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*
"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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.........
Nothing to see here
People are *ahem* desensitized to the idea of making certain videos or pictures illegal, because of the widely approved ban on child pornography, but in matters such as this, where consenting adults are involved in the production of the material, I can't see there being any distinction between laws like these and a government ban on certain books.
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.
But, why don't you ban people from the Soviet Union and China? Or, women?
Seriously, this is the debate between correlation and causation that happens around video games. It's just in a different guise.
Rapists often use violent porn, but does violent porn cause rape? Much crime is committed by people under the influence of alcohol, but does alcohol cause the crime? People who have gone on shooting rampages have obsessed over violent video games, but did the games cause the violence? The list goes on -- nobody is seriously making the claim that by making these things illegal, all of these problems go away. (OK, some people are, in fact, making that claim. They're idiots.)
See, it's very difficult to selectively pick things in which there is a correlation but no evidence of causation, and start banning them. There a lot of things which could potentially end up on that list.
Yes, all of these nasty things you describe happen, and they are crimes. They should be treated as such. Nobody is saying rape, or human trafficking, or child abuse, or any of those things is a good thing and should be protected.
But, as the summary points out -- if it was a consensual act between adults of sound mind, how could having an image of it then be a crime? You end up demonizing everyone who has a different view of sexuality than yours. Some of the things they're talking about banning could be as simple as spanking. Some of it, while not to either of our tastes, is completely consensual. Heck, if you want to spend your weekend getting flogged, have at 'er. If you want to abduct someone and do it to them against their will? You're a criminal. The gap between those is huge.
You can't strip away the rights of people to engage in consensual acts, and photograph them if they so choose, on the basis that someone, somewhere, is having crimes committed against their person. It's completely irrational.
You're advocating a blanket ban on a behavior by everyone on the basis that some people are criminals. A lot of lawmakers in the UK are pointing out that this is a very over-broad law with no real thought put into making sure that you preserve the rights on individuals. If you remove the right to photograph it, you might as well out law the act. And then you're criminalizing the behavior of people on the basis that it might have some commonality with actual crimes.
And, let's face it, people in Britain (and everywhere else) have been spanking and doing otherwise strange things to each other for hundreds of years. It's a little late to start backing up that bus.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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
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.
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.
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
Just don't take a picture.
Remember that in the Britain of a couple centuries ago, sodomy carried the death sentence.
That's right -- merely being caught acting as an ordinary, nonviolent homosexual got you hanged. (Interested parties may wish to peruse http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/homopho1.htm )
Don't think it couldn't happen again. If that morality pendulum starts swinging, it never stops til it reaches the farthest possible extreme.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
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.
Yeah, it's just like the drugs: after they were made illegal to possess, the profits of drug traffickers plummeted in freefall.
Making violent porn illegal will simply serve to drive the profit into the hands of criminals. Want to make a legitimate BDSM porn film by having the actors, well, act ? You can't. But the Mafia can. Only the Mafia might decide to skip getting actors, and just have their sicker members torture some poor bastard to death in front of a camera.
Basically, if sick porn is legal, people will fake it, with acting or 3D computer graphics or pen and paper. Since the stuff is available for free in the Internet, few people will buy it, making it insufficiently profitable for organized crime to bother. But make it illegal, and thus hard to get, and it becomes extremely profitable for the Mafia to get into it. And, like I already said, Mafia has no reason to play nice and fake it.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
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.
I find your ideas disturbing and wish to unsubscribe from your newsletter.
Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
I dont read
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.
Just raise the tax on anal sex.. that should put a stop to most of it!!
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts