Viewing of extreme porn to be banned..

[Stuart]

Graham (one of our ex-members) would love this, and, indeed, has already commented on the article below.

Basically, the government is to alter the laws on viewing pornography, to outlaw the viewing of necrophilia, bestiality or violence that is life threatening or likely to result in injury to the anus, breasts or genitalia.

While I personally don't enjoy things like that, there are people who enjoy sado-masochistic porn, and, as long as it's with the consent of both partipants, and only viewed by responsable adults, I don't see a problem with it. If it's involving non-consenting people then it's rape, and covered by it's own laws (although I don't know if viewing rape is actually illegal ATM).

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07..._criminalised/

[Mr Angry]

Graham raises some very interesting points in his coments.

[lauzjp]

where does that put Suicide Girls? Like Stuart said, people consent to all sorts of things, so how can you say 'that's illegal' - I mean, don't the police have enough work to do at the minute?

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by lauzjp

where does that put Suicide Girls? Like Stuart said, people consent to all sorts of things, so how can you say 'that's illegal' - I mean, don't the police have enough work to do at the minute?

The problem is, publishing images of the stuff I mentioned above is already illegal (covered by the Oscene Publications Act), but it's considerably easier to restrict what is published on a physical medium (such as print, or video) than it is to police the web.

[punky]

I'm gonna show my ignorance about politics here, but can someone explain at what stage the law is at?

This is what I mean (emphasis mine):

A new Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill has had its first reading in Parliament, which means that it has been published and awaits debate and committee scrutiny.

That says to me nothing's decided.

The possession of extreme pornography will be punishable by up to three years in jail, according to a statement from the Ministry of Justice.

That says to me it has been decided.

I've looked at the recent voting record for my MP, I can't see anything about this?

Is it confirmed that this will become law regardless? Is there an opportunity for the House Of Commons to throw it out? House of Lords?

[Damien]

They havent voted on it yet, so its not passed.

[papa smurf]

isnt it usualy mp's that get up to that kind of stuff ,there probably worried we might recognise some of em in the porn movies

[Maggy J]

Well maybe the Lords will come to the rescue...they do seem to be rather more intelligent and enlightened than their counterparts in the Commons.

[Damien]

At some point they might water down the bill when they find out how hard it will be to police. I mean, are they going to be chasing these people, getting IP addresses of ISPs, etc etc? What resources would that take? Not to mention the 'perception' issue on what is regarded as art and what isnt (slasher films anyone?). etc etc

But I think it will pass, no one really seems to care and I dont see MP's voting down a government bill on something no one is paying attention too.

[Ramrod]

I wish Graham was still posting here.....things were more fun back then...

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Graham raises some very interesting points in his coments.

Knowing what line of business he's in, I'm concerned at what I might see if I click on the website he linked to - backlash.co.uk

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I wish Graham was still posting here.....things were more fun back then...

I wouldn't oppose it, either

[Chris]

Graham is not, in any official sense, an ex-member of Cable Forum. He has not been banned from CF, he has not asked for his membership to be removed, and he is free to visit and post here if he wants to.

Now, is the topic here the fact that Graham posted a comment on an article at el reg, or the contents of the article itself?

[Anonymouse]

I see from the date of the last posting that this is effectively resurrecting an old topic. So be it.

As of May, the Bill has apparently become Law - in spite of a QC's statement that it contravenes EU legislation on free speech and human rights. It seems that the government thinks women today aren't capable of making informed choices re their sexual/lifestyle preferences, and that BDSM participation can't be consensual because women don't like being abused, don'tcha know.

The crucial point the legislation utterly fails to address is that such participation is consensual. There is a vast qualitative difference between a woman being assaulted on the street and a BDSM model being tied up and beaten in a studio, at home or wherever - the difference is in consent. The assault victim does not consent to such treatment, by definition. The aforementioned model is not being assaulted or abused, also by definition.

In the States, where the vast majority of this material is produced, all the participants must consent, in writing, or else it does not happen. Further, US legislation stipulates that not only must there be consent from all parties, but all parties must be 18 (or, in some states, 21, I think) or over - and that applies even to softcore porn, never mind BDSM - and they must prove it. The magazine/video/DVD/website must state that it is entirely in accordance with Regulation 2257, and the material must be viewed by a lawyer to ensure it complies with the legislation before it's published.

The reason for Regulation 2257, of course, is to prevent another Traci Lords case...though it should be noted that the FBI knew she was only 15 when she started her porn career. They could have intervened at any time, but were more interested in nailing the producers, and took no action until she turned 18. So the possibility that a legal minor was participating in nonconsensual sex acts (Ms. Lords has since claimed she was not willing), with the complicity of a US governmental body - for THREE YEARS - was apparently neither here nor there. Hmm.

Even the US body politic learned from Prohibition. If the police even attempt to enforce this legislation, it will have all kinds of negative effects, but in my opinion the worst one is that sooner or later, someone will die for real on film.

Think about it: once the legislation comes into effect (likely January '09), it will then be difficult if not impossible for BDSM producers to procure willing participants, because law-abiding citizens are by definition reluctant to break the law (supposedly anything which is currently legal under the Obscene Publications Act (1959) will still be legal. Yeah, right). But the (considerable) demand for BDSM will still exist. Therefore the supply will be maintained, illegal or not - that's basic human nature.

And therefore the very thing the legislation is supposed to prevent - nonconsensual violent porn - will occur. It won't be public on the Internet, of course, for the obvious reasons. So it will be in the interests of unscrupulous producers - if they don't exist yet, they soon will - to conceal their activities. And if you're going to have nonconsenting participants anyway - well, why stop at adults? Why not bring kids into it? Yes, I know that's a horrible idea - but people make child porn, too. It's not that big a step.

Then you'll get people, especially in organised crime, thinking: Why not have real injuries and mutilations? If the depictions of such are genuine (as opposed to the current situation in which they are realistic but definitely not real), surely that'll increase the value - and therefore the profits? They won't care that it's illegal, they're already breaking the law by doing this at all - might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb, and all that.

And from there, it's only a short step to murder for kicks, isn't it? And thus the snuff film, which does not exist, will exist. Anyone who thinks people won't buy depictions of genuine deaths are living in cloud-cuckoo land and know nothing about human nature. If such material becomes available, people will buy it. Believe. For a while, there was a roaring trade from the former Yugoslavia of rapes and murders committed by troops (I can't remember whether they were Serbian troops abusing Croatians or vice versa, but the material was shown on and captured from news broadcasts. And I think, though I'm not sure, that some of the people who were raped and murdered on film were children). So there you go.

At the moment, as far as the FBI and others have been able to establish, after mountains of research spanning decades, "snuff" films did not and do not exist - except for a 2-minute, extremely poor quality clip by a nutter who did in fact set out to make "The Great American Snuff Film", precisely because such films did not exist and he in his nuttiness thought they should. But if BDSM and its cousins are driven underground, sooner or later they will - and they won't be of the aforementioned poor quality, nor will they be made by nutters.

At least one correspondent to the Backlash site has stated that she (note the gender) does not intend to alter her lifestyle in any way in spite of this legislation, because she feels she does not need its "protection". She is correct. Under EU legislation she is entitled to make such a choice, but under UK legislation she will likely be imprisoned - and, quite possibly, placed on the Sex Offenders' Register.

With all due respect to Liz Longhurst's grief for her murdered daughter, BDSM etc. had nothing, nothing to do with it. That was merely a pathetic excuse on Graham Coutts' part. Since it's estimated that around 10% of the UK population are into BDSM, participating and/or viewing, if "violent porn made him do it", then there should by now have been thousands, if not millions, of such cases - and with almost as many male as female victims (yes, folks, women are beating/flaying/spanking men, too! Shock horror!). This would certainly be true in the States, but it isn't happening there, either. It isn't happening in Denmark, where such material is very popular. The odd thing is that even the government's own research disproved the fallacy, yet the law was passed anyway.

As has been stated many times - most often by women - rape/sexual assault has nothing to do with sex. It's irrelevant whether a rapist is into porn - that's an excuse, not a trigger. Anyone unstable enough to commit such an act might be set off by anything. Or nothing.

But the government disagrees, even though they know it's true, and so BDSM is now a sexcrime, by the Orwellian definition. As if the police don't have enough to do. 10% of more than 60,00,000 people (Census estimate, as of last year) is a lot. A lot lot. Where are all the prisons in which to put these deviants? Oh, we aren't building any at the moment...

You couldn't make it up. I no longer understand this country.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Anonymouse

Even the US body politic learned from Prohibition. If the police even attempt to enforce this legislation, it will have all kinds of negative effects, but in my opinion the worst one is that sooner or later, someone will die for real on film.

Think about it: once the legislation comes into effect (likely January '09), it will then be difficult if not impossible for BDSM producers to procure willing participants, because law-abiding citizens are by definition reluctant to break the law (supposedly anything which is currently legal under the Obscene Publications Act (1959) will still be legal. Yeah, right). But the (considerable) demand for BDSM will still exist. Therefore the supply will be maintained, illegal or not - that's basic human nature.

And therefore the very thing the legislation is supposed to prevent - nonconsensual violent porn - will occur. It won't be public on the Internet, of course, for the obvious reasons. So it will be in the interests of unscrupulous producers - if they don't exist yet, they soon will - to conceal their activities. And if you're going to have nonconsenting participants anyway - well, why stop at adults? Why not bring kids into it? Yes, I know that's a horrible idea - but people make child porn, too. It's not that big a step.

Then you'll get people, especially in organised crime, thinking: Why not have real injuries and mutilations? If the depictions of such are genuine (as opposed to the current situation in which they are realistic but definitely not real), surely that'll increase the value - and therefore the profits? They won't care that it's illegal, they're already breaking the law by doing this at all - might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb, and all that.

And from there, it's only a short step to murder for kicks, isn't it?

I'm sorry, but that's nonsense, coming from what was an initially promising post.

BDSMers (considerably more than 10% I think) want to see consentual BDSM, law or not. Otherwise they wouldn't be a BDSMer, they would be a psycopath/sociopath. There's a big difference between the sadism in BDSM and sadism in Fred West. To say that banning the distribution of legally-produced would mean that people will be content to kidnap and torture people, and that previous law-abiding BDSMers will pay to watch it is absolute nonsense.

Also I think you have misunderstood the statute. The offence is possessing and distributing "extreme" pornography. Not producing it. Consenting adults partipating in consentual BDSM activities is still as quasi-legal as has been for decades (under assault laws, not publication ones, such as the new Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008). The law was also brought in not to prevent consentual BDSM activities from occuring, but to prevent feeding psychopathic/sociopathic desires into something much worse. Something which arguably may have happened with Graham Coutts.

Don't get me wrong though - the new law is a disgrace. It shouldn't exist. Again with all due respect to the grieving Liz Longhurst, she doesn't understand the situation, let alone the problem. Undoubtly with a good heart and intentions but unfortunately through grief-filled anger and righteousness she belives she's pushing through a law that is needed and will prevent her tragedy from happening again. Unfortunately she's wrong on both accounts.

Ultimately this law will go the same way as the current assault laws regarding BDSM. Don't-ask-don't-tell. BDSM will be produced in countries where legal (and probably still here) and it will be traded. There won't be police officers or government goons checking computers or DVD players. There won't be police investigations in the same way that there currently are against child pornography. There isn't the resources for one thing. The law will enforced as an after-thought. If goods are seized under some other crime (benefit fraud, handling stolen goods, etc), then the charges will be tacked onto the primary charges. If there are no primary charges to answer, then i'd say if the BDSM material is obviously consentual then it won't be prosecuted or at worst treated via caution - certainly not the 2-3 years designated in the CJ&I 2008 act.