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.'"
Whatever turns you on I suppose.
Fetch the Comfy Chair. Now we must browse your pornography to make sure its all in good order.
God spoke to me.
'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.
Just you wait- soon, they're going to come after your dinosaur porn!
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.
Of course Jack the Ripper didn't have violent Internet porn! It was all BBSes back then.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
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.
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."
It's not like that. You just don't understand. Barney really loves me.
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.
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
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 have moderator points, but they unfortunately don't have "Ignorant" as one of my choices, so I thought instead I'd respond to you.
Then you must have something to hide?
I'd like your credit card number, all of your tax forms, and I'd like to know what lies you've told to your friends, what thoughts of criminal activities you've had, what crimes you have been accused of, precisely what your blood alcohol level was before you drove, every instance of cruelty or indifference you've ever committed, and exactly which products you buy and stocks you invest in - oh, and what you're getting your spouse and kids for the holidays. This of course is for your job interview - and so I can ruin the surprise of your gifts for the holidays. Everyone has something to hide, except people who are 100% self-sufficient or barter for all of the goods and services they need.
If you do not have violent pornography, you would not need encryption or stegnagrophy... Encryption can hide pornography, but has no use if you're not doning anything illegal.
First off, it's "steganography." Do banks have legitimate need of encryption to protect your ATM withdrawls? Do you have legitimate need of a PIN to access your funds? Have you ever wanted to have a diary, but were afraid someone who lives with you might read it? Does your front door, car door, and safety deposit box have a lock? Why? WHAT ARE YOU HIDING?
Here in America, we are allowed to do what we want.
I would say, "Here in the United States, we are a nation of laws. We are free to act within those laws." (By and large. When that breaks down, I like to get out and protest.)
Violent pornography hurts poeple so it should be illegal.
Think of a movie with a love scene. Top Gun. Dirty Dancing. Eight Mile. You do understand that the actors (probably) didn't actually have sex while they filmed that scene, don't you? It's acting.
Now think about other sex scenes. Shawshank Redemption. Sleepers. The Accused. Bad Lieutenant. Sybil. Far less pleasant, right? But, 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.") Are those still "good movies," or do you just categorically call them bad and harmful to society? I happen to think Shawshank is one of the best movies ever made, and a ton of people - including the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences, The American Cinema Editors, the American Society of Cinematographers, the Directors Guild of America, the Golden Globes, the Grammy's, the Screen Actors Guild, and the Writers Guild of America all agree with me.
Do you want to tell me what, precisely, is the difference between the rape scenes in Shawshank Redemption and this violent pornography that you're defending us all from?
Put another way - if a dude spanks a chick's ass while they're simulating sex (just for the sake of argument) in front of a camera, is that violent pornography or is it not? I frankly don't see the harm in it.
Is it the violence that really bothers you, or is it the pornography? Or is it some mix of the two? Look, just because I think something should be legal doesn't mean I endorse it, or think it's a good idea. I hate alcohol with a passion, but I don't think prohibition is the solution to drunk drivers. I blame the f-ing drunk drivers. Do you think the portrayal of violence in pornography is disgusting and bad, or do you really think owning it should be illegal?
Do you really want to go after the portrayal of sadism and masochism? You think that stuff hurts people? I mean, you think it hurts them in ways they don't like?
I don't mean to make light of times when people are the victims of violence or rape - that's very serious, and there are already a ton of laws on the books. But, do you think we're doing well enough against actual violence and rape, that
Education is the silver bullet.