UK to Ban Possession of Certain 'Violent' Pornography

Backlash writes "Massive surveillance? Check. Building a DNA database? Check. Laws against thought crime? Not yet, but coming very soon. The UK government is soon to pass legislation that would criminalise possession of certain types of 'violent' pornography, even if it was part of a consensual session between two adults. Lord Wallace of Tankerness pointed out an ideological schism during last week's debate in the House of Lords: 'If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence. ... Having engaged in it consensually would not be a crime, but to have a photograph of it in one's possession would be a crime. That does not seem to make sense to me.'" Combine laws like this with widespread computer ownership, and it makes a whole lot of (Orwellian) sense.

Godwin

[electrictroy (912290)]

Nazis!

Re:and now for something completely different

[Ash Vince (602485)]

Time for a serious reply: "Having engaged in it consensually would not be a crime, but to have a photograph of it in one's possession would be a crime."

Sorry to disappoint you, but you cannot engage in a criminal activity even if you have consent from the victim. In other words, even if your girlfriend gives you permission to hit her with a whip, it is still common assault under british law.

Re:

[Malevolent Tester (1201209)]

Britain's had an on/off relationship with private possession of weapons over the centuries, ranging from mandatory to outlawed, but I believe the origin of modern British gun control lies in fears over a Communist revolution during the interbellum. From there, it's been easy to scream "think of the children" every time an excuse has come up, to the point where only 1 party supports private gun ownership anymore (the BNP, ironically).

Re:and now for something completely different

[alexgieg (948359)]

I have to ask, why does Britain outlaw guns? What problem was there they were trying to solve?

You're way offtopic, eh? But I think there's a weird link between your question and TFA, in the form of an Hegelian piece of dialectics:

a) First, someone appeared with the thesis: "Guns kill people!!! Let's outlaw them!1!!11!1!"

b) Then the gun owners came with the antithesis, shooting their own foot with a well (mis)placed: "Guns don't kill people!!! People kill people!11!!!1!!"

c) Enters then the British government with a synthesis of its own: "You both are right!!! We must ban guns AND make people stop killing people!!! And what's the best way to accomplish this? To forbid everyone from seeing any violence at all, ever!!!111!1!"

And thus the lamb nation model is born. Next in line for implementation: violent movies, violent games, violent cartoons, violent books, violent news, textbooks mentioning violent events, people talking about violence in public...

Now, do you know what's most funny in all of this? The fact that this whole discussion is millennia old. In fact, Plato started the thing by criticize arts (such as theater) that depicted bad emotions by arguing that they increased the propensity of those watching them to emulate those same emotions. To which Aristotle countered with his wholly new concept of catharsis, saying that no, in fact the effect is the exact opposite, with those watching bad emotions in fiction feeling fulfilled with those and not pursuing them in real life.

2400 years later, we still didn't reach a conclusion. Go figure...

And now...back on topic

[cayenne8 (626475)]

I just don't get this. Why the fsck is any government getting into what a person can look at? I understand the current bans on images taken where a crime is being committed against a person, like with child porn using real kids. I can see why snuff films are illegal....someone really gets killed.

However, something like this ban where it may be a film of consensual 'violent' sex...maybe simulated rape....just isn't right. What if you take the people out of it completely....and use computer generated images for rape, snuff or kiddie crap. If someone wants to create and view those images, aside from someone having morality problems....no crime has been committed, and therefore what is the problem with people creating, owning and viewing such content if they are adult?

This brings up something I see coming...with the seeming 'rash' of young teens today, filming themselves beating the shit out of other teens, or even older people....when will we see a ban on these types of video content? Sure, it isn't sexual, but, someone is being hurt...seriously in some cases. Will we see bans on that, or is it not sensational enough since it didn't involve any ones naughty parts?

Re:

[ender- (42944)]

Good luck trying to overthrow your corrupt government with those arms you're allowed to bear, Jim Bob.

I dunno, a minority of Iraqi's seem to be giving us a hard time with AK47s and IEDs...

Re:

[Coryoth (254751)]

Good luck trying to overthrow your corrupt government with those arms you're allowed to bear, Jim Bob.

I dunno, a minority of Iraqi's seem to be giving us a hard time with AK47s and IEDs...

They are hardly at the point of overthrowing the government, or defeating the US military. Sure, US forces may soon be vacating Iraq, but that's far more to do with a lack of will to send US troops abroad to occupy a foreign country. I doubt you'd find similar antipathy toward combatting "terrorism at home" (and make no mistake, that's what it would immediately be branded). If you want a revolution what you really need is popular support -- and you won't get that by taking the violent approach that result

Re:

[1u3hr (530656)]

I don't see that it's a stupid debate at all. Yes, it is a stupid fucking debate to be having when it has nothing to do with TFA. And in general it's a stupid fucking debate because NO ONE WEVER CHANGES THEIR MINDS. You just throw your talking points at each other for 400 posts and destroy the forum for anyone who wants to discuss anything else.

I doubt that any of them are willing

[Trigun (685027)]

to go through my porn folders to tell me if I am breaking the law or not.

  And before anyone here volunteers, you're going to need a fuckton of kleenex, eyebleach and anti-psychotic medication just to get through the folder names.

Re:I doubt that any of them are willing

[Dr. Cody (554864)]

He's not kidding. We had one of our lab techs to an expression search on his porn drives, and grep ended up deleting itself.

Re:

[level_headed_midwest (888889)]

1E+06 fuckgrams.

Ban bread?

[Kandenshi (832555)]

From FTA: "Five years ago Jane Longhurst, a teacher from Brighton, was murdered. It later emerged her killer had been compulsively accessing websites such as Club Dead and Rape Action, which contained images of women being abused and violated."

I agree that a substantial number of rapists and molesters and whatnot probably do get off on "violent" porn. But so do quite a few very normal people who will never rape someone. Consensual kink is a gorgeous thing, an expression of incredible trust. The fact that some rapists get off on it is insufficient to justify banning it, after all, last I heard quite a few rapists drink water and eat bread.

Of course, this parallels some sex laws already enacted where I live. It's legal to have sex with someone who's 16, provided you're not in a position of authority over them... But have a picture of you having sex with your 16 year old girlfriend? Not a wise move.

I think that both laws are ridiculous personally. If it's not illegal to do, then it shouldn't be illegal to represent digitally with a bunch of 1s and 0s.

Re:

[MozeeToby (1163751)]

The fact that some rapists get off on it is insufficient to justify banning it, after all, last I heard quite a few rapists drink water and eat bread.

Did you just compare rape porn to bread and water? I understand your point but... c'mon really?

Re:

[QCompson (675963)]

Of course, this parallels some sex laws already enacted where I live. It's legal to have sex with someone who's 16, provided you're not in a position of authority over them... But have a picture of you having sex with your 16 year old girlfriend? Not a wise move.

Exactly. It's the government greasing up the slope for some slip and slide fun.

Once it becomes (nearly) universally accepted that merely possessing pictures or video can be as harmful (or in your example, more harmful) as the actual actions therein depicted, it's easy to make the logical leap that other forms of content must be restricted as well.

Re:

[PMBjornerud (947233)]

I think that both laws are ridiculous personally. If it's not illegal to do, then it shouldn't be illegal to represent digitally with a bunch of 1s and 0s.

Exactly.

I can't see the difference between this and banning "violent" movies of any type. That includes pretty much anything coming out of Hollywood with 16+ years age limit.

A movie simulating a murder is a movie simulating a murder. Whether or not the story is acted out by actors with or without clothes shouldn't really matter.

Why stop there ?

[garett_spencley (193892)]

If fictionally depicting someone being raped or abused is a crime then surely horror flicks must be banned as well. Oh and the Die Hard movies too because they can be training tools for terrorists.

It's like the printing press all over again. We need to stop people from having access to "dangerous" information.

*rolls eyes*

Re:

[QCompson (675963)]

If fictionally depicting someone being raped or abused is a crime then surely horror flicks must be banned as well. Oh and the Die Hard movies too because they can be training tools for terrorists.

No silly, because in those examples sex is not involved. It's the dirty sin inside of all of us that must be cleansed by the justice system.

Re:Why stop there ?

[sm62704 (957197)]

The Clint Eastwood movie Sudden Impact [wikipedia.org] has a violent rape scene; and in fact the movie is about the rape victim's search for vengeance.

So if any of you UK residents have any Clint Eastwood movies your best bet is to get rid of them NOW before your thought police come for you.

I guess here in the US we're next. You had the Big Brother CCTV cameras first, but we have them now, too. Our legislators never funded the "Big Brother Is watching" posters, have yours?

Re:

[sm62704 (957197)]

"Secure beneath the watchfil eyes", holy shit. Orwell WAS an optimist!

We want them broken.

[feepness (543479)]

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

Re:

[xirtam_work (560625)]

Absolutely. Ayn Rand was correct.

Re:

[feepness (543479)]

The point of the story isn't that there is an evil genius running it. It's that government exists to create criminals. Exposition doesn't work as well if it's done by faceless processes of human nature.

Also, there is the idea that politicians who get into office certainly don't do anything to fix it. If they see it and have the power to change it, are they any less responsible?

Re:

[lysse (516445)]

Ayn Rand hasn't gotten anything right with her objectivism theories

On the other hand, her novels are right in the frame themselves, given her fondness for highly eroticised rape scenes.

are they going to ban the owning of this image

[gzipped_tar (1151931)]

from theregister, the new logo of UK's Office of Government Commerce: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/22/ogc_logo/ [theregister.co.uk]

Re:

[$RANDOMLUSER (804576)]

This [hein.org.uk] is a better version. (possibly NSFW).

Why?

[EaglemanBSA (950534)]

FTFA, it looks like the reasoning for the introduction of such legislation stems from someone watching said pr0n and murdering a woman...this is a huge step backwards for people taking responsibility for their own actions. What, the pr0n made him kill her? Come on.

I'm wondering what other images will become illegal because they elicit violence...perhaps it will be illegal to draw a picture of Muhammad too? Just my 2 cents.

The movie studios love it...

[Jane Q. Public (1010737)]

I am sure "V for Victory" sales just went up again.

Illegal photos of legal activity

[xirtam_work (560625)]

As the law stands in the UK you have have sex at 16 lawfully but can not take photographs or record it on video as the participants are under 18.

I know, it's ridiculous, just as this proposed law is.

Hentai...?

[snarfies (115214)]

And what about hentai anime? A LOT of the hentai stuff I've seen has been, ah, rather rape-based, sometimes with tentacles, and sometimes otherwise (yes, I will admit now I've seen a lot, and even own a few titles on laserdisc). So does the UK law cover that sort of thing? Its often extreme, sometimes far more disturbing than anything in possible "reality," but it isn't that much less "real" than pornography with actual people.

Re:

[ofcourseyouare (965770)]

No, I don't think animated films are covered by this absurd bill, because it says images are illegal only "where any such ...person or animal depicted in the image is or appears to be real".

You can read the whole bill here -- it's not long, and would be quite funny in parts if it wasn't so sad: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/07130.43-46.html#j400 [parliament.uk]"

But that doesn't mean film fans are out of trouble.

As you can see from the act itself, the really bizarre thing about this

Questions that need to be asked

[alan_dershowitz (586542)]

I am playing devil's advocate here, but the government has a job to maintain a safe and working society. There are laws that restrict personal freedoms because they have a bad effect on society. For example, guns were banned. Again I'm not saying any individual action is correct, but they do have that power. A logical argument could be made that consensual acts in private by a small number of people does not have the same negative impact on society that wide distribution of depictions of those acts would. S

Re:

[QCompson (675963)]

I am playing devil's advocate here, but the government has a job to maintain a safe and working society. There are laws that restrict personal freedoms because they have a bad effect on society. For example, guns were banned. Again I'm not saying any individual action is correct, but they do have that power. A logical argument could be made that consensual acts in private by a small number of people does not have the same negative impact on society that wide distribution of depictions of those acts would. So, the importnat questions here are: are there things that the UK government _cannot_ restrict in the interest of protecting society? Is the material in question one of those things? Are the materials really harmful (and, according to who) to the extent that they need to be banned? If you are going to make an argument either pro or con regarding banning, you need to answer questions like these.

Instead of (simulated) violent pornography in the form of pictures or video, consider it as the written word. Then ask yourself, do you really want to give the government the ability to ban books?

People are *ahem* desensitized to the idea of making certain videos or pictures illegal, because of the widely approved ban on child pornography, but in matters such as this, where consenting adults are involved in the production of the material, I can't see there being any distinction between laws like these

Lord Wallace of Tankerness

[Kupfernigk (1190345)]

Is an idiot, and this is the reason. We have a major problem in Europe with the abuse and exoploitation of women, many effectively slaves brought in from the former Soviet Union and China (I bet that the Chinese watchers will try and mod this out of sight, but yes, some of your nationals in the UK do engage in people smuggling and some of them are violent pimps. So are some of our own - but I digress.)

While there is a market for violent pornography or child pornography, criminals will supply it. In doing so

Re:

[gstoddart (321705)]

Is an idiot, and this is the reason. We have a major problem in Europe with the abuse and exoploitation of women, many effectively slaves brought in from the former Soviet Union and China

But, why don't you ban people from the Soviet Union and China? Or, women?

Seriously, this is the debate between correlation and causation that happens around video games. It's just in a different guise.

Rapists often use violent porn, but does violent porn cause rape? Much crime is committed by people under the influence o

Re:

[Reziac (43301)]

Remember that in the Britain of a couple centuries ago, sodomy carried the death sentence.

That's right -- merely being caught acting as an ordinary, nonviolent homosexual got you hanged. (Interested parties may wish to peruse http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/homopho1.htm [demon.co.uk] )

Don't think it couldn't happen again. If that morality pendulum starts swinging, it never stops til it reaches the farthest possible extreme.

Re:

[ultranova (717540)]

That is why, to my mind, even though it may be of limited effectiveness, it is right to make possession of this material illegal. Anything you can do to destroy or disrupt the market is attacking the revenue stream that makes the criminals do it in the first place. If you cannot persuade people that they should not pay other people to abuse, rape and beat strangers for their entertainment - then more stringent sanctions are needed.

Yeah, it's just like the drugs: after they were made illegal to possess,

reality vs fantasy

[kahei (466208)]

There are two parallel failures to distinguish reality from fantasy here:

1 -- The usual way. Regular grown up people know that pornography is not real life and that many things that are fun to fantasize about would be unwise, unhygienic, fatal etc. in real life.

2 -- This crackdown on everything, and this massive effort to gather data and powers, come at a time when actual street crime is very high, white-collar crime has drastically undermined the UK's 'level playing field', and policies from tax to immigration seem to be selected without any hope of actually implementing them. In other words, the real fantasy here is the fantasy that the UK government can really control the things around it -- and I'm much afraid the government has confused that pleasant fantasy with reality, and that they will only pile on more regulations and powers as actual ability to influence events at ground level slips from their grasp.

Note that this is subtly different from the US situation. In the US, there's been a scramble for new data and powers, but I never have the feeling that the Executive branch has too *little* control...

Also, thank fuck for the House of Lords. There are few elected representatives who'll speak out on an issue that's got the word 'pornography' stuck to it.

Re:reality vs fantasy

[MalleusEBHC (597600)]

Also, thank fuck for the House of Lords. There are few elected representatives who'll speak out on an issue that's got the word 'pornography' stuck to it.

I wish I had mod points. Whether it's the House of Lords or the Supreme Court, history has shown that having part of the government be virtually unaccountable to the whims of popularity is vital. You need people with the power and freedom to stand up and voice unpopular opinions.

Fight back the fun way

[Monokeros (200892)]

If this manages to become law I propose that everyone in Britain find 1) a buddy and 2) a surveillance camera. Then engage in some consensual "violent" kinkiness with the first in front of the second.

I love Jesus.

[oliverthered (187439)]

I love Jesus, I Love that blood dripping from his wounds, I like the way he's scantly dressed, I wank over his image so much I could become a nun.

Now that their banning this kind of imagery it looks like my Jesus wanking days are over.

Dear Sir:

[thepotoo (829391)]

I find your ideas disturbing and wish to unsubscribe from your newsletter.

You don't get it.

[aadvancedGIR (959466)]

The law is not designed to be used against the population (but, of course, it will be), it's just an easy was to prevent paparazi to blackmail goverment members using pictures of their weekend activities.

Easy to get this repealed.

[MMC Monster (602931)]

All you need to do is email photos of violent pornography to people in parliament. (Best to do this from an account overseas) Then send anonymous tips to the police that they have those images on their computers.

The House of Lords

[damburger (981828)]

It actually pains me that the unelected house is the only thing keeping the governments nastiest instincts in check now. British people have become so politically impotent that we rely on the munificence of aristocrats to safeguard our liberty.

That said, there is probably no legislative body on Earth so qualified to stand up for deviant sexual practices.

Hey this is the UK

[zakeria (1031430)]

Just raise the tax on anal sex.. that should put a stop to most of it!!

Re:Consequence of globalization

[MightyYar (622222)]

Agreed, but I thought the line should be "when your activity infringes on the natural rights of another person".

It's hard to see how possession of photos taken between consenting adults fits into that mold.

Re:

[Hatta (162192)]

Civilization ends and barbarism begins when people are assaulted, kidnapped, and stolen from (arrested, imprisoned, and fined) because of their thoughts and no actual crime.

The people proposing this law are actual violent criminals, advocating violence against otherwise innocent people they just don't like. They are far, far more dangerous than the targets of this law. How about some legislation to keep nanny state dictators off the streets? We'd all be safer for it.

Hi Mr. Bad Analogy Guy, here's a bad analogy

[sm62704 (957197)]

When pornography and violent images are outlawed, only outlaws will have violent pornography.

Oh wait that's no analogy. OK, pornography is like photos of feet. How's that for a bad analogy? Well, it really isn't, and in fact is not an analogy at all! I shall explain:

Define "violent". Define "pornography". Ok, let the dictionary do it:

pornography [reference.com] Audio Help /prngrfi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pawr-nog-ruh-fee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun

obscene writings, drawings,

Re:

[lisaparratt (752068)]

This law dosent affect soft stuff like bondage, it just affects the stuff that would be illegal to do to another person.

Yes it does, that's the whole problem. The wording is so vague that anything that isn't missionary position can land you in the slammer.

Re:

[Anne Thwacks (531696)]

sexism and societies uncaring attitudes towards men

In the UK, men are generally portrayed as a problem. Yes it does have highly negative consequences. For example, its very hard to get men to teach in primary school, as they would be facing a huge risk of being attacked as paedophiles because they are "in the playground with children". This means that many children grow up with a very negative image of men, and hence a viscious circle.

Anti-male propaganda is probaby causing a considerable amount of pain