UK to Ban Possession of Certain 'Violent' Pornography

Backlash writes "Massive surveillance? Check. Building a DNA database? Check. Laws against thought crime? Not yet, but coming very soon. The UK government is soon to pass legislation that would criminalise possession of certain types of 'violent' pornography, even if it was part of a consensual session between two adults. Lord Wallace of Tankerness pointed out an ideological schism during last week's debate in the House of Lords: 'If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence. ... Having engaged in it consensually would not be a crime, but to have a photograph of it in one's possession would be a crime. That does not seem to make sense to me.'" Combine laws like this with widespread computer ownership, and it makes a whole lot of (Orwellian) sense.

Comments

Ban bread?

[Kandenshi]

From FTA: "Five years ago Jane Longhurst, a teacher from Brighton, was murdered. It later emerged her killer had been compulsively accessing websites such as Club Dead and Rape Action, which contained images of women being abused and violated."

I agree that a substantial number of rapists and molesters and whatnot probably do get off on "violent" porn. But so do quite a few very normal people who will never rape someone. Consensual kink is a gorgeous thing, an expression of incredible trust. The fact that some rapists get off on it is insufficient to justify banning it, after all, last I heard quite a few rapists drink water and eat bread.

Of course, this parallels some sex laws already enacted where I live. It's legal to have sex with someone who's 16, provided you're not in a position of authority over them... But have a picture of you having sex with your 16 year old girlfriend? Not a wise move.

I think that both laws are ridiculous personally. If it's not illegal to do, then it shouldn't be illegal to represent digitally with a bunch of 1s and 0s.

Why stop there ?

[garett_spencley]

If fictionally depicting someone being raped or abused is a crime then surely horror flicks must be banned as well. Oh and the Die Hard movies too because they can be training tools for terrorists.

It's like the printing press all over again. We need to stop people from having access to "dangerous" information.

*rolls eyes*

Re:Consequence of globalization

[MightyYar]

Agreed, but I thought the line should be "when your activity infringes on the natural rights of another person".

It's hard to see how possession of photos taken between consenting adults fits into that mold.

Re:reality vs fantasy

[MalleusEBHC]

Also, thank fuck for the House of Lords. There are few elected representatives who'll speak out on an issue that's got the word 'pornography' stuck to it.

I wish I had mod points. Whether it's the House of Lords or the Supreme Court, history has shown that having part of the government be virtually unaccountable to the whims of popularity is vital. You need people with the power and freedom to stand up and voice unpopular opinions.

Re:and now for something completely different

[alexgieg]

I have to ask, why does Britain outlaw guns? What problem was there they were trying to solve?

You're way offtopic, eh? But I think there's a weird link between your question and TFA, in the form of an Hegelian piece of dialectics:

a) First, someone appeared with the thesis: "Guns kill people!!! Let's outlaw them!1!!11!1!"

b) Then the gun owners came with the antithesis, shooting their own foot with a well (mis)placed: "Guns don't kill people!!! People kill people!11!!!1!!"

c) Enters then the British government with a synthesis of its own: "You both are right!!! We must ban guns AND make people stop killing people!!! And what's the best way to accomplish this? To forbid everyone from seeing any violence at all, ever!!!111!1!"

And thus the lamb nation model is born. Next in line for implementation: violent movies, violent games, violent cartoons, violent books, violent news, textbooks mentioning violent events, people talking about violence in public...

Now, do you know what's most funny in all of this? The fact that this whole discussion is millennia old. In fact, Plato started the thing by criticize arts (such as theater) that depicted bad emotions by arguing that they increased the propensity of those watching them to emulate those same emotions. To which Aristotle countered with his wholly new concept of catharsis, saying that no, in fact the effect is the exact opposite, with those watching bad emotions in fiction feeling fulfilled with those and not pursuing them in real life.

2400 years later, we still didn't reach a conclusion. Go figure...