Slashdot Mirror
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.
Nazis!
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
to go through my porn folders to tell me if I am breaking the law or not.
And before anyone here volunteers, you're going to need a fuckton of kleenex, eyebleach and anti-psychotic medication just to get through the folder names.
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.
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*
Orwell was an optimist.
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
from theregister, the new logo of UK's Office of Government Commerce: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/22/ogc_logo/
Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
Though outright outlawing this type of material is only going to push it underground and do nothing to stop those who really want to consume it, I wonder if it isn't in society's best interest to at least monitor and track those who do consume "aberrant" pornography. If Joe Perv just gets his kicks from watching women raped and tortured but is otherwise a fine upstanding citizen, then a quick background scan would show him to be relatively safe (as safe as any other fine upstanding citizen) and no further monitoring is necessary. However, if Jim Proto-Raper who had a troubled childhood and a history of torturing animals is also jerking it to torture porn, wouldn't it be useful to keep an eye on him in case his behavior patterns change for the worse (perhaps his porn preferences get more and more violent over time).
I'm not saying you need to run a background check every time you want to rent Slut Teachers Get What They Deserve VI. Just that there is a balance to keep between protecting the citizenry from potentially dangerous people and allowing people the freedom to consume whatever vices they need.
FTFA, it looks like the reasoning for the introduction of such legislation stems from someone watching said pr0n and murdering a woman...this is a huge step backwards for people taking responsibility for their own actions. What, the pr0n made him kill her? Come on.
I'm wondering what other images will become illegal because they elicit violence...perhaps it will be illegal to draw a picture of Muhammad too? Just my 2 cents.
Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?
I am sure "V for Victory" sales just went up again.
As the law stands in the UK you have have sex at 16 lawfully but can not take photographs or record it on video as the participants are under 18.
I know, it's ridiculous, just as this proposed law is.
And what about hentai anime? A LOT of the hentai stuff I've seen has been, ah, rather rape-based, sometimes with tentacles, and sometimes otherwise (yes, I will admit now I've seen a lot, and even own a few titles on laserdisc). So does the UK law cover that sort of thing? Its often extreme, sometimes far more disturbing than anything in possible "reality," but it isn't that much less "real" than pornography with actual people.
I am playing devil's advocate here, but the government has a job to maintain a safe and working society. There are laws that restrict personal freedoms because they have a bad effect on society. For example, guns were banned. Again I'm not saying any individual action is correct, but they do have that power. A logical argument could be made that consensual acts in private by a small number of people does not have the same negative impact on society that wide distribution of depictions of those acts would. So, the importnat questions here are: are there things that the UK government _cannot_ restrict in the interest of protecting society? Is the material in question one of those things? Are the materials really harmful (and, according to who) to the extent that they need to be banned? If you are going to make an argument either pro or con regarding banning, you need to answer questions like these.
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.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
There are two parallel failures to distinguish reality from fantasy here:
1 -- The usual way. Regular grown up people know that pornography is not real life and that many things that are fun to fantasize about would be unwise, unhygienic, fatal etc. in real life.
2 -- This crackdown on everything, and this massive effort to gather data and powers, come at a time when actual street crime is very high, white-collar crime has drastically undermined the UK's 'level playing field', and policies from tax to immigration seem to be selected without any hope of actually implementing them. In other words, the real fantasy here is the fantasy that the UK government can really control the things around it -- and I'm much afraid the government has confused that pleasant fantasy with reality, and that they will only pile on more regulations and powers as actual ability to influence events at ground level slips from their grasp.
Note that this is subtly different from the US situation. In the US, there's been a scramble for new data and powers, but I never have the feeling that the Executive branch has too *little* control...
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.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Man it's going to suck to be thrown in the slammer just for owning the System of a Down song.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Civilization ends and barbarism begins when people are assaulted, kidnapped, and stolen from (arrested, imprisoned, and fined) because of their thoughts and no actual crime.
The people proposing this law are actual violent criminals, advocating violence against otherwise innocent people they just don't like. They are far, far more dangerous than the targets of this law. How about some legislation to keep nanny state dictators off the streets? We'd all be safer for it.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Not this stupid debate again.
Look, the United States of America is actually unusual in having protected ownership of guns. Most western and Asian countries now strictly control gun ownership. If you want to know why...no, I won't say it. It'll only kick of the same retarded g*n c*ntr*l threads you get over the whole damn internet.
Britain's had an on/off relationship with private possession of weapons over the centuries, ranging from mandatory to outlawed, but I believe the origin of modern British gun control lies in fears over a Communist revolution during the interbellum. From there, it's been easy to scream "think of the children" every time an excuse has come up, to the point where only 1 party supports private gun ownership anymore (the BNP, ironically).
If you haven't made a developer cry, you've wasted a day.
Liberal zombies don't like guns.
It's makes it hard for them to get to the brains if the people are armed.
Hehehehe.....
If two 17 year olds are married and they make a porn movie of themselves, they are criminals, even though as married people both are considered adults in most US states.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
No you horny and inncensitive clods! Rule is alot simpler: just 2 porns a day!
GTA4 released.
Obligatory resurrection of the 'game|porn|voices in my head|song|insert your own whackjob excuse here' horse.
If this manages to become law I propose that everyone in Britain find 1) a buddy and 2) a surveillance camera. Then engage in some consensual "violent" kinkiness with the first in front of the second.
The Statue of Liberty is America's lawn jockey.
There, fixed that for you....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I'm happy to take pictures of myself in simulated violent acts with anyone, male or female, and post them to a free hosting account as an act of civil disobedience
It's not civil disobedience if you're an anonymous coward, Mr. A/C, any more than smoking a joint in your living room is a civil disobedience act against the marijuana laws (which are also thought crimes).
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Without coming down either side of this, how is banning a type of picture a "thought crime"?
seeing as only a few nuts committed gun crime (with legal guns) and those nuts that would commit crime otherwise could buy illegal guns anyhow. And the first set of nuts could have (and have) use kitchen knives instead it all seems nuts to me.
Personally I think it was to stop people from overthrowing the government in the guise of preventing a few nuts from going on the rampage.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Good luck trying to overthrow your corrupt government with those arms you're allowed to bear, Jim Bob.
I love Jesus, I Love that blood dripping from his wounds, I like the way he's scantly dressed, I wank over his image so much I could become a nun.
Now that their banning this kind of imagery it looks like my Jesus wanking days are over.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
However, something like this ban where it may be a film of consensual 'violent' sex...maybe simulated rape....just isn't right. What if you take the people out of it completely....and use computer generated images for rape, snuff or kiddie crap. If someone wants to create and view those images, aside from someone having morality problems....no crime has been committed, and therefore what is the problem with people creating, owning and viewing such content if they are adult?
This brings up something I see coming...with the seeming 'rash' of young teens today, filming themselves beating the shit out of other teens, or even older people....when will we see a ban on these types of video content? Sure, it isn't sexual, but, someone is being hurt...seriously in some cases. Will we see bans on that, or is it not sensational enough since it didn't involve any ones naughty parts?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I've a vague recollection of a prosecution following this pattern.
I don't see how this is "thought police", no one is stopping people from doing the things, nor from thinking about it, just from possessing images which it would be illegal to produce in the UK.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
Nothing to see here
after the hours spent in the rat helmet, I can truthfully say, I love Big Brother.
Hey! Look a Distraction!
Idiot...you forgot the 2 rules of taping women during sex.
1. Do NOT let her know you're filming her.
2. If somehow she finds out...do NOT let her have copies of said video, tell her you destroyed it, and try to be more discreet in not telling her about the backup copies hidden away.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The law is not designed to be used against the population (but, of course, it will be), it's just an easy was to prevent paparazi to blackmail goverment members using pictures of their weekend activities.
I do dislike violence and i support movement against crimes. But I totally against having another law. European countries tendency to become communist and that scares me. I believe that only God, someone almighty, can judge one and punish one's sin. Law does not stop any crime to happen. It only serves to protect victim. People make mistakes. Everyone does. It is going back to "eye for eye" logic. it doesn't work. People were never so naive and obedient. People just started to express more open-minded and honest. People just need to realize that only solution is to seek the truth and be modest at best. I believe that this is the only solution and it is too bad that people doesn't buy that anymore.
"V" for Vendetta. Talk about a joke going flat...
You can have sex at 16 in the UK but as far as I'm aware you can't photograph it for pornographic purposes until you're 18. I always found this equally odd.
Oh wait that's no analogy. OK, pornography is like photos of feet. How's that for a bad analogy? Well, it really isn't, and in fact is not an analogy at all! I shall explain:
Define "violent". Define "pornography". Ok, let the dictionary do it:Ok, now we have two more problems: defining "Obscene" and more importantly "art". I commented earlier that some of my journals were obscene, and I would argue that they have "little or no artistic merit" as well.I know a fellow (the one in Dork Side of the Moon, the one who committed the attempted murder that he spent two weeks in the county jail for) who has a foot fetish. A woman with small feet excites him sexually. By the dictionary definition I just quoted, pictures of feet are then obscene.
Obscenity is in the mind of the beholder. This law makes every writing, painting, photograph, drawing, print, and sculpture against the law. Better close your museums!
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
"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."
It's legal for me to sleep with a 16 year old girl here in Indiana, but I can't photograph the act. I guess that could be considered a special case because it involves a minor. I just wanted to be the devil's advocate, even though I agree with the other side in this case.
The WHOLE problem with this 'Law' is that its whole premise is stupid. Who decides what is extreme? You? The Judge? A Porn Inspector skilled in making a call between art and porn?
No, enough of this stupidity, this law is breathtaking in its crass idiocy, and should not be 'accepted'. And its not merely this law, its the monitoring and invasive levels of 'Policing' that will be applied. And no, you can forget taking the stupid 'If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear' horsecrap. These laws come in at a low water mark and before you know it envelope everyone. No no no.
We`re all equal
All you need to do is email photos of violent pornography to people in parliament. (Best to do this from an account overseas) Then send anonymous tips to the police that they have those images on their computers.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
This sort of thing was really inevitable. I mean if you are going to ban porn with anyone over arbitrary age X, surely it is only being consistent to ban any other depiction of something that would be illegal if it were real. Slippery slope. And the slide will continue. While I do realize that in most cases the original act was probably legal this is difficult to know for certain. This is one difference from child porn where the original act was without a doubt illegal. However I do predict that violence in films and video games will eventually be targeted on both sides of the Atlantic. At least in some cases it can be shown to incite violence as well. Of course Hollywood is a powerful lobby on this side of the pond. So the UK will probably beat us to that particular milestone. Personally I find the idea of violence of any kind in porn to be a lot more offensive than any depiction of physical affection.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Stuff That Matters.
/* No Comment */
Yes, and that line should be the PHYSICAL actions of an individual that HARM other individual. Here, it seems, we have pure censorship.
Were do you draw a line with crimethink? Next they will outlaw pr0n - for immoral images, then action movies - for inciting riots, then political commentary - for underminding government leadership, then... well you see were I'm going with this.
P.S. Why was this moded as 'Flamebait', seems like parent as expressing his/her opinion?
That goatse will be banned?
Have you lived through a revolution?
What an absolutely amazing solution. Instead of dealing with people traffickers and abuse of women we'll hide it all from public view by making it illegal hence pushing it underground so that it only continues in the background where no one can see it and no one need care whilst simultaneously removing the personal freedoms of those innocent people who enjoy BDSM in an absolutely harmless manner.
What pure genius, have you thought about working as a law maker for the British government?
Or worse, if you ever videotaped yourself having consensual sex with your high school sweetie while you were 17;
in which case you are a manufacturer of child porn and you deserve 20 years of jailhouse beatings and buttrape, and then a ruined life.
Of course this new law is obscene, but the concept of having photographs/video of something that's legal being illegal is not new (even if the reasons are different in that case).
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
"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."
This is true for porn involving only minors. If two sixteen year olds (or something under the consent age wherever you are) have consensual sex with each other, that's effectively legal, at least to the extent neither of them are going to be prosecuted. What, did they each commit statutory rape by having sex with a minor? Do you prosecute them both for raping each other? In reality, if this is even illegal at all, it's ignored. But taking pictures of it, having those pictures, selling those pictures, that's highly illegal. So we already have the situation he's describing as "very odd indeed."
I think the current laws operate on the presumption that, if you're photographing it, you "put them up to it." While this would, in most cases regarding underage pornography, be true, I don't think there's any sort of legal distinction being made here. That is, if you're trafficking in underage pornography, I don't think the prosecutors care whether you recruited kids and put them up to it, or whether you used a hidden camera to unknowingly capture what kids were doing entirely on their own. In the former case, you probably can be charged with corrupting a minor or such if you encourage or facilitate sex between minors regardless of the pornography aspect, so Lord Wallace's assertion doesn't apply to that scenario, the act itself is illegal. But in the later case, we're dealing with exactly the same situation as the one they're currently trying to criminalize- an act where it's not illegal for the minors to engage in sex, but it's hellaciously illegal to document and sell it.
I'm certainly NOT arguing in favor of this new law- I think that pretty much any act taking place between and affecting only consenting adults should be legal. I'm also not arguing againts the existing laws categorically banning underage pornography. I'm just pointing out that Lord Wallace's objection makes it sound like this would create an unusual and novel situation because it would be illegal to record an otherwise legal act. This is not the case, it's already illegal to record otherwise legal sexual acts.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
According to the constitution you are. Arms are not guns, they are any type of weapon (including nukes). We are disallowed from own them because the govt can count on women (the majority voters) to always vote against people (especially men) having weapons because women don't like anyone but the government having weapons.
The problem with America is empowered women and lack of civil war.
It actually pains me that the unelected house is the only thing keeping the governments nastiest instincts in check now. British people have become so politically impotent that we rely on the munificence of aristocrats to safeguard our liberty.
That said, there is probably no legislative body on Earth so qualified to stand up for deviant sexual practices.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
This law dosent affect soft stuff like bondage, it just affects the stuff that would be illegal to do to another person.
Yes it does, that's the whole problem. The wording is so vague that anything that isn't missionary position can land you in the slammer.
They are only criminals if found guilty in a court of law. Lets re-write your statement to....
"If two 17 year olds are married and they make a [sexually explicit] movie of themselves [and distribute it], they [may face criminal charges], even though as married people both are considered adults in most US states."
There is a big difference between being brought up on charges and convicted... i'm not sure if a court would convict a married couple so long as their intention is to make some erotica for private viewing. If their intention was to get married just so they could make legal-kiddypron, then yeah, they'd get the book thrown at them.
I don't see that it's a stupid debate at all. Our founders had a very clear reason for the second amendment, and you can find volumes of their writings on it. If you want to call it stupid, please point out flaws in their reasoning. Being dismissive doesn't help your case, and dispite the flamebait mod, I really am curious as to when and why Britain outlawed private gun ownership. I honestly don't know the history of Britain's gun control laws, and its annoying to think that an honest question was meant to be flamebait.
I also find it odd that you only find gun ownership unusual; the whole idea of our government was very unusual in the time it was first created. I don't know of any other country that espoused the idea that people aren't subjects of some arbitrary authority, but are sovreign in their own right. I'm still not sure any other country has that idea behind it.. although it's said to see the US leaving that line of thinking today.
So, please can someone tell me, so as not to fall foul of the law and be branded some kind of sex offender:
1. As a UK citizen am I breaking any laws (inc. this proposed law) when visiting http://www.captivemale.com./
2. As a UK citizen am I breaking any laws (inc. this proposed law) by having downloaded and stored material such as that from http://www.captivemale.com?
Please. This is a serious question.
This sig has been deprecated.
A 'quick background scan' on Dennis Rader would show he had a bachelors degree in Justice Administration and worked for the city and was on city advisory panels, was a cub scout troop leader (who didn't abuse boys), was the president of his church's congregation panel, and a father with two grown children and a marriage of over 25 years.
He was also the BTK serial killer (BTK standing for bind, torture, kill.)
The only reason police caught him was his own stupidity. He actually asked (in his letters to the police and their response through a newspaper) whether a floppy disk could be traced back to the person who had created it. They said of course not, he sent them a disk, they got metadata from deleted files with his name and the name of his church all over it.
Unfortunately not all criminals are that stupid.
And even worse, what are the characteristics that you will use to determine what is dangerous? Unless you use prior criminal arrests for violent crimes, you are profiling. That's an unfortunate part of law enforcement, which I understand is somewhat necessary for screening. However to use profiling to limit the activities one may engage in lawfully is even more repulsive. "Sorry Mr Smith, you are not allowed to possess BDSM pron because of your age, gender, race, religion, hairstyle, and music tastes as indicated by your iPod. If you were gay or a woman or had just a bit more Yanni on your iPod, it would be fine... What? Oh, that's your wife's pron? Oh, OK. That's fine then. Have a good day."
In the UK, men are generally portrayed as a problem. Yes it does have highly negative consequences. For example, its very hard to get men to teach in primary school, as they would be facing a huge risk of being attacked as paedophiles because they are "in the playground with children". This means that many children grow up with a very negative image of men, and hence a viscious circle.
Anti-male propaganda is probaby causing a considerable amount of pain and death, but the women's movement can not be confronted publicly.
Thought crime is a major problem in the UK. Especially if judged by the amount of resources which are spent on investigating it. Knife crime in the steets is far less of a problem of course, because far fewer people commit it.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
May the Maths Be with you!
Actually, sex is legal in the UK from age 16 +
so.... you're a girl, huh?
There are enough studies out there to show Pornography is a 'pressure valve' and that it reduces crime.
According to the History Channel: The History of Sex... the Catholic church during the middle ages actually advocated prostitution on this very premise.
Ok so I may be a hardcore SM freak and like similar pictures, but whose business is it except mine and my partners. It's not like im gonna go yeah lets go and fuck up this old granny or whatever. I was brought up to know right and wrong (and thats all this is really, or more accuratly the difference between reality and make believe) I can seperate reality from make believe.
;)
However, one interesting question is this. If I take photographs of my hardcore S/M activities with Girlfriend, and get raided by the filth, whats the point because I have already gone one better than merely looking at pictures, i've actually done the deed. Man, if the law catches me, im screwed. Time for double rot encryption i think
http://www.writeitfor.us - Writing IT for the IT generation.
Already, violent sex acts between consenting adult individuals are banned in the UK - look up the Spanner case. All this bill does is make an illegal act in the UK illegal to possess pictures of.
The role of the writer is not to say what we can all say, but what we are unable to say. -Anais Nin
Just don't take a picture.
I believe even if you married her before doing that consensual sex thing and are still married to her, it's still evil child porn.
:).
So maybe they should just ban all porn?
What if they use computers to generate very realistic child porn without the involvement of actual minors? How about "violent porn"? Is that still illegal?
If that is still illegal, then all those popular films depicting fictional murders should be illegal as well. And given adultery is illegal in many countries, perhaps films depicting fictional adultery should be illegal too.
Or is it only illegal if you enjoy watching such sections, whereas if you get disgusted or disapprove then you are OK, and not guilty?
Thought Crime
And you know what I think is unjust? That public "sex offender list" bullshit. It effectively means they never ever finish serving their time. Why not go all the way and execute them or give them a life sentence? It seems rather hypocritical to only pretend to let them go "free". The last I checked, there's no public "was jailed for being a violent criminal" list.
And the Libertarian Party of the UK www.lpuk.org
Additionally, what this means is that the seriousness of a crime has little or no relevance any more over here. And since someone driving at 7mph over the speed limit is deemed to be committing a "crime", it's far easier for our police to sit in the backs of their cars with speed cameras in the middle of major roads catching "criminals" than it is to put the large amount of detection resources to solve a rape or murder.
Likewise, our glorious government has chosen to put CCTV cameras everywhere which means that someone who drops a piece of litter can be fined but a mugger in a hooded sweatshirt won't be identifiable on camera. They've done this because despite grossly high taxation here, there is a huge waste of public money in this country with our own Members of Parliament being able to put in unlimited expense claims for anything from decorating their own houses, employing unqualified members of their own families and, yes, even claiming for widescreen TVs on expenses.
So now we have cameras just about everywhere, our government wants to exercise more control over us. Quite clearly, trying to scare us that there are millions of paedophiles prowling the Internet and every street corner hasn't worked because, in practice, there has been no real change in the number of sex crimes against children. Consequently, despite playing the "terrorism" card against us all, they can still find little or no justification to monitor what everyone does on the Internet as they would really like to do.
Therefore, the solution is to turn more of the easily-targetted "great unwashed" into criminals by extending the pornography laws as above - this allows them to continue with their "Internet is dangerous" arguments in the hope of gaining control of it.
Incidentally, I have no personal interest in that type of pornographic material but I am a firm believer (like the judge) in that anything that goes on between consenting adults is up to them - so if they're into violent sex and want to film it to sell it to someone else, then let them get on with it if they all agree to it.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
I don't see that it's a stupid debate at all. Yes, it is a stupid fucking debate to be having when it has nothing to do with TFA. And in general it's a stupid fucking debate because NO ONE WEVER CHANGES THEIR MINDS. You just throw your talking points at each other for 400 posts and destroy the forum for anyone who wants to discuss anything else.
In American rating systems, one of the chief rules that seperates rated R from X, is the number of thrusts seen on screen in any sex scene (hence all those rapid cuts you see in any given sex scene).
So are the Brits going to determine violent pornography by how many times someone swats their partner on the ass, saying "Who's yer daddy?"?
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
17 aint kiddy porn, no matter how you cut it. I know the US has some odd laws but even they wouldn't call a 17 year old a child.
This law dosent affect soft stuff like bondage
Actually the last time I heard, it covered anything where it is difficult or impossible for the affected person to clearly withdraw consent (eg say "stop, I've changed my mind!"). That covers quite a lot of bondage, especially if you start using a gag. (One specific example of something that *would* be covered was using a ballgag)
So the next time you and your partner engage in a little bondage play, make sure you don't film it or take photos, just in case.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Under this law, no-one will be able to be completely sure they are not breaking the law. For example, the Bill even covers clips taken from mainstream films, so if someone decides that clip you have from "Mr and Mrs Smith" is disturbingly violent (because Angelina Jolie kills the man after whipping him) then you could be in trouble. Are we going to have a future full of laws that leave us in a state of fear and anxiety over whether we are criminals or not? It's amazing how they can find the time to pass ridiculous laws like this, but can't find the time for a full and independent inquiry into the Iraq War, or introducing Proportional Representation as they promised.
Of course, you could go and protest about this outside parliament, or a least you could before they made it an offence.
I find your ideas disturbing and wish to unsubscribe from your newsletter.
Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
So an adult couple having consensual (if unorthodox) sex is ok, probably also the couple taking pictures of themselves. But as soon as the pictures are taken, and on the film/memory-card, the couple are suddenly criminals due to the possession of those pictures they just taken?
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
Time for a serious reply: "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."
Yeah.
No more fun for me and my British girlfriend. Time to put the whips and chains on ebay. Although no crime was committed, the British Moral Patrol need to punish us for filming/photographing our acts.
Reminds me of Americans.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
I dont read
1) they don't have to distribute it to face criminal charges. If the police find out for any reason, such as finding in the course of an unrelated criminal investigation or if a nosy house-guest or computer-repair person finds it and reports it, they will be arrested.
2) all it takes for the court to convict is a DA that wants to prosecute and a jury that would rather follow the letter of the law than do a jury nullification. After all, they are technically guilty.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
P.S.
I just realized, we Americans have finally achieved success. The British politicians are acting like American politicians! (morality police). It only took ~70 years of NATO to influence them to our way of thinking.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
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...
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
I'll just have to bring her to America then. Whipping is legal if the person volunteers. (In fact, even slavery is allowed as long as it's voluntary and time-limited.)
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
Just raise the tax on anal sex.. that should put a stop to most of it!!
So, Ethanol-fueled is right - it's completely legal to have sex with your 17 year old sweetheart. It's a criminal offence to take a photograph of her that would be deemed pornographic.
I appear to have a blog. Odd.
The BBC have taken off the comments from the web-page. Probably because they were a) too many and (b) too liberal.
The whole case really is too much. It's irrational, it's making sloppily worded laws based on cases taken out of context. Opportunist politicians trying to look good for the newspapers. Cracking down on 'crime.' It's the thinnest end of the wedge. It offends me in the deepest possible sense. I hope, now, that the court cases that arise out of this case - and I think they will come thick and fast and very soon - will, literally, be laughed out of court. I hope that an administrative review will be called.
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
The British politicians are acting like American politicians!
(morality police)
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
Not really. It's possession of this material which will be criminalised, so if she takes the videos, she's the one who's in trouble.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
I think we have reached one; some people are just really god damn stupid, let's not ruin it for the rest of us. The end.
Here's one.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The material will only be considered illegal if it is considered to have been created for sexual gratification. So, watching a movie containing a violent sex-scene (say Monster with Charlize Theron) is fine, as long as it has been passed by the BBFC. However, extracting the rape scene for sexual gratification would be illegal.
The interesting question is how they will tell whether something was extracted for sexual gratification - thought crime, anyone?
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
Please remember that this is in the UK, not the US. Despite the best efforts of our politicians, we are not the US and we do have cultural differences.
Actually I doubt that under UK law (or the individual laws of many US States) people do have such rights. The extreme Pelagianism of US Law simply has no place in Europe. At the bottom of it all is the definition of "consensual".
Pelagianism, the root of Protestantism, believes that people are responsible for their own decisions every minute of the day. It points inevitably to the death penalty, (because in this view it is always a conscious decision borne of "sin" to commit murder) and the idea that provided people agree to do something that does not affect others, that makes it permissible. (Of course US lawmakers then get into a total tangle over, say, abortion...but I guess you may believe that US law can be irrational too.)
The anti-Pelagian trend in Europe accepts that often people do not do things that they want to do although apparently they consent. Therefore, for instance, the law may intervene when a man beats up a woman even though she declines to press charges, on the basis that her consent was not voluntary and that her silence arises from fear rather than consent. Domestic violence in Europe is not a consensual act. I do not know the legal position in the US, but I would be surprised if individual States did not have laws about it.
At which point does violent sex turn into a criminal act? At what point do pictures cease to be a matter of private titillation and become evidence of a crime? That is the issue that lawmakers have to deal with.
The extreme position taken by many posters on this thread is that, in effect, sexual violence is permissible provided that you cannot find someone to testify against it, and that therefore it is permissible to sell pictures of what may be criminal acts for gain. I cannot see that as being a rational position, and it is in fact quite illegal under English law for a criminal to profit in this way from a crime.
I notice that many posters are in fact talking about cartoons and unreal violence. In my original post I was clearly (I thought) referring to material which was photographic and therefore a recording of real world acts. But this seems to have been missed by the "libertarians".
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
While I totally disagree with the law, i would imagine it's proponents would state that there is no real way to tell if the participants are indeed consenting, if your only evidence is a photograph. Do you embed a digitally signed release form with each photograph? I would also like to think, that having a photograph or video of a crime being committed, and not having proof that the adults are consenting, would spur law enforcement to investigate. At least enough to make sure that the "victim" wasn't indeed, a victim.
So give the "victim" a ball to hold, and when they drop it, that signals "Stop, ungag me, I want to say something".
Or hum a specific tune.
There're probably a million ways to play safely with a gagged person.
Get your own free personal location tracker
What, precisely, does everyone expect?
When you not only expect but DEMAND that someone else take care of your every whim: I can't get a job, the government should pay me! My job sucks, but I had 16 children anyway, the government should pay me! I didn't finish school because, well, I didn't want to, but the government should train me! I'm hooked on drugs, the government should provide a program to get me off them and then train me to be a human again. I can't afford a home, the government should house me! I live BELOW SEA LEVEL but the government should rebuild my home when it floods! Etc. etc. ad infinitum ad nauseum.
When you surrender your individual sovereignty in so many ways, is it so surprising that this monster you've created starts to take on a life of its own? When the government is paying for our health care, are we surprised that the government starts to circumscribe our dangerous, self-destructive activities for "our own good"? First it's risky sports, then smoking, then other less clear 'risky behaviours'. When our fear of (terrorists/pedophiles/boogeymen) impels us to allow our government to surveil our every activity, restrict our movements, and even peruse our private messages without outcry, does it surprise anyone that some bureaucratic moralist will start to define what's 'permissible' according to his own particular morality?
Bah, we've gotten PRECISELY the government we deserve. We sit at home, hypnotized by television or playing meaningless games on the internet, while the real world crumbles outside our doors. Ever see Brazil?
And as far as a legal activity being illegal in some other form, you should try smoking in the states. Cigarettes are legal to buy, own, and smoke...just not anywhere specifically. You can probably get away with it now in your own car, but certainly not if it's a rental. Mark my words, soon enough they will ban smoking in people's private homes because little Billy comes to school with colds all the time.*
* and I'm not even a smoker, never have been.
-Styopa
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
As someone who never had a high school sweetie I find that punishment entirely adequate.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
"Massive surveillance?" in public areas Good.
"Building a DNA database?" Good.
"Laws against thought crime? Not yet, but coming very soon." very soon? Well, FUD seems to be already here.
I will add my points
"Massive liberal idiocy" check.
"Absurdist pushing "freedoms" to the insane limits" check.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness - you guys ought to elect this guy President, or whatever you have over there.
Well, I'll add myself to the A/C's pledge. Okay, it's still kinda anonymous what with the username and all, but no doubt the British police know where to find me.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
Whilst sane, I doubt any of them would wash with the relevant authorities. Unless I'm mistaken, they're certainly not good enough for the obscene publications act.
There's a .pdf linked to here which apparently supports the parent's statement.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
As a great thinker* once said: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do, too, brackets, if they've got a gun, close brackets." ;)
* Well, Eddie Izzard, who is very insightful for a cross-dressing comedian
What if it's not for sexual gratification but sadistic gratification? That's OK then?
Maybe we should leave the judging and punishment of thought crimes to God.
Trouble is, when virtual reality stuff becomes more and more realistic, the lines between thought crime and real crime will become blurred.
Jesus definitely had a point when he said in Matthew 5:
27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'
28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart
After all, if you commmit virtual adultery with someone far away, good luck telling your disapproving wife- "it's not real", and "it's consensual virtual sex between two adults therefore legal".
So? European governments have a long history of treating their
citizens like children or property. This was kind of one of the
major reasons that there is a United States separate and apart
from the United Kingdom.
Kings and tyrants tend to dislike an armed or an independent
population.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
If the idea is for the citizen to be a backbone of the militia
then AK-47's aren't really that interesting or shocking. It's
just clueless liberal n00bs that like judge a firearm by how
menacing they think it looks.
In this regard, the fool rambling on about nukes can be safely
ignored. "bombs" and such aren't just a late 20th century
invention. This nonsense about individuals owning bazookas or
howitzers would have come up before now.
The original intent of the 2nd amendment clearly covers an M-16
or AK-47 even if certain people with an axe to grind are willing
to ignore what the term militia meant in 1783 and make up some
convenient fiction (militia -> cops or federal army) about it.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
We should look for victims of sexual abuse through traditional routes: offer safe houses, make sure that women's rights are protected, hotlines, etc. Combing the internet for dirty pictures is a really ineffective way to protect people from sexual abuse.
If I were into such things, I probably would have no idea who people were in the pictures. The authorities would arrest me, put me on some kind of sexual deviant list, ruin my life... and still be no closer to protecting the people depicted in the photographs.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
It gets better...
Now the UK is trying to ban knives.
Before too long my favorite kitchen knife will be illegal in the UK.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Murder and assault are illegal and should be. However, in the US we've introduced the idea of 'hate' crimes that are crimes above and beyond the actions taken. These crimes are based not on your actions but who the victim is and your possible feelings about the victim.
Worse even though you may be found not guilty of the Murder/assault there have been cases where people are re-tried under the thought-crime.. er. uh. excuse me hate-crime statute even though it seems to violate double jeopardy protection.
Even more on point as far as this article are concerned the FBI ran an sting that resulted in arrests for simply following links they put out there to catch people looking for child porn. Hope they remembered to disallow fasterfox from doing pre-fetch on the sites to avoid people who got a click away and had their browser commit the crime for them.
There's a reason the US has the worlds largest prison population by percentage.
Actually fighting in the streets was OK, too, as long as you consented to it. Then they "got around" this common-law thing via the invention of the "disturbing the peace" law.
> Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Sounds like some 14 year old's World of Warcraft warrior character.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I guess "nothing to do with TFA" is a mindset. I see them as related because both are actions by a government trying to limit a person's individual freedom.
As far as changing of minds go, how do you propose we proceed then? Eliminate the bans or make them stricter? If we can't even agree if there's a problem, why are we trying to create a solution? The topic needs to come up and be debated because one group of people are trying to control another group of people. Ignoring the problem isn't going to make it go away.
You're not familiar with Western law. Rule 1: Whatever happened, it's always the man who's going to be punished.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
If these people even want to talk about banning any type of pornography, they should be forced to show exactly which pornography they "get off on".
The results? Either they are into "missionarypositionasgodintendedit.com", or they aren't into pornography. If they aren't "into" pornography...that simply raises the question of their credibility and makes them seem "less human". Either way, there's bound to be (In a room of over 10 people, which I imagine there was to get this law written up) at least one guy with a fetish other people find disgusting.
Personally though, I believe everyone has some fetish other people find disgusting. Even if they don't know it yet. The simple fact I know some people are disgusted by "normal sex"...
Either way, this is the government getting into our private lies and doing more than...well...protecting our lives and right to private properties.
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
The tightening of British gun laws in recent decades was in response to two particular incidents. The first was the Hungerford massacre in 1987 where the perpetrator went on a rampage with an arsenal of legally-held semi-automatic weapons. The government was forced, under intense public pressure, to ban private ownership of most semi-automatic rifles. The second incident was the Dunblane massacre of 1996 which led to the ban of most handguns. Neither measure was aimed at reducing gun crime in general (which is low by any reasonable standard) but rather at reducing the risk of these types of spree killing. It is not a case of authoritarian government forcing gun control on an unwilling population; It is a result of government responding to the thrust of public opinion which views the benefits of allowing the ownership of these weapons to be outweighed by the costs.
Thanks for sorta seeing my connection here. :-)
Bringing things more back on topic (although I feel I've been on topic), if we can't reach a conclusion about whether violent books lead to violent crimes, why are we creating laws restricting individual freedom?
Of course, I'd also argue that it's already been proven that there is no such link between violent art and violent people.. people have been violent long before we started forming "civilizations."
There is also the problem that, if she wants to be taken seriously, a woman can't admit to any kind of submissive tendencies. Wanting to tie a man up and whip him is cool - "You go, girl!". Wanting to be tied up and whipped makes her an enabler of patriarchal oppression.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
Actually, the law bans the owning of fictional images of violent sex to and deliberately so. While it is perfectly legal to to role-play having sex at the point of a weapon (of you choice) and it is also legal to have sex with someone pretending to be dead, from now owning images of these legal acts will get you up to three years lock-up.
They should encourage the use of the Diehard series for training - it would be a useful counter-terrorism move.
Only to a monomaniac who sees EVERYTHING as an excuse to get on his soapbox and give his standard speech.
As far as changing of minds go, how do you propose we proceed then?
Just do it somewhere else. Try to understand that however important this is to you, it is not to everyone.
was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the headline.
You should tell that to British judges - their sentences for rape are often completely derisory. One judge ordered the rapist to pay the victim a hundred pounds (or so) so that she could have a holiday to get over the ordeal.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
or a map
Your analogy isn't quite right - looking at someone in real life is like looking at a woman in a picture online. Having cybersex or an online relationship is a lot more active than simply appreciating how someone else looks.
But regardless, this is why it isn't a good idea to let religion interfere with lawmaking - many religions have codes which would criminalise a whole lot of actions which are about people's rights to make free choices - adultery, homosexuality, and immodest clothing amongst them.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
Ahh, another reader of "The Pussification of the American Male".
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
I sincerely hope you get this outraged when the "Bush is Evil" meme comes up in every thread. Somehow, I doubt it.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
for anyone looking for a conspiracy , this must an attempt to bury the Max Mosley video :)
AK47 ownership is perfectly legal as long as your register it IIRC. Clinton's Assault Weapons law has recently expired and has not been renewed.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
Besides which, quite a lot of what might reasonably be considered 'soft stuff' (albeit not most forms of bondage) is illegal in the UK.
"seeking to have a tool banned (gun, encryption, fetish pr0n) instead of punishing those who misuse them"
I'm curious - is there a way to misuse porn? Is there an incorrect way to masturbate? Is it possible people have been doing it wrong all these years?
I agree with the sentiment, but your examples are interesting, and show the scary progression being taken by governments.
A gun is a tool that can be used to injure someone.
Encryption is a tool that can be used to hide information.
Porn IS information.
So the next is thoughts.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
17 aint kiddy porn, no matter how you cut it. I know the US has some odd laws but even they wouldn't call a 17 year old a child.
*sigh*
You underestimate the level of stupid fundies produce.
or two hatching such plots. They are the ones who own the politicians. Perhaps it's not really insidious as all that though. Prisons mean more jobs for constituents, and more contributions from privatized corrections companies. Prisons also provide free labor. It's just the usual motive - money.
you are wrong.
slavery is banned in all liberal legislations.
"slavery" is precisely defined as the act of giving away self-ownership, in a manner such that you lose power over the decission (ie: you cannot revert it, since you gave yourself away to someone else), and it's illegal in any legal system based on a system of personal rights.
"voluntary and time-limited" is not slavery, its just voluntary work. Calling voluntary work slavery is at least wrong (and probably fascist, racist, etc. although i couldn't care less).
And to GP: the criminal status of any activity is subject to several considerations, one of which can be consent. Normally, the consent is disregarded only in crimes against life, and highly considered in sexual crimes, where the "crime" is by definition the lack of consent in the consumation of the act deemed criminal.
In england in particular, consented assault is only criminal when the resulting injuries are extremely severe, and you can prove that this injuries escape some pre-arranged form of consent (like the limits imposed by the rules of a game).
so OP is correct: having engaged in violent consensual activity wouldn't (in most cases) be a crime, and you can not derive its criminal status simply from a photograph.
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
"I dunno, a minority of Iraqi's seem to be giving us a hard time with AK47s and IEDs..."
True enough. Interestingly, US policy in Iraq is to allow each householder a personal battle rifle, because they are necessary to self-defense. IEDs, heavy MGs, and other ordnance are a different thing entirely.
While IEDs are illegal, disarming the public isn't desired by the US forces. Not even Saddam tried to disarm
Iraqis. The "militia" IS necessary not only to the security of not only a free state, but for personal security in dangerous areas. Some folks can only be dealt with by killing them, so that is what to do.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I wonder, would they come to the US and arrest an American for such a film? I know a lot of hookers...
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
I recall this case where two Florida teens were prosecuted for producing child porn by privately videotaping themselves engaging in "unspecified sexual behavior"; note that the sex itself was perfectly legal.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
The way people have been exploiting British libel law in order to prosecute authors whose books are published and sold in America but might make their way over here, makes me wonder whether anything's possible!
But since this law only goes after possession, you'd be okay as long as you weren't going to try to bring the film to the UK. However, if you sent me a copy and I kept it, I'd be liable for prosecution. Though don't let that stop you in any way...
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
The people proposing this law are actual violent criminals, advocating violence against otherwise innocent people they just don't like.
Well, I start to think that the people proposing the new laws in the UK seem to have a very weird form of a fetish to control/have power over other people's (most of the targeted are completely innocent!) personal sexuality.
It seems to me that available power in the goverment attracts just the wrong people which are prone to abusing this power. And those who are most aggressive get the most powerful positions over time.
It starts with random assaults by the 'toy police' (security guards), goes on with general police brutality and ends with soldiers torturing captured people in the most nasty ways they can imagine.
Investigations after reported abuse often progress mysteriously slowly if they come close to the 'private sex lives' of politicians and other high officials in the goverment.
[Of course, most guards, policemen or soldiers do their jobs just fine.]
And people with just a small, harmless kink are being utterly destroyed by those perverts
For example, the arrest of the guy with the bike-fetish is outright medieval.
I thought that western societies progressed so far to agree on:
a.) allowing any sexual practice (between consenting partners) which does not harm anyone.
b.) not prosecuting any thought crimes
It is iterated over-and-over again how bad dictatorships such as in iran are. This is the wrong forum to complain, I known, but can we please try to not emulate these??
Suppose you stumble upon a tape in the desert, you pop it in the vcr and see that it's of a bunch of guys gang-raping a girl. She's getting beat up, and blood is drawn. What do you assume? Is it makeup? is it real blood? does she want to be there?
What do you do?
ie. You give me permission to take your television, it's not theft. You give me permission to have sex with you, it's not rape. You give me permission to dress you up like a nun and spank you, it's not... whatever they would they would charge you with.
Having permission, from someone legally and mentally capable of giving it, removes the criminallity from the act. There are exceptions, one cannot consent to murder for example.
To compare your (parent post) interpretation, there would be no boxing, no martial arts, or other contact sports (think Jackass like events) as they would subsequently be all be guilty of assualt. Consent negates this.
It's a beginning for censorship. Who decides extreme? It goes back to the old buggery laws, where half the Lords were doing it and the other half couldn't fathom it. Could you say... Religious practice is fine, but we're banning possession of the Bible, Talmud etc. Doesn't work that way, unless of course your looking for a slippery slope.
Atleast in sweden it is not difficult to discern a pattern behind the various politicians and the laws they support. Those who are vocal against child porn are enemies of porn in general, and i am sure they will embrace the UK's decision to adapt this law. I am sure they will even suggest we should copy it here in sweden. After all, we already have a law against child pornographic drawings (prison sentence w00t!). They're just going to wait a couple of years and then make a blatant copy of this piece of shit law, and then it will get accepted and we'll get even more sex criminals. It's not like we're not among the worst countries in europe when it comes to the amount of sex crimes reported...
There's been some recent debate in sweden about another change in the child porn law that would not only set a definite minimum age of 18 for all participation in porn (right now the definition is basically: If she looks old enough, she is old enough) it would also allow for porn with models OVER the age of eighteen to be "child porn" if the model LOOKS like she is younger. Thus it has nothing to do with protecting children whatsoever. But what is interesting is a statement made by one of the supporters after the law. The supporter was asked about what her opinion is when it concerns porn that could be "borderline" illegal. Her reply, whose exact phrasing i've forgotten, essentially was "People should stay away from any porn that is borderline". Basically: Stay away from porn with women younger than 25.
Thomas Bodström, former minister of law, who is involved in recent debates on swedish child porn laws is, not surprisingly, also involved in the fight against piracy. The connection isn't entirely obvious until you realize that the swedish national "child porn filter" has been used to block The Pirate Bay. Bodström was also the minister who ordered the raid on piratebay some years ago. The fight against porn (and child porn) goes hand in hand with the fight on piracy. As the wider they can make the definition of child porn, the more websites they can shut out with the filter. Feminazis also back the child porn laws, as the wider the definition is, the more legal porn is suddenly illegal. These women love their Andrea Dworkin.
Who the hell let them pass this law? ... oh yes ... we did! [sigh]
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
Who makes the call of what's sick and what's not? Your problem with the law is about how its boundaries cannot be defined. Personally, my problem with the law is that it would allow someone (government? a panel of psychologists maybe? parents? religious figures? anyone?) impose upon others their taste and convictions.
You wanna stop rape? Why not increase the penalties for violators? Why not dispatch more police on the streets instead of having them sit in hiding around speed traps? Why not revoke laws that prohibit people from carrying weapons they can use to defend themselves from attack? Use the same process we use to prevent general anarchy to weed out those in society that ARE actually suseptible to violence AND CHOOSE to act them out knowing the consequences. You know, instead of forbidding people to freely engage in fantasy if they so choose, regardless of how sick anyone thinks it is.
At least if a person (perhaps you'd call them a rapist-in-waiting or a sick fuck) is getting off to a fictional reenactment they're not out in public actually victimizing women.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Watch this youtube video of The Excorcist crucifix masturbation scene:
...congratulations! Soon you will be a sex offender under UK law. Because you are "in possesion" of that extract in your computer, and "It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an extreme pornographic image...(for example) an image of...an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in serious injury to a person's...genitals..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyOSVqKYQNE
Now it's not an offense to watch The Excorcist -- but is IS an offense to own extracts (like this YouTube extract) where "it appears that the image was extracted (whether with or without other images) solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal." That's not why you watched it? Better hope the jury believes you...
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/07130.43-46.html#j400
Sorry to disappoint you, but you cannot engage in a criminal activity even if you have consent from the victim. In other words, even if your girlfriend gives you permission to hit her with a whip, it is still common assault under british law.
Sadly, yes the Government seems to be using the mad precedent of Spanner, where consenting adult sadomasochists were criminalised for actual bodily harm upon themselves. In fact, under the law, even his girlfriend would be criminalised, for aiding and abetting assault upon herself!
However, note that this law even criminalises fictional images and images of staged acts, where no one is harmed. The bill explicitly states that a "threat" with a weapon will count. So it is still true that photographs will be illegal even though the act was legal.
Even screenshots from legally available BBFC films will be criminalised by the law, if the police think you made them for the purpose of sexual arousal!
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I am fine with this. People who have pics of people doing corpses or animals, or pics of people basicly ripping someone apart or killing them are screwed up big time. Anyone that gets off on that sort of thing needs to have their head checked. This law dosent affect soft stuff like bondage, it just affects the stuff that would be illegal to do to another person.
OH THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT! Stop the press! When someone is sent to prison for possessing an acted image of someone being threatened with a knife, or taking a screenshot from a legal film, we can tell the court that the bill is wrong, and it's okay, because Expert Witness Anonymous Coward on Slashdot told us that only images where people were being ripped apart or killed would be affected...
but the fact that there are people who want this kind of stuff is scary, disgusting and an example of how sad and pathetic parts of our world has become.
Wait - it's scary that there are consenting adults who do sexual acts in private?
No, what's scary is that there are perverts out there who want to lock people up because they disapprove of those people's sex lives.
don't ever confuse your 'right' to free speech to mean that you are involved with anything but the most despicable, disgusting of things.
Freedom of speech that does not apply to things you think are merely "disgusting" is no freedom of speech at all. Otherwise, I just point out that I think what you say and think is disgusting.
If you had a video of someone being beheaded, would you assume it's fake, or, that the victim was consenting? In a similar vein, if you've got video of violent porn, how does one tell if the person being raped is consenting?
Well the real question is, do we treat it as evidence of a crime and investigate it, or do we criminalise the person possessing it, and leave it at that?
Also note there is no defence in the law even for images that are known beyond any reasonable doubt to be staged or made with consenting adults. Even an image of yourself would be illegal to possess!
It's obvious that Die Hard II commercial motion picture, and easy to verify
Note that screenshots from such a commercial movie will also come under the law.
The idea that images might be non-consensual is a red herring - images will be illegal even if they're known to be consensual, whilst depictions of many non-consensual acts (rape porn, or a non-porn image of someone being beheaded, both as you suggest) will not be covered by the law.
(I know you disagree with the law too, I'm just pointing out why these issues are no justification for such a law.)
I don't think I have ever met one person in favour of private gun ownership in the UK. Nobody is in the slightest bit interested in it. The last thing people want is even more guns in the hands of criminals and our cities and schools turning into war zones.
If they hijacked a topic that wasn't about the US govt, I would.
Anyway, if someone else pisses in the pool it doesn't make it right for you to.
Dunblane massacre
Come as you are, do what you must, be who you will.
If it's the depiction of violence that is to be outlawed, the movie and video industries are in deep trouble. Just imagine where they'd be without sex, violence, and sex-and-violence.
Of course, killing people is considered good clean fun just as long as there's none of that vile, godless S-E-X.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
And as he also said, "Gun's don't kill people, people kill people.......but I think the gun helps"
Between the falling angel and the rising ape
Seems reminiscent of the Soviet situation during the Soviet-Afghan War. While the Mujahadin were bleeding the Soviets, it is important to note that the Soviet installed government in Kabul outlasted the Soviet Union itself.
"We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security." Dwight Eisenhower
My wife is a damned good marksman. She shoots moving targets. She also believes in tasers/non lethal options, as well as gun safety training and having a yapping dog to alert us.
Women are hardly the primary opponent of gun rights.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Have you ever seen SICK: The Life and Death of Bob Flanagan, Supermasochist? Can't blame you if you haven't. Anyway, this is the guy from the NIN and Danzig videos that got banned - the guy who's "art" was being tortured, among other things. His work, and likely this movie, would probably be illegal under this new law. Yet, it wouldn't be illegal for him to do his performances live (except that he's now dead). That's a really weird thing - to have a legal activity be illegal to document.
Yet, it would be perfectly legal to keep a security camera tape of an armed robbery... a real crime! In fact, they'll show it over and over on the evening news.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
IIRC, 3 years is nearly half a rape (7 years) or 20% of a murder (15)
"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"
In the UK the age of consent is 16, so you can have sex at this age. However if you video it then it becomes child porn, and presumably by definition the people appearing in the video have become exploited and abused, even if it was them who set up the camera.
It's never made much sense to me that you can legally have sex with a 16 year old, but you can't look at a picture of one naked.
(p.s. just in case there is any doubt - i'm not a paedophile, it's just an interesting legal point!)
"Kings and tyrants tend to dislike an armed or an independent
population."
Balderdash. Britain had laws mandating both owning and regularly practising with a war bow when they were the "in" weapon, and freemen were expected to supply their own weapons and armour when their lord decided to have a war. Guns didn't start being regulated seriously until after the Russian Revolution, centuries after the country had become a constitutional monarchy that removed all effective power from the king / queen.
Some other European countries had strict feudal weapons bearing laws, and some were fairly liberal, so it's impossible to make blanket statements about "Europe" in this regard, although it sadly doesn't seem to deter Americans whose knowledge of European history can be written on the head of a pin with the bottom half of Mt. Everest from doing so.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
If they say that even simulations are illegal, when no human is harmed by it, that is the definition of a thought crime.
All they are going to do is make the violence harder to see and trace. People will use poison instead of guns, and then what will these idiots think?
The goal is not to stop violence. The goal is to ban violent thoughts, which is really stupid because most murderers aren't obsessed with violent thoughts, they are the ones who actually do it.
"2400 years later, we still didn't reach a conclusion. Go figure..."
Pick any type of event or content and there are people who are emboldened or aroused to action, there are those who are sated, there those who are repulsed, there are those who are unaffected. The issue is as it always has been is there are also those who would try to use extreme examples to further their own ambitions for power and control or to simply push their own world view for ego gratification.
This all being said I personally think that what one has as an input has to be considered as affecting ones output. I think at a specific level of consciousness our minds are basically organic self programming computation devices. If you choose to input information of a specific genera without any conflicting data your output will be observant of this. Not quite "monkey see, monkey do" but the long term implications of such behavior would similar. If you choose ONLY one input type, be it of violent pornography, the rants of a crazy preacher or mullah, the teachings of classic philosophers, the study of chemistry or physics you can expect your output to reflect your choice of input. Aristotle had a fix for this in "the golden mean" or "moderation in all things", which actually reflects the way most people live their lives.
However there are "some people" who choose to limit their inputs to those that reflect their world view as compiled to date, hence the popularity of stuff like extreme political views, religious orders, FOX News and the various tabloids. Remember where I mentioned those people who would use such to further their own ambitions. All this is human nature as viewed from the amber side. We have been through these before and will again. There have been many microcosms of "dark ages" and "enlightenments" the best we can hope for is to avoid the longer darker ones. With the issues today like the complexity and size of our global civilization, the cultural mixing in real time instead of decades, the dependency and unintended consequence type dangers that come in tandem with technological progress, the depletion of resources and the explosion in disparity of wealth I feel a great unease about the near future.
Good old Eric Blair had an excellent insight into human nature, the English in particular, and great skill as a word smith. This is why his works seem so relevant today, they are based on countless millennial old observations of the human animal.
wabi-sabi
matthew
I'm not too familiar with British government, but from what I do understand; when the House of Lords comes out on the side of reason and personal rights, doesn't that signal the end of days?
The thing I find most disturbing about this law is the incredibly lack of reasoning displayed by some people - mostly those in favour of it. It reminds me - obscurely - of the new tax here in Australia on "alcopops" (premixed alcoholic drinks). This will, of course, help prevent binge drinking. Makes perfect sense.
Banning is usually the best way to make a subject more intriguing to just the wrong sort of people. Banning child porn is good, since among other things it's the industry you're trying to destroy. But does it stop paedophiles? Seems we haven't got around to that bit yet. Seriously helping people not to become paedophiles is too hard, so let's stick with enforcing a ban so it always looks like we're working hard to protect the public. Excellent.
It's this sort of maimed ability to think about the hard stuff and implement socially responsible policies that is unfortunately the hallmark of everything bad in our society and politics.
Here in Aus, we have only recently started safe hot-lines for men (and women) who commit domestic violence. Great idea, well promoted, you almost feel sorry for them watching the ads. And why not feel sorry for them? Don't they need help? Why do we so rarely offer any help at all to those people who really need it, *before* they completely go off the rails? Why can't we invest money in effective preventative schemes instead of more and more laws and regulation?
Of course that's too hard to think about, so people blame anything and everything else for how someone turns out - if it's not porn, it's computer games, violent movies, Goth culture, Dungeons and Dragons... As long as we, as a society, don't have to take responsibility for it.
I'm surprised they didn't just introduce a Violent Porn Tax. That way most voters will be kept happy and pollies can as usual appear to be doing something, which is what everyone really seems to want.
Some links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_bodily_harm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievous_bodily_harm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_assault
I dont read