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

UK readers banned from slashdot?

[sm62704]

Lifestyles of the Poor and Obscure involves sex with a prostitute. It isn't graphic, however. But an earlier journal, NSFW does contain graphic descriptions of a sex act, although it is revealed in the story that the sex is in fact only a dream. The journal "Dork Side of the Moon concerns an attempted murder, as does Ask Slashdot: Women (which also has hookers, as do many other of my journals).

If they pass this stupid law will I have to add a disclaimer that EU residents may be incarcerated for reading my journals?

It seems that the US and the UK are in a fucktarded race to see who can become the worst police state. I pointed out in yet another journal, Police State: In USSA, cops hassle YOU! as well as a blagh on my site (down at the moment) that the US is in fact already a police state, and that any country that uses secret police (in the US they're called "undercover agents" or "plainclothesmen") IS a police state.

At leat in the UK they're not torturing people or holding them without trial, as we do in Guantanimo. But I guess given enough time, they will.

-mcgrew

Lord Wallace of Tankerness

[Kupfernigk]

Is an idiot, and this is the reason. We have a major problem in Europe with the abuse and exoploitation of women, many effectively slaves brought in from the former Soviet Union and China (I bet that the Chinese watchers will try and mod this out of sight, but yes, some of your nationals in the UK do engage in people smuggling and some of them are violent pimps. So are some of our own - but I digress.)

While there is a market for violent pornography or child pornography, criminals will supply it. In doing so I doubt they will consider the civil rights of those forced to take part.

That is why, to my mind, even though it may be of limited effectiveness, it is right to make possession of this material illegal. Anything you can do to destroy or disrupt the market is attacking the revenue stream that makes the criminals do it in the first place. If you cannot persuade people that they should not pay other people to abuse, rape and beat strangers for their entertainment - then more stringent sanctions are needed.

The situation is rather different from, say, drug legislation. Poor farmers grow drugs in Colombia and Afghanistan because they pay better and travel better than vegetables. They don't care if rich Westerners want to die early from hepatitis. Here, people are being physically maltreated and the rich Westerners suffer no unpleasant consequences at all (or if they do, it's because they enjoy being whipped - it takes all sorts.)

Those who saw bits of the Mosley tape will be aware that he apparently paid money to beat (and be beaten by) prostitutes, and may wonder what compulsion the prostitutes were under to put up with this kind of treatment. How much money would it take for you to do that willingly? I just can't easily express how proud I am of the fact that, during the 1930s, my father and his Jewish friends threw bricks at Mosley's father.