View Full Version : Viewing of extreme porn to be banned..
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/2007/07/03/extreme_smut_possession_criminalised/
Mr Angry
03-07-2007, 14:52
Graham raises some very interesting points in his coments.
where does that put Suicide Girls? :shrug: 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? :rolleyes:
where does that put Suicide Girls? :shrug: 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? :rolleyes:
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.
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?
They havent voted on it yet, so its not passed.
papa smurf
03-07-2007, 18:42
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;)
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.
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.
I wish Graham was still posting here.....things were more fun back then...:mis:
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 :erm: :D
homealone
03-07-2007, 23:21
I wish Graham was still posting here.....things were more fun back then...:mis:
I wouldn't oppose it, either
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
04-06-2008, 11:11
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 (http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/wv_janeclarke.html) 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 (http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/justif.html) 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. :erm:
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.
Anonymouse
04-06-2008, 16:36
I'm sorry, but that's nonsense, coming from what was an initially promising post.
Also I think you have misunderstood the statute. The offence is possessing and distributing "extreme" pornography. Not producing it.
The law as worded doesn't make the distinction as far as I can see, though. Most of the objections are based on the fact that it isn't specific enough.
Something which arguably may have happened with Graham Coutts.
It has been argued - and not just in his case. The evidence for this just isn't there, but porn and/or the Internet gets blamed for that sort of thing all the time anyway.
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.
Damn right. But my point is that the government doesn't understand it either.
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.
With DPI about to be introduced unless Alexander et al can somehow stop it? Wanna bet?
There won't be police investigations in the same way that there currently are against child pornography.
They can't even get that right. In one case some years back, a man bought legal Asian porn, i.e. all the models were adults however young they appeared to be, and was ruined when Customs seized the tape - his reputation went down the toilet and his business went bankrupt. This in addition to his teenage daughter being questioned, without a female officer present, in her nightclothes, about matters of which she knew nothing. Look up Operation Ore and you'll see what I mean.
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.
Define "obviously", please. Some "extreme" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) porn is intended to appear nonconsensual, because that's part of the fantasy...but given the usual kneejerk-type reactions of our government, will the police or courts be able to make the distinction? Such a judgement calls for common sense, which is a contradiction in terms these days.
I wish I shared your confidence in the powers that be. But given the example of the Phorm controversy, it's clear they're quite capable of misinterpreting or even ignoring their own laws when it suits them. You might be right; I hope like hell you are, or people will suffer, especially if such porn is driven underground. Prohibition was intended to ban only strong liquor, but too many states took that to mean all liquor; my concern is that the same thing will happen with this. Hopefully whoever gets hit first will be able to afford a lengthy and expensive court case, in which event the EU will likely become involved.
I hope so. I'm only an occasional dabbler (viewing, not participating) - mainly because of Sasha Grey, who is surely one of the most gorgeous porn stars on the planet. :) I'm horrified even at the idea that the mere possession of photos might put me on the Sex Offenders' Register. That is straight out of 1984. And I certainly can't afford a court case!
Oh well. We'll have to see what happens in the New Year...
The law as worded doesn't make the distinction as far as I can see, though. Most of the objections are based on the fact that it isn't specific enough.
Eh? (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080004_en_9#pt5)
... 63 Possession of extreme pornographic images ...
(1) It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an extreme pornographic image.
(2) An “extreme pornographic image” is an image which is both—
(a) pornographic, and
(b) an extreme image.
etc... Quite clearly its targetting posession of images, not participating in consentual BDSM activities
It has been argued - and not just in his case. The evidence for this just isn't there, but porn and/or the Internet gets blamed for that sort of thing all the time anyway.
I know.
Damn right. But my point is that the government doesn't understand it either.
Again. I know. I should have put the word problem in inverted commas (i.e. as sarcasm)
With DPI about to be introduced unless Alexander et al can somehow stop it? Wanna bet?
I assume its a rhetorical question. But if not, i'll take a sportsmen's bet on it. Even with Deep Packet Inspection, there is just not the resources for it.
They can't even get that right. In one case some years back, a man bought legal Asian porn, i.e. all the models were adults however young they appeared to be, and was ruined when Customs seized the tape - his reputation went down the toilet and his business went bankrupt. This in addition to his teenage daughter being questioned, without a female officer present, in her nightclothes, about matters of which she knew nothing. Look up Operation Ore and you'll see what I mean.
I believe the argument is moot because there I believe there won't be an investigation in the first place. We are getting side-tracked from the issue, but for all the mistakes of Ore, it did do a lot of good. A better example from your point of view would be Operation Spanner. However, sexuality has come a long way since.
Define "obviously", please.
I meant in the context of overtly. I.e. readily recognisable as consentual/ commercial material.
I wish I shared your confidence in the powers that be.
One thing I am confident in is that normally consentual BDSM practictioners/viewer won't suddenly resort to kidnap and torture. Without being offensive, its that kind of sensationalism that got us this law in the first place.
I hope so. I'm only an occasional dabbler (viewing, not participating) - mainly because of Sasha Grey, who is surely one of the most gorgeous porn stars on the planet. :) I'm horrified even at the idea that the mere possession of photos might put me on the Sex Offenders' Register. That is straight out of 1984. And I certainly can't afford a court case!
Oh well. We'll have to see what happens in the New Year...
I really wouldn't let it keep you up at night. If it reassures you any, only prison sentences of 2 years or more (which is the maximum in some cases) will lead you to being put on sex offenders register. :p:
You are preaching to the converted here. I am against this law, but I just don't share your predictions of it.
BTW, if anyone wants to know how absurd this law is against human value - consentual BDSM is now classed as a worse offence than beastiality and necrophilia. Nice. :rolleyes:
Tezcatlipoca
05-06-2008, 00:55
Eh? (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080004_en_9#pt5)
etc... Quite clearly its targetting posession of images, not participating in consentual BDSM activities
I think Anonymouse was originally saying it would also target those who produce "extreme porn", as well as "possess".
I don't think he was saying that participation in consensual BDSM activities were going to become targetted - only that participating in them during the production of "extreme" porn would be targetted.
They can't even get that right. In one case some years back, a man bought legal Asian porn, i.e. all the models were adults however young they appeared to be, and was ruined when Customs seized the tape - his reputation went down the toilet and his business went bankrupt.
It's not just Asian girls, there's a white American actress of whom images have, unfortunately, been the cause of wrongful arrests [several in the US, 2 in the UK, IIRC], who didn't even start her career until she was 20.
Sasha Grey, who is surely one of the most gorgeous porn stars on the planet.
True, & thankfully she hasn't gotten around to mutilating herself yet [tats, piercings, or boob job].
Anonymouse
05-06-2008, 06:59
Going OT, but hey, I'm the original OP :D - Sasha is practically the leader/founder (depending on who you ask) of the so-called "alt porn" movement, i.e. an attempt to get away from all the cliches and do some real porn - more realistic sex, films with an actual plot, real women ("real" as in "don't have boobs bigger than their heads"), porn that works for women as well as men, etc. Works for me!
"Your breasts feel funny..."
"That's 'cause they're real."
- L.A. Story
Getting back on track (with difficulty, having brought Sasha up again...ooh, those curves, those eyes, that wicked smile...!): it's the definition of "extreme" which has people worried, and rightly so. To some, it means anything that isn't vanilla sex; to others, it might mean anything short of actual physical harm. It's too subjective. And I'm honestly not convinced this issue won't be pursued; this government doesn't seem to approve of sex in general and "weird" sex in particular. True, it'll be a lot harder to enforce now that there's no real need for physical media such as magazines, videos and/or DVDs, but that doesn't mean they won't try.
As I said, we'll see.
it's the definition of "extreme" which has people worried, and rightly so. To some, it means anything that isn't vanilla sex; to others, it might mean anything short of actual physical harm. It's too subjective. And I'm honestly not convinced this issue won't be pursued; this government doesn't seem to approve of sex in general and "weird" sex in particular. True, it'll be a lot harder to enforce now that there's no real need for physical media such as magazines, videos and/or DVDs, but that doesn't mean they won't try.
As I said, we'll see.
:erm: Am I the only 1 who bothered to read a bit further down the page that Punky linked to?
(6) An “extreme image” is an image which—
(a) falls within subsection (7), and
(b) is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.
(7) An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following—
(a) an act which threatens a person’s life,
(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
(c) an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or
(d) a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),
and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.
Doesn't seem as vague as everybody's making out to me.
I think Anonymouse was originally saying it would also target those who produce "extreme porn", as well as "possess".
Well that goes without saying that you can't produce an image without possessing it. Its impossible. So my arguments were to both effectively.
Its not really the policing of the law that made me post a response, it was Anonymouse's claim that the law will increase non-consensual violence. I don't believe it will, I believe it will remain within the usual trend.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.