
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. You have will power and a measure of self-control over your urges. You could eliminate all the child porn, real or simulated, and you would still have pedophiles. A person can feed his or her own beast through the limitless possibilities of the human imagination. There were pedophiles prior to the internet, the TV, and even the photograph. How did they feed the beast?
"Feeding the beast" is a convenient and completely unsubstantiated argument against something. Almost anything is capable of working on our baser instincts and influencing our behavior. People are responsible for their own actions, regardless of the motivation or catalyst. As another poster pointed out, the Bible has been used to inspire and justify horrific acts of violence and subjugation over the four millenia. 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?
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.
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
I agree.. i still blame air.. if we could just ban that then all the bad people would go away.
.. if you outlaw air only outlaws will have air .... which means everyone else goes away.. either way we separate our selves from the bad people..
then again
i need to go find someone breathing and turn them in..
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Marijuana is illegal because of the same stupid "think of the children" rhetoric that has inspired this bit of legislation. Funny though; alcahol is legal, despite the fact that people do some pretty awful things after using it.
The Cheese Stands Alone.
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.
Actually, here's your standards:
It is acceptable for a person to watch or imagine any type of fictional scenario that appeals to them. It is not acceptable for a person to commit a violent or harmful act against another person.
That an easy enough standard for you, or would you like some clarification?
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
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!
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
All joking aside, it is precisely this attitude that seeking out sex is a "perverted" thing to do, that provides the incentive and the ammunition for folks like US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to make consensual adult imagery illegal, taking away resources from child pornography investigation units to go after adult pornography. And that was a year ago. How it doesn't create more of an uproar still baffles me.
Getting back to the current topic, keep in mind that much "violent" pornography is acted, not real violence. Here in the States, we call porn with real violence "snuff" films, and they are already illegal here as they depict real, intentional violence against the actors for the sake of creating the film.
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.