BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...

Subject: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 06:18 PM

link to report of proposed legislative change


My worry here is severalfold, and US free-speechers may have other concerns. Without limitation I see the following lurking.

First, the promise is to apply this to pictorial matter only, but will the law as drafted apply to textual matter also?

Second, my experiences lobbying for and against legislative change indicate that UK governments of all hues have absolutely no regard for rational debate/discussion, only realpolitik, so if this law is flawed (as, for example the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, and the new regulations now proposed to be made under it) whatever words the parliamentary draftsman comes up with designed to service the kneejerk political purpose will be railroaded through, no matter what innocents will be fitted up as a result.

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 06:20 PM

Damn. there goes my collection of pictures of Maggie Thatcher then...

:D (tG)

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 06:20 PM

"To be covered by the new offence, material would need to be pornographic, explicit and real or appearing to be real. These will be objective tests for a jury to decide. It must also involve intercourse or oral sex with an animal; sexual interference with a human corpse; or serious violence (meaning violence that appears to be life threatening or likely to result in serious, disabling injury)."

Doesn't sound like a bad ban to me

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: skipy
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 06:24 PM

I can't see a problem with this, there have got to be limits, what they are banning is surely beyond the limits that any of us would want to go.
Or am I wrong, should we for the sake of freedom allow anything, I think not.
Skipy
not adverse to the odd dvd or two.
Nearly time to start the
"Erotica 2006" thread.

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 06:35 PM

So, CH, are you sufficiently clear as to what "pornographic" means to have your liberty and therefore livelihood (and in the UK entry on the sex offenders register) depend on what a judge and jury decide it means?

Your suggestions would make possession of a large-ish part of what the US porn industry puts out illegal.

Check out bondagedirectory.com

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: dianavan
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 07:25 PM

Somebody has to draw the line.

'Snuff' movies and child porn should be the first to go.

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: kendall
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 07:32 PM

Oral sex with an animal? What the hell is that?

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: bobad
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 07:37 PM

My dog kisses me sometimes, does that count?

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 08:05 PM

So it's still okay to dork sheep. It's just illegal to film the dorking or possess pictures of same.

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 08:08 PM

It must also involve intercourse or oral sex with an animal; sexual interference with a human corpse; or serious violence (meaning violence that appears to be life threatening or likely to result in serious, disabling injury)."

Richard I don't think the above description describes a 'large-ish' proportion of the porn currently out there? Or maybe I have had a very sheltered life.

At any rate we can surely do without it. If it goes some way to alleviating the recent victim's mother's pain then all for the good.

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: jonm
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 03:06 AM

Will the ban also include images of a man clad only in a loin-cloth being nailed to a wooden frame?

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: Paul Burke
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 03:43 AM

The "serious violence" clause is a catch- all (note that the headline yeugh activities are listed first to catch attention). Almost any activity could result in serious injury, depending on a judge's or a jury's mood. Straight sex could result in death from HIV.

As a principle, no publicatio should be censored unless it can be shown to be causing harm. If there is evidence of a causal link between particular kinds of pornography and dangerously antisocial acts, that pornography can be reasonably banned. If there is not, it should be permitted however unpleasant we may personally consider it. That is because the only reasonable curb on freedom is damage to others.

Remember that the opposite link may be true- that viewing such images satiates the person with such tendencies, so that they have less need to perpetrate them in real life. Or there may be no link at all. The statistics on offences against children should help to decide this- child pornography has been illegal for some years now, so if there has been a fall in offences (other than possession of images) since then, there may be a positive correlation. If a rise, a negative correlation is possible. If no change, there is no correlation at all. (This is of course talking about the effects of VIEWING images, not the effects on children involved in CREATING the images).

Furthermore, if viewing violence is dangerous, why should only violence involving sex be banned? Is this a slippery slope? Tarantino? Reservoir Dogs is a film, it is fiction- images of violence may not involve the slightest discomfort to the actor involved.

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 04:02 AM

Yes, you have lead a sheltered life. Anal fisting can be very dangerous and can be found on almost all gay and quite a lot of straight porn sites - for example. Not to my taste, but widespread and easy, I am sure, to find installed on your computer if you are browsing for sexual materials that are legal to possess. If you have a long-ish time to waste, run a "find" on your own computer for *.jpg and see what turns up.

The point, however, is this - the production publication and/or possession for gain of a wide range of sexual materials has long been illegal in most western countries (US excepted to some extent, a special situation because of their entrenched "freedom of speech" provisions).

This will be the first time in recent western history that the mere possession of any kind of sexual material has been illegal.

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 04:33 AM

While I share the general distaste for these practices, I am against legislation to prevent posession of images. This law is being passed as the result of a campaign by ONE rightfully aggrieved Mother, that is not the way that laws should be made.
It will soon be illegal to scratch your arse, or adjust your meat and two veg, or your bra strap [ladies only] in public.
The former could make the prison population consist more of men from warmer climes. The latter would favour women's libbers!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: Barry Finn
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 06:40 AM

To view anything is not or shouldn't be criminal. Nor to think anything for that matter. It's the act that's criminal. So next it'll be illegal to think. This could border on acting without thought, could that be illegal too?

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 06:57 AM

'ThoughtCrime' you mean, Barry?

There are those (no, I dont mean here on the 'Cat) who seem to regard that as being on the statute books already...

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 06:58 AM

Is this goverement actually capable of passing a law which is properly defined? If you're doing something like this, then you make the definitions exact, and leave little room for intepretaition, so as to make it consistent.

The intent behind this one isn't too bad at least, but the enforcement, like all internet crimes will be rather hard.

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 03:45 PM

The global elite creates the problem, then moves to "solve" it. In the U.S., the CIA controls the importation of cocaine. The same principals in the CIA then buy stocks in corporations that build prisons to incarcerate "drug offenders." The local police get a cut of the arrested person's property if the crime is at all "drug related." So, our prisons have filled up with so-called drug abusers.

Same with porno. The western powers (primarily Britain and Israel) produce the truly extreme hard-core porn. The purpose is two-fold. First to break down morals, and now, to start cracking down on it as a crime. And the definition of "hard core" will be changable, so all of you British perverts are going to prison. Pet pictures on the computer? Well that suggests bestiality. Off to prison. What the hell happened to your Magna Carta? That bitch Queen Charles isn't supposed to do things like this to you anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 03:51 PM

"Will the ban also include images of a man clad only in a loin-cloth being nailed to a wooden frame?"

Sweet merciful fuck, I HOPE so!

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 03:59 PM

Once again Guest I will take the time to tell you that the monarchy does not run the UK, and has nothing to do with what laws are passed.
Please get your facts right before you start flaming.
giok

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: greg stephens
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 04:26 PM

So, torturing someone to death(simulated) is OK, but knobbing a corpse(simulated) isnt. Difficulty to see any moral principle behind this kind of law.

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 04:45 PM

You have such a picturesque turn of phrase Greg ;-)
G.

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 04:53 PM

I tried that necrophilia once. It was dead boring.

Incest was only relatively so...

:D (tG)

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: skipy
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 05:16 PM

Giok, I object to that!
I often adjust my bra straps in public.
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: Grab
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 08:25 PM

Anal fisting can be very dangerous

I wish someone had warned me about that *before* the prostate exam... ;-) FWIW though, I find it difficult to believe that even that example would represent "violence that appears to be life threatening or likely to result in serious, disabling injury". Nor would tying up and whipping, unless the whipping was severe enough to result in masses of blood all over the place.

I agree with Giok that a kneejerk reaction is probably not ideal. However in this case they do seem to have set the barriers so far beyond what even serious bondage fans would consider as to be reasonably fair, and they've very categorically limited the scope of it.

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Sep 06 - 12:36 AM

"serious violence (meaning violence that appears to be life threatening or likely to result in serious, disabling injury)."

This third point is rather vague and can definitely be used indiscriminately. Perhaps they should start monitoring some of the 'serious violence' our kids watch everyday on t.v. for a start.

If they were more explicit about the kind of violence they were talking about, the law would be more acceptable.

I agree that its a slippery slope but it does need to be addressed by law. The law, however, should be very specific.

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: GUEST,Me
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 01:18 AM

I actually enjoy watching extreme porn. Doesn't mean I'm going to go out and rape someone, or have sex with a dog. I'm now in a situation whereby I could be locked up with child-porn fans because I like watching consenting adults performing over the internet. The government is now starting to think for us, telling me what I can and can't like. If other people don't like it then they don't have to watch it, but other people telling me I shouldn't like something because they don't is not only intrusive, but a contradiction to the liberties we claim to have. They say we live in a free country, but I'm not so sure. More and more people are losing choices, however wierd, different or queer it's not up to them. I am an adult and I can make my own decisions on what is right and what is wrong, what is acceptable and what isn't. Until there is a solid, serious link and threat connected to "Extreme porn", (and not just the single case with a weak link, and as pointed out earlier) then I simply don't agree with this vague (which means scope for further crack downs due to lack of clarity) and unliberal new law. A slippery slope it is indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: GUEST,Theox
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 09:12 AM

Quote:
Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker said the proposals had the support of various organisations, including women's and children's groups and police forces. In addition, a petition signed by around 50,000 people objecting to extreme internet sites promoting violence against women in the name of sexual gratification was presented to Parliament.

"The vast majority of people find these forms of violent and extreme pornography deeply abhorrent," he said.

   I guess that all of these people represent a majority. Now of course they must have all viewed this material in order to pass unbiased judgement so from that one could deduct a bit of hypocracy here. If the objecting masses would stop watching this perhaps a law would not be needed to prevent them from doing so. After censorship guidlines are passed into law what brave persons will view this stuff to police the act? Will they be rewarded for allowing the corruption of their souls in order to save ours? Perhaps it should be done by the miliary as they could then be properly honoured by the state. If this could be declared a "War On Porn" similar to the "War On Terror" the Victoria Cross would not be out of reach.

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 09:45 AM

You'll never eradicate porn of any type. The more you rant and rave, the more you campaign against it, the more you spend to get your message out only spreads it around more. And all you get in return is an erosion of your freedoms which you're too dull to know the source of.

It's even more useless than America's idiotic war against drugs.

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 01:15 PM

"intercourse or oral sex with an animal; sexual interference with a human corpse; or serious violence"

None of those are 'pornography'...

They are assault.

As big a difference as between rape and sex...

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 01:25 PM

Vernon Coaker sounds like a character out of Dickens, a friend of Mr Gradgrind's perhaps?
G.

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 06:46 PM

Interference with a corpse is not an assault because the corpse is dead and so is not a a person. It may be other crimes.

As to sex with an animal see DPP -v- Bourne (connection with an Alsation dog).

Serious violence may not be an assault if consented to, volenti non fit injuria. Consent is not a defence to certain charges, Jaggard, Lasky and others -v- UK before the ECHR.

Subject: RE: BS: UK ban on 'extreme porn'...
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 03:11 PM

Its not something I like myself, but as long as its consentual and no one (or animal) gets hurt - then its ok