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."
Prehaps it would be smarter to spend resources finding and providing care for unbalanced people, rather than banning anything (which means pretty much everything) that sets them off, No?
slippery slope here, very slippery
Some unbalanced person might be pushed over the edge, and start dropping anvils on people heads.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
ok...so that means they also have to ban aggressive chase scenes in movies since that could trigger road rage. They have to ban smoking, drug use, alcohol use etc since that could trigger addicts to relapse. They have to ban religious scenes since that could trigger extremists to taking action against atheists...or vice versa. What a bunch of idiots. If you ban it...it'll just get distributed around all the stupid bans anyway. Some things just simply can't be governed.
"At the end of the day it is all too easy for this stuff to trigger an unbalanced mind."
Really? Can I see some peer-reviewed research papers showing such a link? (Seriously, I don't know either way - let's see what scientists say, not politicians.)
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
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.
More information about this law is available on Backlash's homepage, a group opposing the law.
I agree.
The problem is not that an imbalanced mind sees extreme porn. The problem is that the mind in question is imbalanced. Denying all minds access to extreme porn will not solve the problem...the mind in question will still be imbalanced.
And the mind in question will still be likely to cause harm.
All this law will do is create another subjective standard by which some people can be arbitrarily criminalized.
It's a British word for "fight". They couldn't use the word fight because it has violent undertones which could send an unbalanced mind over the edge.
<Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
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?
to avoid repercussions from crazy people:
crazy people will do crazy things. very little will set them off, and if it isn't bdsm images on the internet (really?) then it will be something else. so basically, you can't alter your behavior in such a way that prevents crazy people from doing crazy things. all you do is limit the activities of noncrazy people, and the crazy people still do crazy things. it's just something you have no control over that sets them off instead
likewise, you can't alter your behavior to prevent terrorist attacks. if the west acceded to every demand from violent jihadists, would violent jihadist become pastoral sheep farmers? no, they would go right on with their bloody agenda, they would just find some other lame excuse, because the root of their motivation is not the behavior of the west
it's a common fallacy, actually, that has parallels in childhood psychology: when parents divorce, children often blame themselves for their parents getting divorced. of course, it's crazy to blame the child, and no one does, except the child himself. but it is a common human psychological response to violence: when violence is committed against them, or their society, the first thing people do in their pain is blame themselves, or their society. then they think they can do something differently, and they won't be victimized anymore. no: you have to blame the perpetrators, not yourselves
the biggest believers of the blame the victim mindset is often the victims
a society or individual will always wonder why they are victims of violence when they did nothing wrong. it is trying to rationalize that which can't be rationalized
you can't change the behavior of crazy people, you can only identify them and limit their actions. that works far more than altering society itself to fit the needs of crazy people, when all you really do in such a situation is inconvenience noncrazy people
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
- Ban all pictures of food, then no one will be triggered to over-eat.
- Ban all pictures of children under 18, who knows what sicko needed just that picture to set them off.
- Ban all pictures of senior citizens, their appearance might make them appear like easy targets and trigger a robbery.
- Ban all pictures of women, best not take any chances of triggering any sexual thoughts in a rapists head.
- Ban all pictures of men, these days, you never know what could happen, maybe a gay or even a female rapist may be triggered.
Imagine all the problems that could be solved by banning pictures. It's these darn pictures that cause this behavior. No rape or violence used to happen before cameras and the internet came around. If there was, it was certainly the fault of painters and those scantily clad stick figures on the cave wall.At the end of the day it is all too easy for this stuff to trigger an unbalanced mind.
I guess that means the Bible, Torah, and Koran are next.
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
There goes 4chan
Maybe this is just one of those WTFs brough about because IANAL, but seriously - any data which is capable of conversion into an extreme image?
Who wants to be the first to convert the text of the bill into an ASCII goatse?
I knew it would only be a matter of time before the Brits, conditioned to a life of surveillance by their ever present CCTVs began fully implementing Big Brother.
Government censorship is evil, whatever the reasoning given for its implementation. Since this idiotic law would not apply outside of the "daddy knows best" government of the UK, the next step would be for the UK to implement filtering nationwide to stop these "unbalanced minds" from getting access to these images from other, less "enlightened" countries with more freedom[^H^H^H]access to filth...
"There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur
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.
I used to know a masochist who liked to have a cold shower every morning.
So he had a hot one instead.
--- These are not words: wierd, genious, rediculous
I love how politicians raise unsupported theories of criminal etiology to the level of fact simply because they sound reasonable to them or support their pre-existing misconceptions. From what I've seen on this subject, it is the lack of a socially acceptable form of release that often leads to the acting out of such fantasies. But then, the law has never been about preventing crime. It is about control freaks who enjoy telling people what to do and their sadistic pleasure from enforcing draconian punishment. The Spanish Inquisition comes to mind, as well as the Nazies, and particularly our present simian executive who reportedly laughed uncontrollably every time someone asked for clemency when he was governor of Texas. Unless of course you happen to be a former employee of the big Dick.
At the end of the day it is all too easy for this stuff to trigger an unbalanced mind.
Man, the bullshit is really flowing now. If I may be serious for a moment, the reality is that the only unbalanced minds worth concerning ourselves about receive government paychecks.
Here's the thing. Why don't the British and United States governments just come out and admit it: they really like the way the Chinese do things, and would like to be just like them. Freedom of speech? Screw that. The Internet? Dangerous toy. Popularity Ratings? Phooey. We don't care what you think. The Rule of Law? An inconvenience.
I have some advice for the lawmakers in both countries: stop sprinkling this shit with sugar in a vain effort to make it more palatable: it's always been shit, it's still shit, and it will always be shit, and trying to convince us that your shit don't stink just insults our collective intelligence.
I gotta tell ya: in spite of all the efforts the Federal Government has made to rationalize this same kind of shit, even the really stupid, complacent "it'll never happen here" people I know are beginning to notice the stench. It's getting that bad.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
You don't "follow British politics closely enough" but you know enough to make a sweeping statement like "The UK is quite quickly becoming the creepiest democratic country in the world"?
Why? Because of a small part of one bill that has yet to even be debated in Parliament yet alone be voted on? Did you even RTFA and notice that before jerking your knee? You live in the US, where indefinite detention without trial is how you do things and yet you're lecturing the rest of the world on democracy?
As for the stupid assertion that this is based not upon "security concerns" but "out of boredom", well, if you RTFA then you would see that this change in the law is proposed on the back of a rather violent murder case where the murderer admitted to being addicted to violent rape websites, etc.
Sounds whimsical to you, does it? Really? If it was someone related to a Virgina Tech campus massacre victim campaigning for gun control would you accuse them of raising the issue "out of boredom"?
Personally, I couldn't be more opposed to this proposed legislation. As others have pointed out, it's an overreaction to a tragic but rare occurance. Emotive laws aren't often good ones - there's a reason why we don't let victims don't get to pick the sentences of those that have done them wrong.
As much as I can sympathise with the victim's family and friends, I find it hard to support their need for some sort of "Jane's Law" as part of their grieving process. Families of drink driving victims don't get alcohol bans being proposed on their behalf and I fail to see how this is any different.
Debate it? Yes. Look at measures that would be practical but not restrictive?. Yes. Legislate against something because of a single, deranged individual? No. Move on, and move on in a different, more positive manner.
But, hey, thanks for writing off our parliamentary democracy just for, you know, actually being prepared to talk about stuff. Instead of just brushing it under the carpet and then getting back to the important stuff like Paris Hilton's jail term and Britney's divorce case.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
"they are jsut sitting there like a time bomb just waiting on teh right stimulus to explode."
You're right, we should form that point just ban any form of stimulus from the world. problem solved.
How about we identify these individuals and offer treatment and therapy? That way we can help someone and not have to punish the 98% of the population that won't murder women and molest dogs.
Come on, they`re seriously going to make that stuff illegal just because it might trigger some unstable minds? The violent crimes these people supposedly might commit due to being "triggered" are already illegal. Not to mention, people likely to commit violent crimes as a result of "triggers" are liable to be affected by a far wider range of stuff than just hardcore porn. What about blockbuster Hollywood movies that have excessively violent scenes all throughout (Saw, Hostel etc.)??
What happens when we find that some of these easily-triggered violent people are also determined to have outbursts of violence when they see fairly innocuous material, for example a children's cartoon that happens to show some spooky-looking villain for a moment? Who says that's not going to trigger a psychotic episode in some potentially violent unstable person? How long until your favorite action/adventure movies become illegal to buy without some kind of "license" or approval stamp?
Also, what business is it of the government to decide what we are legally permitted to peruse for entertainment/"private" purposes? As long as it's not media of actual illegal violent acts being enacted (as opposed to acting, well-simulated, or consensual violence), why is it any of their concern? This has rights-violation written all over it. Frankly, in the privacy of your own home, as long as it's not child porn or photos of someone literally being murdered or tortured, I can see NO sound objection to restricting what people can legally observe.
Not-to-mention mothers-- the mere sight of a mother anywhere could be the stimulus that triggers him to go bananas.
Don't you think we ought to ban mothers, as well? Or at least, perhaps, you know... A shawl or two? That ought to supress any feelings he might have.
So, if it's a foregone conclusion, what do you think suppressing and jailing the BDSM community will do for everyone?
A better question is: Is there any actual evidence that any form of media triggers violent behavior?
grey wolf
LET FORTRAN DIE!
I'd try googling for statistics, but for some reason I'm reluctant to search for "dog molestation."
> a child who was raped continuously growing up
> he rapes and kills the dog and tries to mulest mom
> they let him go hoping for the best knowing full well with a few years he will act on said impulse and end up in prison in the psych ward
> how do you propose to fix this problem
Certainly you aren't suggesting that outlawing photos of B&D sex will fix this problem?!
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
Uh... at any time during this kids stay in juvi/foster did he get any psychotherapy? I would think a simple fix is to require continuous psychotherapy for victims like this and not release them until deemed as "safe" as any other average citizen.
Or, we can just continue to ban everything in a "free" society because of a few bad apples.
Another thought, when will people realize that banning anything does not work! Ban on guns... people still get guns. Ban on drugs... people still get drugs. Ban on XYZ... people still get XYZ.
General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
what do you think suppressing and jailing the BDSM community will do for everyone?
Not much for us, they might enjoy it though.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Yes... yes. I agree completely. But remember, we do have to impeach the man first.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
No, that is what those who propose this law *want* you to believe.
Some facts:
1) SNUFF MOVIES ARE A MYTH!
Excuse me shouting, but in 30 years of searching by police agencies worldwide there has never been a *single* "snuff movie" found (someone being murdered for sexual gratification and then the film being sold or distributed), let alone anyone being prosecuted for it!
2) He looked at sites like "Necrobabes" and "Hanging Bitches" which are *staged* porn sites with actors posing for photos. Nobody is killed in these any more than people are killed in films like Saw or Hostel or Captivity!
3) Martin Salter MP, the guy who is pushing this law, has a clear anti-porn agenda. He has just been quoted as saying "No-one is stopping people doing weird stuff to each other but they would be strongly advised not to put it on the internet" he has also repeated the myth about Snuff Movies and claimed that "it is all too easy for this stuff to trigger an unbalanced mind" even though the original Government Consultation admitted that there was *NO* evidence that images such as this caused harm!
> I fail to see what good it does to provide movies for _that_ deranged minority.
You have this argument backwards. What you fail to see is that *NO* good will come from attempting to block imagery like this *in the hope* that it will somehow stop a "deranged minority" hurting others.
Peter Sutcliffe, the "Yorkshire Ripper" murdered prostitutes and justified it by his reading of the Bible. Should the Bible therefore be banned because it stimulates a "deranged minority" to murder??
> I'll say they're messed up in the head as it is. With or without movies, that's a disturbingly unbalanced person who gets an erection at the thought of taking a life.
Exactly, see above. These people will find justifications by one means or another. Criminalising the rest of us is not going to make a difference.