Slashdot Mirror
UK Proposal To Restrict Internet Pornography Sparks Row
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC reports on the row over proposals by the UK Government to criminalize possession of 'extreme' porn. The bill, published last week, would include the prohibition of fictional depictions of violence and images of acts between consenting adults. The law would also apply to screenshots taken from a legal film, if the screenshot was made for erotic purposes. The goal is to prevent disturbed individuals from accessing content online that would trigger violent behavior. From the article: 'Labour MP Martin Salter, who has worked closely ... in pushing the legislation, rejected the BDSM community's claims their civil liberties were being undermined. He said: "No-one is stopping people doing weird stuff to each other but they would be strongly advised not to put it on the internet. At the end of the day it is all too easy for this stuff to trigger an unbalanced mind."' The bill follows from plans initially announced last August."
What the hell is a row?
OK. I won't go through my views on what I think of violent pornography, or the idea that it will set mentally unbalanced people off if seen on the internet. I won't comment on the censorship aspect of this. I just have one honest question:
There have been various episodes of CSI (Vegas) that dealt with BDSM and such, especially those featuring Mistress Heather. There was a recent episode of Criminal Minds where the villain captured homeless people and put them in a torture maze to be sadistic.
Are those legal on TV? How about putting those episodes on the internet (say CBS did it), would that be legal under this law? Seems to me those two answers might be different.
It's OK to show a mentally unbalanced individual this on TV a show (which won't mess with their head), but if you show the exact same thing from the internet, they'll go NUTS.
Sure. If the answers to the hypothetical questions above are the same, where is the line and how long until television crosses it? Then what will the answers to my questions be.
TV is OK, but the Internet is evil. Even if they show the same exact content.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
One of the main problems that prudes have is that any fair study of this disgusting filth shows that people that view it are LESS likely to commit crimes, whether violent or not.
This is in dinstinct difference from peopel that view kiddie porn, who are in fact more likely to commit crimes.
Apparently it seems that smart people like getting hit, not hitting on children.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I'm going to get moderated to all hell for this, but I don't care: After arguing in three or four threads in the last few weeks about how "it's not just the US" doing things like this, I'd just like to say a few words:
I TOLD YOU SO.
Politicians the world over love this do-nothing regulation of the things that "offend" their poor widdle voters and their sensibilities. "Violent porn? How dare they!" What's next, scat? Then what, facials, because they're degrading and might encourage men to treat women like objects? Yes, this is a slippery slope argument, but the reason cited was that these sorts of things trigger unbalanced minds. I could care less about violent porn, it's not my bag. I've been hearing for decades that porn causes rape: Apply the argument against violent porn to regular porn, and it won't be long before some bright MP suggests banning all internet porn because it might trigger someone to rape.
Which is a load of bollocks, because if everyone who looked at porn committed a rape, well... all of slashdot's readers would be making license plates right now and desperately clinging to the soap.
If someone is bent enough that seeing images is going to cause them to act on their fantasies, why is it only violent porn that will trigger them? What about violent media in general? Whose to say they won't catch an episode of the BBC's Spooks and act on the Plot of the Week? There are always going to be loons out there and we can't really effectively ban everything that might set them off without turning the world into a very damn boring place. They also make up a small percent of the population, so why are we going to let them ruin things for everyone else?
"No-one is stopping people doing weird stuff to each other but they would be strongly advised not to put it on the internet." ...which is a silly thing to say, since the law says it applies to possession, not publication. Even if you kept it on your hard disk private, surely it would be illegal under this law?
He insisted the law did not ban anything which was not already illegal under the Obscene Publications Act. "It simply plugs a hole in the law because the Obscene Publications Act is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard as far as the internet is concerned. This new law is designed to meet the challenge of the internet."
Well, I give him some points for using the term "chocolate fireguard", but otherwise, this doesn't make sense - after all, if the law criminalises an image extracted from a legal film, we have the situation that the image is illegal even though it was clearly legal to publish in the original film. (Plus, I thought the OPA requires the jury to believe that the image would "deprave and corrupt" those who viewed it, while the new law just bans categories of images based on their content.)
Another point - if it doesn't cover already illegal material, why does the bill need an exemption for "classified works"?
"These snuff movies are other stuff are seriously disturbing. Many police officers who have to view it as part of their job have to undergo psychological counselling."
Heh, OMG Please Won't Somebody Think Of The Police Officers!!!
Really though - snuff movies? Have they actually discovered some snuff movies, after all these years of it being an urban myth? Strange how they never seem to show evidence for these snuff movies...
I live in the UK and I'm thinking of just cancelling my internet/TV, because I don't think it would be possible to follow this law (think Hostel II promo-shot popping up as Quicktime loads).
In fact, I might just leave.
I am quite delusional, and a bit insane, but despite my BDSM porn habbits, I've never had the slightest urge to go out and act any of it out on unwilling women. Not even fantasy. Some of the tamer stuff has creeped it's way in to the bedroom, but that is fairly normal anyway.
In fact, the thought of acting any of it out on an unwilling participant is physically repulsive to me. BDSM is all about instinctive sexual dominance relationships, and sadistic violent acts are completely unrelated.
On the rare occaisions vindictive people might immitate BDSM during their crimes, it is hardly because their repressed lust overcame them and they just couldn't hold in their urges to tie unwilling women up and rape them any longer.
Politicians who resort to shit like this should be dragged behind trains. It's no different than discriminatory legislation against any other misunderstood or demonized minority.
Guess what people? Everyone is one such minority in one way or another, and the more they deny that fact, the more issues they really have.
Anyway, I recently wrote an article, copied and pasted below, about the criminalisation of the possession of child pornography. I know that most people will automatically disagree with the decriminalisation of the possession of child pornography, but the government and its supporters make similar assertions about the possession of child pornography and the possession of violent pornography, so much of it is relevant to this particular act of censorship.
Note: This article does not condone illegal activity; it suggests a change in child pornography legislation.
Should the Possession of Child Pornography be Illegal?
I have discussed this issue with many friends, including those who have been convicted of offences involving child pornography, as well as those who are old enough to remember a time when child pornography was legal and was as available as adult pornography. They have discussed the issue in great detail in order to aid me in writing this article, explaining the motivations for producing, distributing, trading and possessing such material. I feel this gives me a reasonale level of insight into the issue, without taking the risk of engaging in criminal activity.
This article will focus on UK laws against child pornography, however I feel it is relevant to other jurisdcitions which prohibit the possession of certain images depicting children.
UK laws against child pornography are governed primarily by the Protection of Children Act (1978), which was amended by the Criminal Justice Act (1988), the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994) and the Sexual Offences Act (2003). There are other acts which amend sentencing and search protocols, however these will not be discussed here.
The amended Protection of Children Act states that:
I should state that, when I refer to "possession" in this article, I am also referring to "making" when it applies to simply downloading images from the internet.
At this point, it's important to explain how "indecent" is defined.
The definition of indecent under UK law is rather vague, however case law and sentencing guidelines allow one to interpret the term more accurately.
According to case law such as that of R v Stamford and R v Graham-Kerr, indecent can be defined as anything which does not comply with the "recognised standards of propriety."
It is a mistake to assume that indecent is absolutely synonymous with "pornographic," as this is not the case. People have been imprisoned for naturist images (see O'Carroll, Stamford, Graham-Kerr), suggesting that any full frontal nudity is illegal. According to sentencing guidelines, clothed images which depict c
"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
Money for nothing, pix for free
Who is Martin Salter and what does he do? What else does he vote for? well...
a ding_west
look at his voting record here; http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/martin_salter/re
things include...
Very strongly against investigating the Iraq war
Now I might not be an MP and, as thus, able to say what people should think in the same way the labour party does, but I would think that WAR might (just might) "trigger an unbalanced mind" to do something crazy - or else why would the London bombers explicitly mention it in their suicide videos? I'm not saying that it provides an excuse for what they did, nor even that we should feel bad for ensuring that Saddam got what was coming to him, but does he not think that the arse up that has been made of post-invasion Iraq (after the end of the formal hostilities) might be worth investigating - it could give us some new perspectives on why some people feel so strongly that they would try and kill as many people they could...
Nah. Its definitely the porn.
Is quite quickly becoming the creepiest democratic country in the world.
I have a question that I hope someone in the UK can answer.
There are speed cameras on the roads. OK. There are ones on main road to monitor traffic. Fine. There are ones in city centers to catch criminals. No problem. But what are those blue cameras with antennas on top you see on roads everywhere?
You can be going down a minor country road, and at a T-Junction there will be a camera. What are they for? They're not for traffic violations, it doesn't make sense that they are to monitor traffic as they are on such minor roads, and they are unlikely to catch muggers down a quiet country road. The only thing I can think of is that the authorities have a pretty sophisticated system whereby they can track any cars movements over the whole country via numberplate recognition. Is that it?
Everyone seems to know about (and hate) the yellow speed cameras, but I find the blue ones more sinister because nobody seems to know what they are for.
They are traffic monitoring radar things. They just count cars and how fast they are moving, and relay this information back to some central place. This is then used to issue traffic alerts if you have the right bit of kit in your car.
I would like to remind you that not too long ago having sex for pleasure was considered "unbalanced".
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
Ah, Britain is wall-to-wall CCTV. Britain is Stasi Germany. No generalisations there at all, are there? Seriously, no offence to you (you seem like a nice guy and I'm sure that they're plenty of things about privacy that we completely agree on) but you don't know what you're talking about.
I hate to call you ignorant, because that seems rude, but the very fact that you think that England and Britain are interchangeable terms says quite enough: perhaps uninformed would be a more polite way of putting it. Same goes for the person I originally replied to: a Lib Dem government to replace New Labour would be a refreshing change but it's about as likely to happen as Ann Coulter converting to Islam.
No doubt, we could be going back and forth for hours debating the contents of our posts and the post that I originally replied to but, please take my word for it, Britain isn't the Orwellian dystopia that the few sensationalist stories that you've read make it out to be.
I totally agree that people should think twice about commentating on things that they know little about. It's why, amongst other things, I watch some US news, read the online editions of the Washington Post, the New York Times and other US newspapers and keep thoroughly abreast of facts that, even though they're happening thousands of miles away, too often have an affect on my life and the lives of those around me.
I can tell you who Mitt Romney is, how he made his money, what he's done in politics, his Olympic role, about him being a "life-long" two-time hunter, etc without having to look it up online. Why? Because I've bothered to find out. Do you think that most Americans can say the same? Quid pro quo, could you tell me who Harriet Harman is and what she's done? Or Hilary Benn? Quick, can you name our Prime Minister?
If this post sounds condescending or patronising then I apologise for that. But most Americans truly don't know what's going on with their own government let alone what's going on with other ones around the world. How else can you explain the fact that most people who voted for Bush in 2004 truly believed that Saddam Hussein was the architect of the September 11th attacks? The most significant event in US history for over 50 years and people don't know who did what? How is that possible?
There's no such thing as a perfect society in this world, and every country has its share of ridiculous laws (and fools), but it's not asking much for people to have a clue before making dismissive remarks that are so far off-base that they're patently ridiculous.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
The thing is, the UK already has a pretty decent health infrastructure, but how can you help the mentally ill if they don't come out ?
This law proposal is poorly framed, but when you have someone with an illness so taboo, perhaps their only outlet is the "anonymous" internet. I may be a notable exception because I just don't give a damn (and I'm usually joking), but I don't see many people discussing their violent sex fetishes over dinner with their friends and relatives.
"-So, dad, what did you do today ?
- Well I fantasized about knocking your mother unconscious during sex, then jerked off on the balcony.
- You too ?"
-Billco, Fnarg.com
so?
he had a dangerous fetish/hobby. how many base jumpers die from their hobby in a year? normal skydivers?
someone having a hobby that eventually gets himself killed is no reason to ban that hobby. having a hobby that kills others is.
Perhaps we could have a point system. People could vote on laws in a plebecite of "I like!" or "Nooooo!". The results have no effect on whether the law is passed (except in the usual opinion poll sense). However, if a politician votes on a law that is 50% "I like!" he loses a point. Politicians only get so many points. When they have zero points, then they get executed. :D Fun! Bread, circuses, AND good legislation.
I find this really amusing given the opposition from the Conservatives to signing that in the first place. "It will be a great thing for Britain, as a modern country it would be backwards and wrong of us not to sign up to this charter and the conservatives are stupid and wrong to say it would interfere with us making laws" Labour said. Now they seem to be saying "This Human Rights nonsense is getting in the way of us making laws, maybe we should drop it".