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?
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 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
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.
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.
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.