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...
Fetch the Comfy Chair. Now we must browse your pornography to make sure its all in good order.
God spoke to me.
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
This is a very difficult area with no clear answers. We do know that many violent sex fiends started with looking at violent pornography. We also know that millions of people the world over, have enjoyed viewing it and did not go on to be a pervert. I heard one shrink that made the argument that 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. Obviously someone who has had a family member effected, they will feel one way. Civil Libertarians will obviously take the opposite position. One other problem is in defining it. Many women's groups in the US argue that any pornography is violent and demeaning to women by its very nature.
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.
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.
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.
Are they going to ban romance novels? Rape and violence are common themes in these books. The fact that many women have rape fantasies, and like to read about it in fiction, does not mean that they want to be raped in the real world.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
it becomes acceptable for the creators and users of these pictures to think favorably about violence/pedophilia/etc.
not Wrong
These communities become the primary outlet for the members of these communities and engulf their entire thought process
not Wrong
and soon their allegience is more to the community than to the rule of law
not Wrong
and they feel no remorse about perpetrating these acts in real life.
still not Wrong
Nothing you have stated is a Wrong act. No one is harmed by those actions, except arguably the person committing them. You'll be delighted to know that if this person performs the act of murder, there are already a number of UK laws designed for just that scenario. Quite convenient.
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."
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
Not in my house they don't. Nor do any of them engage in wanton carnal lust, three-way action, live lesbian sex shows, hot oral action or any such other shocking and disgraceful behaviour.
sadly
Travelling forward in time at a rate of 1 second per second.
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
Incorrect comparison.
Child pornography is illegal due to the fact that a child cannot consent to sex. The video therefore becomes evidence of an illegal act.
Violent pornography (assume the actors are adults) displays actions of cosenting adults.
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.
That's a bad analogy--owning a gun doesn't make me want to kill someone (I own two rifles). Gun ownership stirs no desires. In fact, my guns are about 4 hours away at the moment and I feel no loss whatsoever. On the other hand, pornography stirs the emotions--the whole point of watching it is to get excited, isn't it? And you fantasize about about it and it gradually turns into an obsession. And emotional people do bad things, like the Colombine shooting or those spikes that environmentalists drive into trees in order to decapitate the people who are paid to cut them down. I believe that our Aussie friends, who banned guns a few years back, experienced an increase in violent crime--after all, when the good people can't defend themselves, the bad are emboldened. The Swiss, on the other hand, have a machine gun in every house--and they have a much lower crime rate. Why risk breaking into a house when you know the owner can blow you away? So please, don't blame guns for causing violence. Guns are a method, not a motive.
Battlemaster--Game with friends in medival realms
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
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!
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.