Possession of violent porn to be criminal offence in UK

[T_i_B]

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1861301,00.html

People who download violent pornography could face three years in jail under new legislation proposed by the government in the wake of the death of Brighton school teacher Jane Longhurst, who was killed by a man addicted to extreme porn.

Ms Longhurst's mother, Liz, has led a three-year campaign, backed by a petition signed by 50,000 people and many MPs, to ban such images.

Today the government unveiled proposals to create a new offence of possessing pornographic images of extreme sexual or life-threatening violence, with a new maximum sentence of three years for possession, or five for distribution of such material.

The new offences - which could be included in a bill in this autumn's Queen's speech - would effectively update the 1959 Obscene Publications Act to take into account the ease with which such images can be distributed over the internet. The proposed offences, which also cover necrophilia and bestiality, come after a year-long consultation by the government.

[Jed Dilligan]

1. Oh yeah,

That's really going to stop the next sadist to come along from killing anyone.

[Der Blaue Engel]

2. I wonder what their definition of "extreme" is?

I'm not sure I like the sound of this. It looks like it will crimininalize BDSM.

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. They know it when they see it

:eyes:

[iverglas]

5. Well, you could try reading the article linked.

The definition coming out of the consultation applies strictly to pornographic images which are also "acts that appear to be life threatening or are likely to result in serious, disabling injury".

That's kind of exactly what yer BDSM material isn't, isn't it?

Indeed, it's a difficult line to draw:

The 31-year old Ms Longhurst was killed in 2003 by musician Graham Coutts, who the court heard was obsessed with internet sites of women being strangled.

Ms Longhurst had been strangled with a pair of tights and her body kept in storage for several weeks before it was found.

Perhaps the pictures he was looking at were artistic representations of consensual activities.

The fact that lines are hard to draw doesn't always mean that they cannot or should not be drawn, or that sometimes a society's interest in its members' safety should not override individuals' interest in amusing themselves.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[confusa]

6. Extreme?

This is my thought as well. A majority of fetish related work will likely fall into this category I would think.

[iverglas]

9. geez

I post the answer to the question, and still it's being asked ...

Does "a majority of fetish related work" likely fall into the category of "acts that appear to be life threatening or are likely to result in serious, disabling injury"?

Hmm. If so, there may indeed be a problem.

[Lance_Boyle]

10. There is a big problem with the term 'appears to be.'

I once saw a magician appear to catch a bullet with his teeth. On any given night of the week I can turn on any given CSI variant and witness what appear to be deadly crimes.

Isn't the line between "porn film" and "snuff film" *precisely* the "appears to be" bit?

[iverglas]

14. not by me

Isn't the line between "porn film" and "snuff film" *precisely* the "appears to be" bit?

I've seen a heck of a lot of porn flicks that had nothing at all to do with violence, let alone acts that appear to be life threatening or are likely to result in serious, disabling injury. Amazing but true, I guess.

I gotta be frank here. If somebody actually gets kicks out of seeing women abused to the point that it appears to be life threatening or an act that is likely to result in serious, disabling injury, I don't really give a crap if his access to such material is denied. And I think that any society that chooses to deny access to such material is doing what is justified and reasonable to protect me and my fellow women from the quite foreseeable effects of a social climate that tolerates such depictions of us.

And I would be quite confident that there's a whole lot of stuff that falls quite clearly below that line that yer average run-of-the-mill fetishist is going to be quite content with.

[arewenotdemo]

22. I completely agree

[On the Road]

23. The Problem Is

that whether it's clear to you and me is not the point. The question is how any given English judge will view it in any given case ten or twenty years from now. The interpretation of laws often strays well beyond how any reasonable person would interpret the language of the statute when it was passed.

There is enough ambiguity in the word "depicts" to cause serious doubt about how the law judges pictures of BDSM, which depicts an enactment or imitation of violent practices. I would think that BDSM does not depict, it depicts a depiction -- but that is a nuance easily lost on a jury. While I don't particularly like BDSM, it does have a lot of nonviolent admirers, including many women.

The law also mentions pictures of bestiality. I don't know what this has to do with violence. It makes me wonder whether the law is being used as a cover to prohibit things that are distasteful, but do not influence crime. I mean, who is going to defend bestiality?

I'm not against outlawing something that causes crime. I don't even mind a ban on snuff films or depictions or torture, which for all I know may not instigate crime at all. I just think the law has to be limited and clear.

[iverglas]

28. the question

The Problem Is
that whether it's clear to you and me is not the point. The question is how any given English judge will view it in any given case ten or twenty years from now. The interpretation of laws often strays well beyond how any reasonable person would interpret the language of the statute when it was passed.

Well, then, hey. Why make any laws at all?

Good lord. That "argument" could be applied to just about any law you might hit if you aimed a dart at the statute books.

The damned thing is that it just doesn't seem to happen the way you fear all that often. (And I really don't care about any contemporary horror story anyone might dredge up from the news-of-the-US this week; we aren't talking about the US.)

There is enough ambiguity in the word "depicts" to cause serious doubt about how the law judges pictures of BDSM, which depicts an enactment or imitation of violent practices. I would think that BDSM does not depict, it depicts a depiction -- but that is a nuance easily lost on a jury.

Actually, I'd say it's a nonsense, not a nuance.

No, no, too facile. Better I should direct you to the horse's mouth -- the one I made the effort to go and read all of, and have posted excerpts of in this thread. How eager are you to defend someone's desire to have access to "material (that) contains sexualised images of women hanging by their necks from meat hooks, some with plastic bags over their heads"?

Yeah, that would be a depiction of a depiction. One would hope. Hard to tell, unfortunately.

The law also mentions pictures of bestiality. I don't know what this has to do with violence. It makes me wonder whether the law is being used as a cover to prohibit things that are distasteful, but do not influence crime. I mean, who is going to defend bestiality?

Bestiality is a criminal offence most places I know. The modern rationale is that the prohibition relates to abuse of animals. (I once had a subject, while on placement in a forensic psychiatric ward, who was arrested in his dorm room with a sheep. Everyone was pretty clear on what he was doing with the sheep, but because of the conditions it had been kept in, he was charged with cruelty to an animal.) Animals can no more consent to sexual contact with human beings than they can consent to being beaten or shocked to make them perform tricks. Who is going to defend bestiality? Who could?

I'm not against outlawing something that causes crime. I don't even mind a ban on snuff films or depictions or torture, which for all I know may not instigate crime at all. I just think the law has to be limited and clear.

Then do read the gov doc that is the background to the proposal, and we'll just have to wait and see what legislation is actually brought forward to see whether it meets the test.

Recalling again, of course, that it is already illegal in the UK to publish the images in question, and that what the legislation is to do is make it illegal to access the images on the internet.

[On the Road]

87. Actually, In My Experience

About a third of all laws include loopholes that make them largely ineffective. Another third, via legal creativity, become being applied in ways that the author of the bill never had in mind. The remaining third include "Easter Eggs" the author of the bill fully intended but concealed.

The solution is not, as you put it, not making any laws at all. It is not "waiting and seeing" until bad law establishes itself. It is in writing and passing the original law so that it is clear what is allowed and what is prohibited and thinking though the consequences. This is the kind of thing lawyers are good at and legislators are paid to do.

The concern was raised on this thread that pictures of innocuous BDSM would be made illegal, and from the excerpt of the language that seemed to be a possibility, either intentionally or unintentionally.

The other question, on bestiality, is not whether it's inhumane. The point is that including it belies the purpose of the law, which is allegedly to prevent violence against women. It is a red flag, like the provisions in the Patriot Act which have nothing to do with national security.

You mentioned that the proposed law merely extends prohibitions on possessing printed matter to viewing sites on the internet. If that's all it does, then there are precedents established and all it does is close a loophole in existing law. In that case, it may be a good law and have no unwanted side effects. It also explains why bestiality would be included.

The issue brought up on this is thread is not about women on meathooks, it's about Mistress Tanya and her Crimson Whip. It's about people who will promote bad legislation out of disgust or alarm. I don't know the answer, and I'm not interested enough to fully research it. But the concern is a valid one -- all proposed legislation should go through a vetting process like this.

[geek tragedy]

26. Amen. Violent porn is the kind of stuff

that does lead to violence against women.

Playboy and vanilla porn? Not so much.

[hoboken123]

68. All facts to the contrary?

Japan is home to arguably the most violent porn in the world. 1998 stats:

Rape per 100,000.
1. United States 34.20
2. England and Wales 14.69
3. France 13.38
Taiwan 8.82
South Korea 4.38
Spain 3.23
Japan 1.48




Seems so Dworkin...

[iverglas]

71. or all nuance ignored?

Seems so Dworkin...

Seems so ... dismissive.



I found this one quite interesting.

http://critcrim.org/newsletter2/13_1_files/Page331.htm
(my emphasis, of course; lengthy article of which this is a short excerpt, the final paragraphs)

... We favor an interpretation that suggests that rape supportive attitudes and patriarchal attitudes are, to some extent, measuring the same latent construct that we label misogyny. Misogynistic men are more likely to view pornography. This hypothesis is consistent with the observation that much, perhaps most, pornography contains depictions and themes consistent with misogynistic attitudes (Cowan and Dunn 1994).

A critical approach requires us to question this type of causal modeling, however, and critically examine the nature of these attitude variables and what they represent. Connell’s (1987) concept of hegemonic masculinity provides a useful device for making theoretical sense of these data. We suggest that the correlations between these attitudinal and behavioral variables reflect a cluster of social practices through which some men express and reproduce the roles and identities Connell terms hegemonic masculinity. Readiness to commit violence, for example, is one way to demonstrate one’s masculinity (Kimmel 1999). Objectification and domination of women is another, hence the attraction of pornography, which in turn reproduces those views of women and sexuality.

The data set analyzed here includes other variables that appear to be correlated with pornography and rape support, and also lend themselves to the hegemonic masculinity hypothesis. For example, homophobia and excessive alcohol consumption are associated with the variables reported here. We intend to explore these relationships more fully in subsequent analyses.

In summary, these preliminary analyses do not support the hypothesis that pornography causes attitudes supportive of and perhaps conducive to rape. However, it appears that at least some pornography viewing is part of a cluster of attitudes and social practices that reproduce hegemonic masculinity via misogyny and direct or media produced sexual exploitation. In other words, rather than pornography causing men to want to rape or to believe that rape is acceptable, it appears that men who are committed to patriarchal ideology tend to be more accepting of rape and also tend to watch more pornography. Our rejection of the “pornography causes sexual violence” hypothesis is thus not an endorsement of pornography, nor is it a setback to the feminist critique of pornography. For example, the present study does not address the assertion that pornography per se is exploitative and harmful, not just because it causes violence (see, e.g., Dines, Jensen and Russo 1998).

... Such a multi-dimensional circle, isn't it?

[hoboken123]

75. What does that dispute?

Excpept the original poster's 'violent porn=bad things happen'?

[Kailassa]

82. The article you quote concludes correlation, not causation.

"In summary, these preliminary analyses do not support the hypothesis that
pornography causes attitudes supportive of and perhaps conducive to rape."

Misogynistic men are more likely to rape. Misogynistic men are more likely
to watch violent pornography. However there is no evidence that
pornography causes rape.

Indeed, the correlation between pornagraphy and rape statistics in
various countries could reasonably be thought to suggest the opposite view.
It is possible that men watch violent porn instead of committing
against women.

And for this you are so eager to trade away even more freedom .....

[madmusic]

11. Are you saying...

The models in those depictions suffered "serious, disabling" injuries? If not, how could it be "likely" that they would "result in serious, disabling injury"?

Another effort to criminalize everyone for the crime of one, even though the one was convicted and sentenced already. But that ain't good enough for the punitive society.

[iverglas]

16. I dunno ...

... what do you think I'm saying?

Here's what the language used to describe what the legislation is going to proscribe was:

pornographic images which are also "acts that appear to be life threatening or are likely to result in serious, disabling injury"?

Just by the bye, everyone seems to be missing this large point:

"This sort of material is not just offensive it contains images of sexual acts and sexual violence that are already illegal to publish or distribute in the UK.

"Such material has no place in our society but the advent of the internet has meant that this material is more easily available and means existing controls are being bypassed - we must move to tackle this."

The language quoted in the article doesn't seem to be used in any UK legislation, so this is all a little confusing.

Probably not so confusing as you seem to think, though, I'd say.

The models in those depictions suffered "serious, disabling" injuries? If not, how could it be "likely" that they would "result in serious, disabling injury"?

To start with, images are not acts; they depict acts. I kinda think that whoever put together (or possibly misquoted) that bit was intending to convey this meaning:

pornographic images which also depict (not "are") "acts that appear to be life threatening or to be (not "are") likely to result in serious, disabling injury

But even as it stands, the act depicted can be "likely to result in serious, disabling injury" regardless of whether anyone in particular actually suffered such injury. The movies depict acts likely to result in serious, disabling injury all the time -- firing a pistol at someone's head at point-blank range, e.g. -- even though no actors are harmed in the making of them.

People who conduct consultations and write, enforce and interpret laws aren't always dunderheads.

Another effort to criminalize everyone for the crime of one ...

"Everyone"??? I've never met a person in my life who got his jollies from looking at pictures of women being raped and strangled. Not a one. Hope never to, and think I stand a fairly good chance of succeeding.

Well, maybe not counting the man who strangled and raped me. Can't speak for him.

... even though the one was convicted and sentenced already. But that ain't good enough for the punitive society.

No, you seem to be confused. The "punitive society" -- the US being the prime example -- does nothing to prevent harm, and then looks for someone to blame when it happens.

There are other places that put more emphasis on preventing harm, apparently because we'd rather, for example, that women not be raped and strangled than that we have someone to punish for it.

Yup, it's a balancing act. But I'll cast my vote for measures for which a case can be made that they will make it less likely that someone else will be raped and strangled when the alternative is scrupulous non-interference in the right of every sadistic monster in my society to spend his days drooling over pictures of it happening.

[madmusic]

44. Thanks for your comments. I understand your point better.

There's a trick to reading politics...

For example, ""This sort of material is not just offensive it contains images of sexual acts and sexual violence that are already illegal to publish or distribute in the UK.

Does that mean EVERYTHING they want to outlaw already contains those illegal images? Why not just enforce the laws they have, then? What the line really means is that a SUBSET of that "material" is already illegal. This law will make the rest of it illegal. Now, I haven't read the current law or the proposed law, but will bet 100 to 1 this will found to be true. It's a manipulative line.

My point is, if no one is actually hurt during the filming of these scenes, then they aren't likely to be hurt, so doing what is depicted will not be "likely to result in serious, disabling injury" during the filming.

Someone can watch anything and twist it up. Even the art and movies that will still be legal. There are plenty of people who think all violence and all sex should be banned from movies. Why wouldn't they be right too? What about horror movies?

I feel sorry for this mother and her pain is real, but the one who did it is the one to blame. Not porn. BTW, the women who star in these do so consensually. That doesn't mean I agree (or disagree) with their choice, but it IS their choice. They evidently do not feel threatened.

Trying to legislate morality will never teach empathy. More likely the opposite: resentment.

[iverglas]

45. alrighty now

Does that mean EVERYTHING they want to outlaw already contains those illegal images? Why not just enforce the laws they have, then?

The laws now in existence -- the Obscene Materials Act, 1959, as amended -- deal only with publication and sale, as I'm understanding this. At the time that Act was enacted, and until recently, it was regarded as sufficiently effective to control the supply in order to control access.

The problem now is that with the Internet, there is no way for any state to control access within its territory. Even if the UK could successfully argue that someone who transmits material into the UK via the Internet is publishing/selling in the UK, there just isn't any hope of actually controlling access.

So the proposed-to-be-proposed legislation will make it illegal to access, via the Internet, material that already may not be published or sold in the UK.

What the line really means is that a SUBSET of that "material" is already illegal. This law will make the rest of it illegal.

No. As I read it, the intent is to do no such thing. If you would point to what you are reading as saying otherwise, I will see whether I am missing something.

Now, I haven't read the current law or the proposed law, ...

Well, there ya go. Nothing like a little baseless speculation as substitute for facts.

I linked to the current law in one of my posts, 21 probably, but it seems that the common law that has been built up around it is more useful in understanding "the law" than the legislation itself. This is commonly the case in speech issues. The consultation paper I quoted in post 21 does explain the situation rather fully. I would hope that by now you have at least read the excerpts I provided.

... but will bet 100 to 1 this will found to be true.

Well, feel free to present the evidence.

My point is, if no one is actually hurt during the filming of these scenes, then they aren't likely to be hurt, so doing what is depicted will not be "likely to result in serious, disabling injury" during the filming.

And what I've tried to explain is that this is entirely irrelevant. The prohibition is on the depiction of acts. I know the concept is somewhat abstract, but it isn't really incomprehensible. The acts in question are already illegal -- they consultation paper identifies the kinds of serious assaults that they are characterized as in UK law. Whether they are actually occurring is not the issue. The depiction of them is regarded as sufficiently socially undesirable to proscribe it.

Regarded not by the government alone -- by a very large proportion of the British public. I realize that the concept is foreign to many in the US, but the public in many countries does actually expect, and demand, that its governments actually do stuff.

Someone can watch anything and twist it up. Even the art and movies that will still be legal.

Uh ... I guess. "Twist it up"? You mean I can watch Teletubbies and get a sexual thrill from it? That's as may be. Maybe I could watch paint dry and get a sexual thrill from it. I'm having a hard time here trying to understand why anyone would not see the difference between that and gazing at full colour pictures of women hung by meathooks through their necks, or moving pictures of women being sexually brutalized. Are actual crimes being committed? No one can possibily know. Are the acts being committed crimes? Yes. Think of it this way: insanity may be a defence to a charge of murder, but when you are killed by an insane person you have still been murdered. The act of sexual brutalization is a crime, even if the person committing it has a defence of consent -- but in any event, actually, the law does not recognize consent to serious assaults.

There are plenty of people who think all violence and all sex should be banned from movies. Why wouldn't they be right too?

Maybe they are right. Who is right and who is wrong, apart from being a completely unknowable answer to a meaningless question anyhow, is not the issue. Whether a society has justification for prohibiting certain conduct is the issue.

I feel sorry for this mother and her pain is real, but the one who did it is the one to blame.

Yeah, there we go. The Jerry Springer show is on. As long as we can find someone to BLAME for something, the world is as it should be.

Not porn.

Nobody is blaming porn. In our parts of the world, we stopped blaming inanimate objects for events several hundred years ago. No more trials of pigs for homicide these days, even.

If we could shift our gaze just a little from the wayward puritanism of the USofA, we might recognize that no one is attempting to BLAME anyone or anything for anything done by anyone. What the public is seeking, and the government is attempting to deliver, is a way of PREVENTING HARM from occurring.

BTW, the women who star in these do so consensually. That doesn't mean I agree (or disagree) with their choice, but it IS their choice. They evidently do not feel threatened.

I'm sorry, but you really don't know what you're talking about, do you?

Nonetheless, this is a red herring. Once again -- it is not, or not only or primarily, the immediate victims of the act who are the objects of concern. It is the effect on other individuals and society as a whole of the accessing of the images of what being done that is the problem being addressed.

Trying to legislate morality will never teach empathy.

Two responses to that:

- let's repeal every criminal law on the books, because all they're trying to do is legislate morality, and you can't do that, so this whole criminal justice thang is just a waste of time

- people are entitled to protection from other people who do not have and probably never will have empathy, while waiting for that shining day when empathy will be learned and practised by all

Now, if anyone were trying to legislate morality in the sense in which you are using the world, you just might have had a point. No one is.

More likely the opposite: resentment.

And I know I'd be about as worried about the resentment felt by the pieces of filth scum who get their jollies watching women being tortured as I would be about ... well, I can't really think of anything I'd be that unworried about, I'm afraid.

[truebrit71]

27. If it depicts the maiming, wounding or murder of one of the parties...

..it is illegal.

If you're tied up and being spanked with a wet noodle it isn't illegal....

[warrens]

Extreme=topless?

It's all in the eye of the beholder. How about if it's faked? This is such a meaningless term, it's just unenforceable.

Outlawing porn with children is an easy, cut and dried definition. Someone is or isn't of a certain age. "Extreme" is being used to describe frozen pies on TV, for crying out loud.

[iverglas]

37. jesus fucking christ on a fucking popsicle stick

Extreme=topless?

Why would you ask such a bizarre question????

"Extreme" = what you can easily read for yourself if you take two minutes to ask google to find it for you -- LIKE I DID. I then summarized it for the less industrious, in post 21.

(I'd thought that a post with the word "facts" in the header might catch the odd eye. Sadly, I seem to have been deluded.)

Let me be even more brief; from the consultation paper submitted for public comment before the current proposals were made:

... It is not possible in a public document like this to give a great deal of graphic detail or description of the material in question. However, we can say that there are hundreds of internet sites offering a wide range of material featuring the torture of (mostly female) victims who are tied to some kind of apparatus or restrained in other ways and stabbed with knives, hooks and other implements.

These acts are usually presented in a sexually explicit context so that it is clear that the purpose of the material is sexual gratification, although the violence itself may not be sexual. For example, some material contains sexualised images of women hanging by their necks from meat hooks, some with plastic bags over their heads. There is also extensive availability of sites featuring violent rape scenes. Within this category there is a growing trend for scenes purporting to be filmed in real time which heightens their impact. Depictions of necrophilia and bestiality are also widely available. ...

Now, DOES THAT LOOK LIKE "TOPLESS" TO YOU?

This is such a meaningless term, it's just unenforceable.

"Meaningless" to someone who hasn't lifted a finger to find out what it actually means. So let me help you again:

There is now also considerable public concern about the availability of extreme pornographic material featuring adults. We are not referring to what might be called mainstream pornography or to the kind of material classified for sale in licensed sex shops by the British Board of Film Classification. By "extreme" we mean material which is violent and abusive, featuring activities which are illegal in themselves and where, in some cases, participants may have been the victims of criminal offences. We believe most people would find this material abhorrent. It is already illegal to publish it under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and in Scotland, the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, but the global nature of the Internet means that it is very difficult to prosecute those responsible who are mostly operating from abroad.

Outlawing porn with children is an easy, cut and dried definition. Someone is or isn't of a certain age.

Actually, I think you'll find that child pornography provisions generally relate to images of someone depicted as being of a certain age. Here's an example:

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec163.1.html

163.1 (1) In this section, “child pornography” means

(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,

(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, ...

and in fact vicey versey:

(5) It is not a defence to a charge under subsection (2) in respect of a visual representation that the accused believed that a person shown in the representation that is alleged to constitute child pornography was or was depicted as being eighteen years of age or more unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of that person and took all reasonable steps to ensure that, where the person was eighteen years of age or more, the representation did not depict that person as being under the age of eighteen years.

Sort of an analogy -- maybe the women hung from meathooks hadn't really had meathooks shoved through their necks, but they were depicted as having had meathooks shoved through their necks, and it is the depiction of the act that is proscribed.

I find it hard to believe that any adult today does not know that these materials are being published, and I cannot understand why anyone who knows that would attempt to trivialize attempts to address the problem by suggesting that what is really being done is to criminalize depictions of bare breasts.

Of course, I'm sure that there are those who do not regard the publication of depictions of women hung from meathooks as a problem. I prefer not to have to acknowledge their existence, myself.

I often wonder whether those people would regard the publication and sale of photographs of black men hanging by ropes around their neck from trees for the delectation of white folk who get their kicks from thinking about the lynching of men of colour to be somewhat problematic, of course.

[bumponalog]

39. Is Chris Angel's "Mindfreak" television show going to be outlawed?

He's been suspended from hooks on that show. And I wonder if the UK will block access to this wiki on suspension:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_(body_modification)

Seems an awful lot like what you would have banned under this proposal.

[iverglas]

40. hee haw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_%28body_modification%29

This article or section seems not to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia entry.

... If carried out properly, your body will be studied to decide the proper placement, number, and size of metal hooks which are pierced into the skin to lift the person off the ground. Multiple hooks are usually located around the shoulders, upper arm, and back, as well as around the knees (this depends on the position in which you want to be suspended). Finding the proper hook placement and number involves a great deal of skill in mathematics and an acute understanding of human anatomy and physiology, and well as the durability of the individual's dermis. If the number of hooks are too few, the suspended individual's dermis will be unable to withstand the body's weight and will rip. Also, the amount of weight each hook supports must be distributed evenly throughout the entire body - any imbalance risks injury.

Now, you're saying that this "sounds an awful lot" like:

sexualised images of women hanging by their necks from meat hooks, some with plastic bags over their heads

? I think you must be using a special audio filter.

You wonder whether the UK will block access to the description quoted above.

Why? Is it pornographic material containing a realistic depiction of:

i) intercourse or oral sex with an animal;
ii) sexual interference with a human corpse;
iii) serious violence in a sexual context;
iv) serious sexual violence.

? If you think so, you must be seeing it through special lenses.

Is Chris Angel's "Mindfreak" television show going to be outlawed?
He's been suspended from hooks on that show.

Here I will politely inform you that your attitude toward the sexual brutalization of women stinks.

Seems an awful lot like what you would have banned under this proposal.

Quite apart from your complete misrepresentation of something that is nothing like what would be banned under the proposal, *I* would not have *anything* banned, since *I* do not live in the UK and have no influence on UK public policy.

I just happen to be annoyed by people shooting off their mouths about things they haven't got the first clue about, and in the process exhibiting their total lack of concern for sexually brutalized women.

But I'm a public-spirited sort, and always willing to help them clear up their misconceptions in the hope that their better selves will then be able to prevail.

It is possible to have sincere, honest disagreements, in good faith, about public policy issues such as these. Trivializing or failing to recognize the problem and/or misrepresenting the proposals for addressing it do not qualify.

[frylock]

4. ed gein used to look at violent porn on the internets..

Ted Bundy, too. :eyes:

[AngryAmish]

7. the porn/sex crime link is very tenuous

There has never been more porn than today and the number of rapes has nose-dived (even with more reporting).

[dipsydoodle]

8. I notice they've missed out

anything to do with Roy Orbison and cling film. One of my friends in Torono used to use that subject for wind ups whereby he got his friends worldwide to target other friends with letters sent by snailmail from all over the world on that subject. Search if you want to a have a laugh of sorts on a strange fetish subject.

As the main topic will only affect the UK anyone outside of the UK into necrophylia will still be ok I guess.

[dipsydoodle]

12. I guess they'll use this Act

to help control Happy Slapping too.
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_slapping

[sweetheart]

13. military porn?

So, will posing naked on a tank be a criminal offense? Will holding a gun when photographed become
a criminal offense. Geez, the blairites have gone batshit bonkers and can't think of anything
useful to do except legislate when they should rather simply educate and let the public broadcaster
get in to x rated broadcasting to set a public standard for sexual behavour that is not deviant,
involving guns, whips, dominance, and all, for all its turn on, the bill is gonna make it very hard
to distinguish 'kinky' from 'life-threatening violence'. But when i see someone in a photo with
a big gun, i can't but think 'life threatening violence'.
http://www.gungirls.com/

The morons talk about freedom and liberty, but in practice, they are not for those things, but
rigid authoritarianism, control freakery, conformism and snobbery about what is and is not sexually stimulating.
Whell, then, what is.? A bunch of fat parliamentarians with balking white hair acting like
assholes and making wars? NOT... The difficulty in enforcing such a concept leaves open
a breathtaking dimension for burning books... oh dear.

[iverglas]

18. why do you ask?

So, will posing naked on a tank be a criminal offense? Will holding a gun when photographed become a criminal offense.

Will those result in pornographic images that are also "acts that appear to be life threatening or are likely to result in serious, disabling injury"?

Is sitting on a tank life threatening? Is holding a gun likely to result in serious, disabling injury?

What contribution to a discussion is made when the subject matter is misrepresented and trivialized like this?

But when i see someone in a photo with a big gun, i can't but think 'life threatening violence'.

That's charming. But it's pretty much impossible to discern a point in it.

The morons talk about freedom and liberty, but in practice, they are not for those things, but rigid authoritarianism, control freakery, conformism and snobbery about what is and is not sexually stimulating.

Nope. They don't appear to give a crap about whether what they're talking about is "sexually stimulating". Neither do I. The concern is that it is a stimulus for sexual violence, and it is perfectly reasonable for a society to be concerned about such stimuli.

The difficulty in enforcing such a concept leaves open a breathtaking dimension for burning books... oh dear.

Yeah, oh dear. Let's sit around and invent absurd scenarios rather than consider how to address a serious social problem -- sexual violence against women.

[sweetheart]

20. hardly trivlialized

A gun is .1 seconds from a threat of deadly violence, its hardly trivial when a gun is
being waved around, and my point is surely even by accident, one is exposed to the arsenal
of military inspired porn that has beneath its veils a strong militarism/sex/violence kick,
hardly trivial. What makes it trivial when people are so hardened to guns waving around
that they don't associate them with deadly violence.

Sex IS violent... very often, 2 big animals dumping hormones and releasing so much energy
can be quite the bump, uh uh uh uh uh.

Sexual violence against women can be dealt with by setting better icons and social examples,
admitting sexuality and the sex profession to the realm of regular business and start dealing
with sex matters as if we were not all 14 years old prudes. The violence is hidden because
all our sexuality is hidden in this moralist lie of anal prudeness that serves nobody, and that
is the lie i'm taking to task, the big patriarchy that is the root cause of mysogyny and violence
against women by its wars and coercion of people to their deaths... but hey, the iraq war
made women in iraq more liberated and safer :sarcasm: and clearly these laws will do the same. :sarcasm:

[iverglas]

24. some things are apples, and some things are oranges

Complaints about the banalization of firearms, violence, firearms violence, and any other combination or permutation of them are one thing, and may indeed be very worth making and seeking serious attention to.

They have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

Sometimes pointing to the hypocrisy of someone who is proposing "X" but not proposing "Y" is a useful contribution to consideration of the merits of "X". Sometimes it's just a red herring.

Sexual violence against women can be dealt with by setting better icons and social examples, admitting sexuality and the sex profession to the realm of regular business and start dealing with sex matters as if we were not all 14 years old prudes.

That is YOUR OPINION, not some revealed truth. I might say that sexual violence against women would be best dealt with by adopting quotas in every occupation at every stratum of society, and in every program at every educational institution, and enforcing strict economic equality between men and women. (And, I might add, vigorously prosecuting the customers of the "sex profession", since *I* don't happen to believe that the existence of the "sex profession" does anything but exacerbate the problem of violence against women.)

And then I might sit on my ass and wait for it to happen. In the meantime, a few hundred thousand more women might be raped and strangled.

Reducing the severity of the social problems that are associated with various crimes is an admirable proposal. Doing that and doing something to reduce the incidence of the crimes themselves are not mutually exclusive, as we certainly agree in the case of firearms control.

The violence is hidden because all our sexuality is hidden in this moralist lie of anal prudeness that serves nobody ...

You must forgive me for being an anal prude when I say that I find publishing, and possessing, images of "women hanging by their necks from meat hooks, some with plastic bags over their heads" to be abhorrent and intolerable in a free and democratic society that values all its members equally and seeks to provide all its members with equal protection and equal opportunity -- and in fact to have nothing at all to do with any offence against any "moralist lie".

but hey, the iraq war made women in iraq more liberated and safer and clearly these laws will do the same.

Yes, that's a fine kettle of fish you bring to the table.

[sweetheart]

35. Well am i the smelly fish! or the chef.

Most eloquent, and images mean so many things, like the images of
war and war crimes shown to children repeatedly in our culture, images
of people threatening each other with violent deadly force beyond any
sympathy to the rule of law.

You call my bluff, it is a chuffled irony, i am the duffer. This entire
subject denies the war, the irony that anything can be fixed by more blairite
rules another 40505489 pages of legislation and we'll all be free!,and really,
its become sort of a farce.

I know when i see crap that abuses people, i find it repulsive and as a
consumer of media, i find it distatesful and don't look at it... gosh, what's
wrong with demand-side reform.... since when did we all become a bunch
of 'progressive' supply siders, hard patriarchs with different hats, and
then when we re-take the war machine, we'll fight wars to create perfectly
machined propaganda on the internet, where no deviant thought is allowed, no
image, however horrible, however impossible, and arnold swarznegger and
stallone ain't committed murder 101010101 gazzillion times on television
to no bother of the public.

Really, for all the hubub, the moral pinnacle you stand on with the apparent
divisive rational cutting appart of my dialectic, is that we condone murder on
television, we condone kidnapping, war crimes and a whole dissociation as normal
but then set out to legislate the internet "other" crimes we deem unacceptable of
thought, and ALL of them ultimately crimes of thought, crimes against 'free will'
and crimes against the first amendment, and we're really in a tangle, as your
apparent moral pinnacle opens up a serious can of worms.

[ThsMchneKilsFascists]

49. this is the one of the best posts i've read on DU in some time

thank you

[sweetheart]

51. women on meat hooks with bags over their heads

I could design an art gallery of very tasteful compositions all based on this
abhorrent theme.

In the first exhibit, the photo shows 1000 women wearing margaret thatcher masques,
and business suits, with plastic bags over their heads on meat hooks hanging in
a warehouse.

The second exhibit, the photo shows a tracy emin lookalike hanging on a meat hook
with the plastic bag, and inside the bag, 100 mobile telephones obscuring most of
her head.

The next exhibit is titled "soylent women" and shows an assebly line of
women being deconstructed like carcasses in a meat factory, photographed inside
a real meat packing plant, to achieve the verisimiltude of a real soylent green.

The next exhibit shows both women and men hanging with plastic bags on meat hooks,
hanging in couples naked, with plastic bags over their heads, still holding hands,
many hundreds are visible in the photo.

The next exhibit shows an image of 2894 soldiers or however many it is today from
iraq, dressed in uniform, men and women, with plastic bags over their heads, symbolizing
that they cannot speak out against their deaths, hanging on meat hooks.

The next exhibit shows a similar number of persons dressed up like they were that day
on 9/11, all the victems of the attack, hanging on meat hooks, men and women,
with plastic bags over their heads.

I recognize that the law is to be administered carefully, but i can immediately see how such
approaches are serious new conformism approaches that are begging an artistic rebellion.
However well intentioned, we agree that there should be no violence against women,
just we don't agree that images are a precursor to crime... as i am a painter of images,
and i am not a criminal, but my images are designed to evoke repressed social feelings,
and one persons art is another person's fearful terror plot.

[phrenzy]

15. Max Hardcore?

So, will Max Hardcore's stuff become illegal? What about the 'throat fucking' videos? Some of those 'appear' to be potentially life threatening too. I've seen some double-penetration so violent that it 'appeared' that it 'could' bust something inside the person to the point of causing significant injury.

I can't wait to see how they boil this down - they are going to have to specifically define this stuff to the point of absurdity.

I mean, yeah, if some guy is REALLY playing russian roulette with a 'willing' partner, that should be illegal. But, somebody PRETENDING to play russian roulette should probably NOT be illegal.

[truthisfreedom]

17. and by defining it so specifically, they'll introduce weirdos to new kinks

they never even THOUGHT of before.

this is truly in the realm of "thought police." whether or not one cares about pornography, the concept of creating a law that essentially relies on opinion rather than on fact is pretty scary.

[Exultant Democracy]

74. Oh look someone died, time to roll back your privacy.

Temporary safety rules! Face the facts we are all going to die anyway and we can't do anything about that, but we should mortgage our own freedom anyway (just in case.)

On a serious note, I think that real problems that effect everyone should be taken care of first, you don't stop to pick up litter when bombs are dropping all around you.

edit: I thought I was responding to the OP oops.

[Anakin Skywalker]

42. I Can See You Have Been

SURFING! Hangin' ten, my brotha! LOL.

[Benhurst]

19. I can think of few things more disgusting or obscene than

boinking Cherie Blair, so I guess little Tony will be in trouble.

[iverglas]

21. and then there are always some facts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/30_08_05_porn_doc.pdf
"Consultation: On the possession of extreme pornographic material", Home Office


The text -- the paper produced to seek responses to proposals to address the problem identified -- is 36 pages long, and I have read it all and attempted, in good faith, to excerpt passages that will be of most use in understanding the proposal. The emphases are of course mine.

But the internet can also be misused, for example, by circulating indecent and abusive images of children. And we have put in place laws -- with stringent penalties -- to combat the making, distribution and simple possession of this material.

There is now also considerable public concern about the availability of extreme pornographic material featuring adults. We are not referring to what might be called mainstream pornography or to the kind of material classified for sale in licensed sex shops by the British Board of Film Classification. By "extreme" we mean material which is violent and abusive, featuring activities which are illegal in themselves and where, in some cases, participants may have been the victims of criminal offences. We believe most people would find this material abhorrent. It is already illegal to publish it under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and in Scotland, the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, but the global nature of the Internet means that it is very difficult to prosecute those responsible who are mostly operating from abroad.

... Our proposals to strengthen controls on extreme pornographic material are based on:

a desire to protect those who participate in the creation of sexual material containing violence, cruelty or degradation, who may be the victim of crime in the making of the material, whether or not they notionally or genuinely consent to take part;

a desire to protect society, particularly children, from exposure to such material, to which access can no longer be reliably controlled through legislation dealing with publication and distribution, and which may encourage interest in violent or aberrant sexual activity.

The proposals would close a gap in existing legislation which has developed as technology advances to circumvent the controls already in place.

Any new offence would apply only to pornographic material containing explicit actual scenes or realistic depictions of:
i) intercourse or oral sex with an animal;
ii) sexual interference with a human corpse;
iii) serious violence in a sexual context;
iv) serious sexual violence.

... It is not possible in a public document like this to give a great deal of graphic detail or description of the material in question. However, we can say that there are hundreds of internet sites offering a wide range of material featuring the torture of (mostly female) victims who are tied to some kind of apparatus or restrained in other ways and stabbed with knives, hooks and other implements.

These acts are usually presented in a sexually explicit context so that it is clear that the purpose of the material is sexual gratification, although the violence itself may not be sexual. For example, some material contains sexualised images of women hanging by their necks from meat hooks, some with plastic bags over their heads. There is also extensive availability of sites featuring violent rape scenes. Within this category there is a growing trend for scenes purporting to be filmed in real time which heightens their impact. Depictions of necrophilia and bestiality are also widely available.

... The material under consideration does not depict consensual sexual activity, nor even the milder forms of bondage and humiliation which are common place in pornographic material. It depicts suffering, pain, torture and degradation of a kind which we believe most people would find abhorrent. The underlying premise of this document is that this material should have no place in our society. The fact that it is widely accessible over the Internet does not legitimise it.

... The "deprave and corrupt" test <in the present legislation, the Obscene Publications Act (OPA)> has been controversial since its inception, and has both supporters and critics. Its strengths are said to be that it is flexible and capable of interpretation by juries in line with changing moral standards. Its focus is on the effects or the harm done by the material in question. The present test is consistent with our obligations under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of expression and was incorporated into UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. The perceived weaknesses of the test are the reverse of its strengths. Its flexibility and the subjective judgements required of juries in every case are considered by some to be its greatest drawbacks.

... We believe the type of extreme material specified in the proposals would contravene the OPA and in Scotland, the CG(S)A.

... We are determined to act where we can against publishers but require the individual to take greater responsibility if we are to maintain our controls on illegal material. Accessing extreme pornographic images, particularly on paid-for sites, fuels the demand/supply/demand cycle. We believe that an offence of possession of a limited category of extreme adult material, may help to break this cycle.

... As previously stated, we believe that the material under consideration in this document has no place in our society and people should be prohibited from possessing it. We believe from the observations of the police and others who investigate it, that the material may often cause serious physical and other harm to those involved in making it; in some cases the participants are clearly the victims of criminal offences. We consider that it is possible that such material may encourage or reinforce interest in violent and aberrant sexual activity to the detriment of society as a whole.

... Human Rights Considerations

The proposal which we have set out will impact upon the freedom of individuals to view what they wish in the privacy of their own homes. However, the material which we intend to target with this new offence is at the very extreme end of the spectrum and we believe most people would find it abhorrent. There will be no restriction on political expression or public interest matters, or on artistic expression. It is not the intention that this offence should impact upon legitimate reporting for news purposes, or information gathering for documentary programmes in the public interest and, in drafting the offence, we will give careful consideration to the best means of ensuring this. In the light of this, we have considered whether there are implications for our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and our view is that both our domestic courts and the Strasbourg court will find our proposal compatible with Article 10 (freedom of expression) or Article 8 (private life) if that is raised.

[Fierce]

58. Thank you for posting this,

and for trying to get people to read it. I think this law is a good thing.

[iverglas]

59. thank you for noticing

I don't know whether the law is a good thing -- because a law hasn't actually been written and tabled yet. ;)

But I do think that informed public discussion of potential public policy responses to a serious public problem is always a good thing!

[Fierce]

60. D'oh!

Corrected! The law would be a good thing.

[Benhurst]

65. Despite my flippant, if heartfelt, remarks about Tony and

Cherie Blair, I agree with your post. If the target is as limited as the Home Office says, then I agree with their position.

As the Blue noses this side of the Atlantic ... .

[ikri]

25. There was a case here

A few years ago where the courts overturned the prosecutions of a number of people who had previously been convicted for engaging in consensual S&M activities. To be fair they were into some pretty extreme stuff like genital torture, but it was all consensual. There's a history of the case here

So it would appear that torturing your partner's genitals is fine as part of a consensual adult relationship, but looking at a photo of it might land you in jail.

A really, really stupid law that will surely be overturned on appeal after the first prosecution.

[iverglas]

29. I'll try once more

How I wish that people would read discussions before jumping into them with both feet.

A really, really stupid law that will surely be overturned on appeal after the first prosecution.

IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL IN THE U.K. to publish the images in question, and the law is still standing, even a few years after the U.K. incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (free speech ...) into its body of law (to operate in the same way as constitutional guarantees in some other countries, i.e. for invalidating laws).

What the proposed legislation would do is make it illegal to access them over the internet.

[Kailassa]

30. It's just another emotive excuse to track peoples' internet use

and seize their hard-drives.

For all we know violent porn might keep women safer,
by giving men who are into that sort of thing an
alterative way to get their jollies.

The history of porn users who have killed means nothing
when it is not looked at in comparison with the porn
users who have not killed.

I've looked at violent porn myself and, strangely enough,
it didn't give me an urge to attack anyone. It did give
me another urge though, an urge to upchuck.

[iverglas]

31. sometimes

words really do fail me.

If I were so inclined, I'd be praying that occasionally they would fail a lot more people.

[Kailassa]

33. You obviously trust the government a lot more than I do ...

if you are so eager to give up more freedom to
avoid a danger that has not been proved to exist.

How do you think they discover who has violent porn
on their computer, if not by spying? Therefore,
can't you see that this law can be a way to
facilitate more spying?

This law will do nothing to make you safer. All it
will do is decrease your privacy and make it easier
for the government to snoop on you. And if you object
to them snooping and kick up a fuss, they can easily
plant questionable material on your pc, and there is
no way you can prove you did not put it there.

[iverglas]

36. I obviously know what I'm talking about

which would be because I made the effort to do so.

It's just another emotive excuse to track peoples' internet use and seize their hard-drives.

Where do you see anything in the proposal about tracking internet use? If this is what it's about, why is the excuse needed? What is it an excuse for -- just tracking people's internet use for the sheer fun of it?

For all we know violent porn might keep women safer, by giving men who are into that sort of thing an alterative way to get their jollies.

And for all we know, cows might jump over moons. Nonetheless, we have absolutely no reason to believe that violent pornography -- LET ALONE images of women hanging from meat hooks with plastic bags over their heads (do feel free to read what the proposal is actually ABOUT) makes women safer.

Once again, allow me to make the point:

PUBLICATION OF THE IMAGES TO WHICH THE PROPOSAL RELATES IS ALREADY ILLEGAL IN THE U.K. The proposal relates to accessing the images on the Internet.

The history of porn users who have killed means nothing when it is not looked at in comparison with the porn users who have not killed.

"Means nothing"? Interesting assertion. I wonder who's talking about "porn users". And I wonder whether you know what you're talking about.

I've looked at violent porn myself and, strangely enough, it didn't give me an urge to attack anyone. It did give me another urge though, an urge to upchuck.

Gee. And I wonder who might have been talking about YOU, around whom the universe really does not revolve.


Moving along ...

How do you think they discover who has violent porn on their computer, if not by spying? Therefore, can't you see that this law can be a way to facilitate more spying?

Well, actually, coming full circle ... MORE SPYING FOR WHAT PURPOSE?

Are you seriously suggesting that someone is going to use the pretext that a person is accessing images of women hanging from meathooks in order to see whether s/he is saying nasty things about Tony Blair in his/her emails?

This law will do nothing to make you safer.

Yeah. Cows, moons. I know. I, who have done academic and professional work in deviant sociology and criminology and sentencing and stuff like that should bow to your superior wisdom because ...?

All it will do is decrease your privacy and make it easier for the government to snoop on you.

Well actually, since I'm a Canadian living in Canada who is not engaged in the transmission of images of women hanging from meathooks over the Internet to the U.K., the law won't have an iota of effect on me. No more will it on you, I suspect.

And if you object to them snooping and kick up a fuss, they can easily plant questionable material on your pc, and there is no way you can prove you did not put it there.

Watch out. Somebody has just planted something really nasty on your hard drive, and the jack-booted thugs are about five minutes away from your front door.

Yeesh. I should have stayed lost for words. Would've got 5 minutes more work done ...

[Kailassa]

47. I can only laugh at the idea of someone having been a member of DU

for as long as you have and still not understanding how important spying on the population is the the American government, and how Australia, England and Canada try out everything Buschco wants to enforce, because they are his tame trio of yappy poodles.

"Women hanging from meat hooks with plastic bags over their heads" is an emotive point, like child porn, guaranteed to evoke a knee-jerk response in people as it has in you, blinding them to what the government is really trying to do.

Everyone knows that sort of thing is disgusting, but you need to ask yourself why it is a concern to the government now.

[iverglas]

55. baaaaaa

I can only laugh at the idea of someone having been a member of DU for as long as you have and still not understanding ...

Yup, I'm just a 50+, ex-lawyer, several-times social democrat candidate for political office, multiple-degreed, long-time rights/social justice activist moron.

Amazingly, I don't get my news or acquire my views at Democratic Underground. I'd laugh at someone who apparently does and thinks I should, but it's too sad.

... how Australia, England and Canada try out everything Buschco wants to enforce, because they are his tame trio of yappy poodles

I'll tell ya one thing hanging out at Democratic Underground has done for me, though. It sure has validated what I already knew about the abysmal level of knowledge about and consideration for other people and peoples that a whole lot of USAmericans apparently revel in having. The rest of the world, the rest of us, we're just players on the big USAmerican stage, no lives of our own, no thoughts of our own, no facts of our own, nope. The election of Stephen Harper in Canada had nothing to do with Canadian political history and practices and organization; it was all about y'all. Yup.

"Women hanging from meat hooks with plastic bags over their heads" is an emotive point, ...

Yeah, gosh. Just like those Abu Ghraib photos, I guess. Just like My Lai. Just like, oh, stamp taxes. Amazing what some people will get all het up about, ain't it?

Everyone knows that sort of thing is disgusting, but you need to ask yourself why it is a concern to the government now.

Yes ma'am. I gots my marching orders, and I shall now fall into lock-step.

By the way, didya read this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_America_v._Extreme_Associates

Tsk tsk.

[NashVegas]

67. Iverglas, Thank You

I truly believe that people who take a 'live & let live' attitude on this particular brand of porn either have never seen the real stuff - just the rape fantasy, etc., vids - or are (as there are some around here) in the scene as self-delusional tourists. I wish everyone who jokes about it could see some of the stuff that I have; they might finally understand that there's very little difference between some of this and what went down at Abu Ghahib. It's not about sex, it's about control, objectification, and breaking down people's boundaries to the point where they lose all sense of ego.

[Kailassa]

84. You have just convinced me not to vote social democrat.

I expect anyone running for public office to be able to argue
logically without constantly insulting the people they argue
against.

But then, you do indicate you only ran for office ... 3 times ...
not that anyone ever voted for you.

[Benhurst]

66. I would hope it would always be a concern to government. But

I agree that the watchers must closely watched themselves, and there is the danger, especially here in BushAmerica, of it being merely an excuse to spy for other purposes.

The show they had on NBC on how easy it was to flush out people actually bent on using the Internet to entrap children, certainly pointed the way to what might be proper action on the part of the police.

But with fascists like Bush in control, it is worrisome that anything they do is just a cover for their own twisted agenda and what might be legitimate action used just a cover and not followed through.

How long has it been now that we've been "at war" on Drugs?

[iverglas]

69. flushing 'em out

The show they had on NBC on how easy it was to flush out people actually bent on using the Internet to entrap children, certainly pointed the way to what might be proper action on the part of the police.

Just a totally irrelevant side note ...

I think the show had to do with an outfit that operates on line and is a subject of some controversy. Can't for the life of me remember its name now -- but its founder and prime mover is someone I "know" well from very early days in Internet forums. And he is the most complete and utter asshole I have ever met on line ... to be only slightly hyperbolic about it. Odd how things play out.

It was from tangling with him, though, that I first became wise in the way of Internet demagogues and, interestingly, first came into close contact with the free speech über alles crowd in the US, of which, strangely, he is a life member. And that I acquired the thick hide that I now don in outings such as this thread ... just don't care what people like him think/say about moi, when there are important things to be said.

On the actual subject at hand, thank you for taking the time to consider the facts of this particular matter.

[daleo]

34. In my opinion, many mainstream movies would fall into this category

Sure, they may not show sexual penetration, but themes of extreme sexual violence are fairly common in mainstream films and TV.

On edit - Many of the Abhu Graib torture photos might fall into this category too.

[iverglas]

38. not really; please read post 21

I'll keep trying.

Not many mainstream movies or TV programs consist of material featuring the torture of (mostly female) victims who are tied to some kind of apparatus or restrained in other ways and stabbed with knives, hooks and other implements or contain sexualised images of women hanging by their necks from meat hooks, some with plastic bags over their heads.

I am hugely disturbed by much of the sexual violence that does appear in mainstream fictional media, and the effects that it very arguably has on the attitudes of both men and women toward sexual violence against women; but it is not of the same order.

[daleo]

41. I don't know if this would be that hard to find

For example, "Silence of the Lambs" comes pretty close. The dramatization of torture and terror in that movie was quite disturbing.

Then there are the Abu Graihb photos, which we have all seen and have downloaded onto our drives (at least on the internet cache files). Those have included:

- a dog attacking a naked terrified prisoner, possibly lunging at the victim's genitals.
- a naked man covered in feces, with another man holding a club menacingly.
- naked men handcuffed to prison bars, beds, etc.
- a smiling blonde giving the thumbs up over the body of a naked man.

It would be ironic if the very governments that aided in perpetrating these images then prosecuted their political opponents for looking at them. Broadly interpreted, this law could cover a lot of ground. And we know that the U.K. government is capable of quite broad interpretations (e.g. Saddam and WMD).

Maybe I just don't trust the messenger on this one.

[iverglas]

43. okay, I give up

This proposed legislation is a sneaky attempt to throw political opponents in jail.

It has nothing at all to do with the pressure brought to bear by the PUBLIC in the UK -- large numbers of whom do not support their government's actions in Iraq -- to prevent violent sadistic women-haters from accessing the material that feeds their violent sadistic women-hating.

Nope, this is just a clever ploy on the part of a totalitarian-leaning government devoid of legitimacy in every respect and seeking to stamp out dissent relating to its foreign policy.

There are many ways to trivialize the sexual brutalization of women.

For example, "Silence of the Lambs" comes pretty close. The dramatization of torture and terror in that movie was quite disturbing.

I haven't seen it. But I would note that UK law makes the usual exception for work of social or artistic merit.

Then there are the Abu Graihb photos

And then we all need to look up the meaning -- the accepted, legal meaning, I probably have to add -- of the word PORNOGRAPHY:

Any new offence would APPLY ONLY TO PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIAL containing explicit actual scenes or realistic depictions ...

which figures rather prominently in the proposal.

Broadly interpreted, this law could cover a lot of ground. And we know that the U.K. government is capable of quite broad interpretations (e.g. Saddam and WMD).

I really really do just give up. Everything is about Iraq and persecuting dissenters. Nothing is about fixing potholes or keeping the sewers flowing or operating the schools and hospitals and local advice bureaus. Or defining crimes, regular ordinary old criminal crimes, and prosecuting the people who commit them. Everything the government does is about Iraq and persecuting dissenters. I will be sure to repeat this 50 times before falling asleep.

It would be ironic if the very governments that aided in perpetrating these images then prosecuted their political opponents for looking at them.

Actually it would be science fiction ... and saying otherwise would be to deny that the great British public has a grain of common sense left ... but no, I forgot. Everything the government does is about Iraq and persecuting dissenters ...

[Kailassa]

48. You come across as a sweet, trusting person.

"Then there are the Abu Graihb photos

And then we all need to look up the meaning -- the accepted, legal meaning, I probably have to add -- of the word PORNOGRAPHY:"

Parents have been arrested and had their children taken from them for taking innocent photos of their children in the bath, which have not shown anything below the waist.

The days are long gone when you could afford to trust your government.

[iverglas]

53. my government

"The days are long gone when you could afford to trust your government."

and your other comment about the Canadian government.

One more thing you obviously know fuck all about and would be well advised to refrain from chattering about.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sendero]

89. Only..

... the proposed law says no such thing.

You didn't ask, but here is my objection to this kind of law AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED.

I *might*, *might* be in favor of such a law if it stiplated that there must be a "collection" i.e. several images of such material.

Why? Because you can click a link with a topless model and suddenly be on a page with something you really did not wish to see. At that point, it is in your browser cache so it is therefore on your hard drive whether you invited it or not.

I do not trust law enforcement to make a distinction, as I've seen how they operate. And I believe that at the root of a lot of the unease over this sort of law, you find people who don't trust LE, the courts OR the public/juries to enforce the law as it was intended.

Lastly, people who look at this stuff are already sick, people are putting the cart before the horse, trying to pass laws perhaps well meaning but destined to accomplish nothing. Like most gun laws.

[iverglas]

90. oh well ... one more time ... READ THE PROPOSAL

I *might*, *might* be in favor of such a law if it stiplated that there must be a "collection" i.e. several images of such material.

Why? Because you can click a link with a topless model and suddenly be on a page with something you really did not wish to see. At that point, it is in your browser cache so it is therefore on your hard drive whether you invited it or not.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

It is not our intention to penalise anyone who accidentally stumbles across the material specified in the proposal, or who has it sent to them without their consent, or has a legitimate reason (such as assisting law enforcement) for dealing with it. Our proposals to strengthen controls on extreme pornographic material are based on:

a desire to protect those who participate in the creation of sexual material containing violence, cruelty or degradation, who may be the victim of crime in the making of the material, whether or not they notionally or genuinely consent to take part;

a desire to protect society, particularly children, from exposure to such material, to which access can no longer be reliably controlled through legislation dealing with publication and distribution, and which may encourage interest in violent or aberrant sexual activity.

... 7. The issue of accidental or legitimate contact with pornography of the kind described in this document will concern many people. It is not the intention to penalise people who accidentally stumble across the material specified in the proposal, have it sent to them without their consent, or have a legitimate reason (such as assisting law enforcement) for dealing with it. The proposal will mirror the arrangements already in place in respect of indecent photographs and pseudo photographs of children, possession of which is already an offence (as set out in the current legislation section in paragraphs 24-25 below).

I do not trust law enforcement to make a distinction, as I've seen how they operate. And I believe that at the root of a lot of the unease over this sort of law, you find people who don't trust LE, the courts OR the public/juries to enforce the law as it was intended.

You USAmericans are free to be as distrustful of your governments as you choose; too bad you can't manage to elect decent governments, but nobody else can really help you.

Lastly, people who look at this stuff are already sick, people are putting the cart before the horse, trying to pass laws perhaps well meaning but destined to accomplish nothing. Like most gun laws.

Yeah, and blah blah blah. Like most people who aren't actually concerned about real victims.

[Nikki Stone 1]

46. Watch carefully. It happens in UK first, then comes here.

...

[Irreverend IX]

50. What is it with the British government?

Whatever the problem, the only solution they can come up with is to restrict and ban and spew forth reams of legislation attempting to save their citizens from themselves. Police states begin with baby steps of "it's for the children, "it's for the good of society," "it'll protect us from Foreign Enemy X" and spiral into horror from there. Are the British such cowards that they demand their government to save them from every nasty thing out there? Have they ever considered increasing the funding of schools and social services that could nip the psychological problems that cause these crimes in the bud? And what will happen when the UK's locked-down, 24-hour-surveillance society falls under the leadership of someone who can't suppress their totalitarian urges as well as Blair does? Big Brother will be watching you...

[T_i_B]

88. Cowardice?

Are the British such cowards that they demand their government to save them from every nasty thing out there?

Please explain how having a dislike of violent porn makes somebody a coward.

[Hosnon]

52. Well this is a bit unnecessary. The UK really should look into getting a

paper Constitution rather than letting Parliament and the courts "write" it.

Every country committed to democracy needs "super-laws" that protect the basics.

[iverglas]

54. sadly, someone else who knows nothing and cares not to learn

The UK really should look into getting a paper Constitution rather than letting Parliament and the courts "write" it.
Every country committed to democracy needs "super-laws" that protect the basics.

From the document excerpted in my post 21:

In the light of this, we have considered whether there are implications for our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and our view is that both our domestic courts and the Strasbourg court will find our proposal compatible with Article 10 (freedom of expression) or Article 8 (private life) if that is raised.

Just one agency's opinion -- but the fun thing is that the govt is required to submit its legislation to review for compatibility with the Convention before introducing it (just as is done for every bill and every set of draft regulations in Canada):

19. - (1) A Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament must, before Second Reading of the Bill-

(a) make a statement to the effect that in his view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the Convention rights ("a statement of compatibility"); or

(b) make a statement to the effect that although he is unable to make a statement of compatibility the government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.

(2) The statement must be in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.

Now first, the issue isn't "democracy", it's fundamental/human rights. The two are actually somewhat antithetical. "Liberal democracy" is the attempt to balance the two.

You apparently aren't aware of a few things. Not surprising, considering that you apparently live in the US, where developments since the 18th century sometimes pass unnoticed.

Some time ago, the UK enacted a piece of legislation called the Human Rights Act, 1988.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/19980042.htm
It incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.

Here's a little something for you:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/12/16/uk9890.htm

The Judicial Committee of the House of Lords ruled by a majority of eight to one that indefinite detention discriminates on the grounds of nationality (article 14 of the ECHR), because it applies only to foreign nationals suspected of terrorism, despite a comparable threat from terrorism suspects with U.K. nationality. They also held that the suspension of human rights was unjustified because indefinite detention powers that apply only to some of those who pose a threat cannot be said to be “strictly required”—the legal test for suspending rights.

Maybe y'all in the US should get yerself some law lords ... instead of the attack poodles now sitting on the US Supreme Court.

The practical effect of the judgment is that the government order suspending part of article 5 of the European Convention has been quashed, and a “declaration of incompatibility” issued in relation to section 23 of the ATCSA. Under the terms of section 4 of the Human Rights Act, a declaration of incompatibility “does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement” of any legislation. Parliament must now decide whether to repeal the provision. If it were to refuse to do so, the detained men could apply to the European Court of Human Rights.

Yup, the court doesn't quash the legislation directly -- but the actions of the UK govt are subject to review by the court at Strasbourg. Imagine that; submitting to a higher authority. Imagine that; people subjected to abuse by a government having some recourse. Now there's some really modern thinkin' for ya. Not mere "super laws", but super governments, for when the government disregards its own laws ... or perhaps its own written constitution?? Eek.

The UK may need something, but I doubt that it's uninformed opinion spewing across the ocean at it.

Constitutionalized rights instruments have very definite benefits. So does parliamentary supremacy, the doctrine that is followed in the UK (and still, in Canada, by virtue of a provision of the constitution allowing overriding). The debate is as complex and fundamentally irresolvable as any other issue that arises in organizing the way that competing interests will be balanced in a society. (And are you imagining that those "super laws" can't be changed? There just ain't no super authority, y'know; no stone tablets.)

There are various places in the world that don't have constitutionalized rights instruments -- Canada was one until 1982 (our present Charter has been the model for several others in the world, such as South Africa's; but before that we really just weren't living in serfdom) -- and that don't really get along worse than the US. But then maybe you actually think that Australians, for example, are less free than y'all.

Oh, by the way ...

Well this is a bit unnecessary.

... pop quiz: what is this, anyhow?

And I mean, really: POT AND KETTLE, anyone? --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California. It has three parts:

Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,

Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,

Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

The third condition is also known as the SLAPS test. The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied.

... The advent of the Internet has made this definition more difficult to maintain: as material published on a web server in one place can be read by a person residing anywhere else, there is a question as to which jurisdiction should apply. The pending case United States of America v. Extreme Associates includes some content delivered purely over the Internet and may clarify the situation. This case includes a video called Forced Entry, which includes depictions of rape, murder, suffocation, beatings and urination in sexual contexts. Many of the components, when considered alone, are not uncommon in sexual fantasy (murder probably being the least common).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_America_v._Extreme_Associates

Watch this space, eh?

Now everybody back to yammering about something they know nothing about.

[Hosnon]

57. A bit testy are we?

For the record, I spent the summer in Paris studying International Comparative Law and International Human Rights Law at the Sorbonne. I am neither "someone else who knows nothing" or "someone else who care not to learn." I'll kindly ignore your various comments about being unaware.

I admit that my post was perhaps glib. I am eating breakfast and was not intending to speak seriously nor strike up a serious conversation.

But to address your point:

There is little denying that the British have no Constitution, as the term is understood in the U.S. Parliament is vested with full sovereignty, for the most part, and can theoretically decide tomorrow that there is no freedom of speech. Europe does have various supranational bodies that, together, seem to coalesce into some form of higher authority which protects certain fundamental rights.

However, from my perspective, national sovereignty needs to have a proper watchdog unless the result desired is, in fact, full integration within Europe. In the U.S., our Constitutional rights cannot be changed by a treaty. Yes, they are the supreme law of the land but they have only the authority of the President and 2/3 of the Senate. The Constitution has a mechanism for amendment and nothing less can be substituted. Any supranational organization of which we are a part has no authority to change what is protected under the Constitution (unless, of course, it is established by an amendment).

Ideas of what should and shouldn't be protected by a constitution differ throughout the world. One main difference between Europe and the U.S. is Europe's protection of human dignity. There is nothing wrong with difference but, until there is consensus, each country should protect what it deems worthy of protection in such a way that the whims of the legislators of the day have little authority to alter.

As far as my opinion that this is unnecessary, I believe it is. But as you point out, in not so flattering ways, I am from the U.S. and my opinion is grounded in the norms of the U.S Constitution.

Back to breakfast.

Edit:

Have a good day.

:toast:

[iverglas]

61. learn much?

In the U.S., our Constitutional rights cannot be changed by a treaty.

Are you under some impression that the rights of UK citizens can be "changed by a treaty" without some intervening act by the UK? I surely hope that you didn't get that impression by studying International Comparative Law and International Human Rights Law at the Sorbonne. If so, you might be asking for a refund.

Apart from that, there's the whole navel-gazing US-centricity just oozing through. Nobody gits ta tell the USofA what to do, no sirree.

A nation that signs a treaty, thereby incurring obligations, has made the choice to do so. Perhaps that point didn't get through while you were studying International Comparative Law and International Human Rights Law at the Sorbonne.

Any supranational organization of which we are a part has no authority to change what is protected under the Constitution (unless, of course, it is established by an amendment).

Again -- your point is?

First, what authority does any supranational organization have to change anything in the UK?

Second, if any such authority exists, was it imposed by Martians, or did it maybe come into existence through the actions of those who chose to be subject to it?

And of course, have you maybe forgotten that the US itself is the result of an organizing event by which various states surrendered elements of their sovereignty and autonomy to a central authority?

Parliament is vested with full sovereignty, for the most part, and can theoretically decide tomorrow that there is no freedom of speech.

Yes, and George Bush can theoretically have people locked up and tortured and denied all of the due process rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. Oops -- oh look! It isn't theoretical! It's real, even though in theory it can't happen! As compared to places where it's theoretical and doesn't happen ...

There is nothing wrong with difference but, until there is consensus, each country should protect what it deems worthy of protection in such a way that the whims of the legislators of the day have little authority to alter.

And that is just the voice of the naive 18th century liberal, firmly convinced that Natural Law and the parchments it is written on will protect him/her from the big bad gummint. Somehow. I've just yet to see a parchment, including thine own, that actually stops anybody from doing anything.

As far as my opinion that this is unnecessary, I believe it is.

And my question still is: do you know what "this" is?

And my supplementary question was: do you know how it differs -- if in fact it differs -- from the situation in the US?

[Hosnon]

62. Response

I reply in a courteous manner, regardless of the tone in which I am replied to. It is, in my opinion, the best way to preserve credibility.

I assume by repeating (exactly) what I noted were my summer activities a few times you intend to impugn them to some degree. Note that it was you who claimed that I knew nothing and cared not to know. You set a pretty low bar for me to reach and I was merely pointing out reasons why it was error for you to assume both things.

My point is, in fact, that the U.S. Constitution provides a certain level of protection due to its difficulty to amend. Parliament can enter into a treaty which negates previous "constitutional provisions" due to its position as absolute sovereign (again, for the most part). Because of this idea, when Parliament enters into a treaty, the will of the people can be assumed to have spoken. However, in the U.S., the Executive can enter into a treaty but the same presumption is not present. Same goes for a Constitutional Treaty. The will of the American people is considered, theoretically, to have been heard when the Constitution was ratified. So no, when the government of the U.S. enters into a treaty, it is only binding to the extent that it does not run contrary to the U.S. Constitution. This is simply because there is no authority for the government to enter into such a treaty.

The question of enforcement of international law is an entirely different beast that I would prefer to discuss separately.

And yes, the U.S. is a supranational entity. But the ability of that entity to further join "higher" supranational entities is limited by the Constitution. The state governments were assumed to have the entire authority of the people - this is not the case with the federal government.

As for evidence that "parchment" cannot have any authority. I will kindly refer that question to Al Gore. A sitting member of the executive branch gave up his power and gave it to his opponent because the Supreme Court said it was the Constitutional thing to do. Whether the court was right is a different question but that act alone shows the power behind certain "parchments."

Finally, I did not look far into what the decision actually dealt with. Perhaps upon further examination I would agree, to some degree. However, "this," in my statement, referred to notion that possession of/viewing violent pornography should not be legal. Perhaps I am mistaken as to what was actually at issue. And whatever the decision is in the U.S., at first blush, I disagree with it as well. Again, I may have a different opinion were I to look closer.

Have a good day.

[iverglas]

77. we could talk parliamentary supremacy / written constitutions all day

and in fact I'd be happy to. I find the subject one of the most fascinating on earth. No shit at all; I'm really like that. I'm more interested in exploring its nooks and crannies than in saying mine is better than yours, of course, but there ya go. Pick a forum, and I'd be happy to continue ... some day when I'm not planning to take an actual day off, and then an actual long weekend, to rest up for the onslaught of work when the civil servants come back to roost, and Parliament resumes ...

Just one point on it for now:

As for evidence that "parchment" cannot have any authority. I will kindly refer that question to Al Gore. A sitting member of the executive branch gave up his power and gave it to his opponent because the Supreme Court said it was the Constitutional thing to do. Whether the court was right is a different question but that act alone shows the power behind certain "parchments."

You might note that the point you are really making is that recognition of the authority of the parchment was the operative factor, not the parchment. This was pretty much the point I was making. Without recognition, it is kindling. And without the essential goodwill and good faith from which that recognition springs, all the parchments in the world and learnèd jurists to interpret them are not going to produce a rights-respecting society, or keep one going. And conversely, with the goodwill and good faith, the parchments are really just ornamental, because all they really are to start with is an expression of that goodwill and good faith.

Because goodwill and good faith are sometimes in short supply, it is thought wise to get what they have produced down on paper. But that simply does not mean that the same results cannot be achieved without doing so.

Finally, I did not look far into what the decision actually dealt with.

And that was really my only initial point.

[Hosnon]

85. As it is one of my favorite subjects.

I never said my system was better than any other system. I did, however, say that certain aspects of my system are better than certain aspects of the British system - and I stand by that belief. I also believe that the European systems have qualities that would do us well to adopt, such as constitutional courts.

As to the parchment discussion we've had, perhaps we have talked past each other. My point is that by being "super-laws," subject to change only by nearly unanimous consent, U.S.-style constitutions afford more protection for fundamental rights than statutes and judicial doctrines.

Parliaments and judges can change their minds and, without such barriers, change the fundamental laws of the country.

Recognition of authority is required for both but written, supermajority constitutions protect the rights of people more effectively (assuming the recognition of authority is there).

Finally, I have a hard time believing that was your only point. If it was, you could have conveyed it much more politely. Accusing me of knowing nothing and not caring to know along with having an America-First outlook went far beyond simply pointing out that I should perhaps research the issue further. I have no problem with discussion and having various things brought to my attention. I do, however, have a problem with attitude.

[iverglas]

56. United States v. Extreme Associates / Pot vs. Kettle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Extreme_Associates

http://www.fradical.com/Extreme_Assoc_decision_overturned.htm

On December 8, 2005, the 3rd Circuit overruled the lower court ruling. The 3rd Circuit determined that the federal obscenity statute was constitutional. The Court observed that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of the federal obscenity statute and nothing had changed in the law or through technological advances to change those previous cases. The 3rd Circuit observed that the Supreme Court has, “affirm(ed) the power of Congress to 'regulate interstate commerce to the extent of forbidding and punishing the use of such commerce as an agency to promote immorality . . . or harm to the people of other states from the state of origin.' Orito, 413 U.S. at 144 n.6…”

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/FSCView.asp?coid=232

Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Extreme Associates Case
By: Q. Boyer (Courtesy of YNOT.com)
Posted: 5/15/2006

WASHINGTON, DC – The Supreme Court has denied a petition for a writ of certiorari (or "denied cert," as it is more commonly known) in the case of Extreme Associates v. United States, according to a list of orders for May 15th posted to the Supreme Court website.

... Lee explained that since the case has not gone to trial yet, the Justices know they are likely to get another chance to hear the case should there be a conviction. Lee said it's most likely that, given the Supreme Court's very full docket, they simply chose not to hear a case which hadn't reached a point where their opinion was needed, strictly speaking.

Yup, the right wing's pleased. I would only note that certain right-wing support for withdrawal from Iraq doesn't seem to have persuaded anyone that s/he should support the occupation.

[bleedingheart]

63. All I have to say is I remember the PBS Frontline special on porn

and how the camera men and the people interviewing this couple who produced "rape porn" were absolutely disgusted and horrified that they left the building where it was being filmed.

I can't imagine how anyone finds "rape porn" normal.

[Tight_rope]

64. Our office secretary Majored in Human Sexuality in College!

I just informed her of this new change. And she said if this happens in the USA, she would be looking at life in prison because of her collection.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

70. The UK?

I thought they were really into flag.

:shrug:

[iverglas]

72. like I did say

Trivialization of the sexual brutalization of women comes in many forms.

I'm sorry, but your comment was utterly out of place.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

73. Blah blah blah.

It's S&M.

If you don't like it, use the safety word.

[iverglas]

76. puke puke puke

It's S&M.

Like I said ... the trivialization of the sexual brutalization of women comes in many forms.

No, it is not S&M. It is the perpetration of atrocities against women, and the publication of the images for sick fucking rotten women-hating scum to enjoy. It has fuck all, absolutely fuck all, to do with "safety words".

What in the blazing hell do you imagine you are talking about here? Are you not at all embarrassed to open your mouth and spew nonsense about a subject you have not bothered to learn anything about beyond the (not quite accurate) headline above a few snippets from a newspaper article?? I just don't get this; I would never ever ever consider being so disrespectful to the world at large as to do this.

Too bad you didn't bother finding out what you were talking about before you did it, but oh well; you're in large company.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

78. ...

"It is the depiction of perpetration of atrocities against women or men, depending, and the publication of the images for sick fucking rotten women-hating scum or sick fucking rotten scum who happen to like women. Or are indifferent. Takes all kinds to enjoy."

Fixed.

Sounds like S&M to me.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rhett o rick]

79. These types of laws give those in power more power. They may

choose to enforce this law on people that oppose them and not on people that support them. To outlaw the possession of something bothers me. I guess I can understand extreme things like nuclear weapons or land mines, but not pornography. People should be prosecuted for doing harmful things not possessing things that others don't approve of. Who would make the decision as to whether or not the porno was violent? I don't approve of violent porno but not think I should decide what others want to possess. sorry for the rambling but I hope I made my point.

[MikeyJones]

83. Looks like they're going to throw open the old McCarthy definition books

They're going to need them to define "violent" in order to further intrude into peoples' personal lives.

Figures. The UK is on a right-wing move at the moment thanks to the subway bombings and this new little "terror" threat that they supposedly exposed the other week. Whatever, if the Brits want to live in a surveillance society then that's their problem, not mine.

[hughee99]

86. It sounds like the issue is the violence, not the "sex"

Why not also ban violent movies that aren't of the pornographic genre? If violent pornos make people who watch them violent, why wouldn't violent non-sexual movies make the people who watch them violent as well?

[philosophie_en_rose]

91. Is pornography the cause or a symptom?

It would not be surprising for a person that is excited by violent pornography becomes desensitized to violence, requiring increasing levels of degradation. But it seems equally likely that a person that can murder women or mutilate animals would be attracted to violent porn.

[Silent3]

92. I hate laws that make the mere possession of almost anything a crime

Unless what you possess is stolen property or a *clear and present danger* to others, the god damned government should butt the hell out. Possession, and subsequent consumption, of alcohol leads to a whole hell of a lot more instances of people causing harm, often very serious harm, to others than any porn ever has. I wouldn't, however, want to see alcohol criminalized either. You punish people for the wrongs they commit, not for using thing or consuming things that some small percentage might not be responsible enough to handle.

Plus the whole idea of "possession" leaves so much room for prosecutorial abuse, especially when it comes to something as ephemeral as a computer file. Who knows what porn all of us might already "possess" unknowingly, sent to us as spam, hidden in the second unseen layer of a GIF file, in the un-reclaimed sectors of not-completely-deleted files on our hard drives, buried as "easter eggs" in games?

I'd dearly love to find some image, still legal in the US (for the time being), but made illegal in the UK if this law passes, and e-mail it to every MP who votes for this idiocy, with the image hidden from obvious view, but ending up in their "possession" nevertheless, ready for exploitation of any political rival who wants show them up as criminals, with damning evidence easily available to find.

The only reason this kind of BS legislation can pass, but you can't ban possession of something far more dangerous like alcohol, is a simple matter of popularity, nothing more. People value getting drunk more than freedom of expression, especially when they can get their superior righteous indignation going, so freedom of expression loses, and the government gets to go poking its nose where it doesn't belong for any truly legitimate reason, and has one more reason to spy on you.