UK Proposal To Restrict Internet Pornography Sparks Row 561
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC reports on the row over proposals by the UK Government to criminalize possession of 'extreme' porn. The bill, published last week, would include the prohibition of fictional depictions of violence and images of acts between consenting adults. The law would also apply to screenshots taken from a legal film, if the screenshot was made for erotic purposes. The goal is to prevent disturbed individuals from accessing content online that would trigger violent behavior. From the article: 'Labour MP Martin Salter, who has worked closely ... in pushing the legislation, rejected the BDSM community's claims their civil liberties were being undermined. He said: "No-one is stopping people doing weird stuff to each other but they would be strongly advised not to put it on the internet. At the end of the day it is all too easy for this stuff to trigger an unbalanced mind."' The bill follows from plans initially announced last August."
Prehaps instead.. (Score:5, Insightful)
slippery slope here, very slippery
everything else (Score:4, Insightful)
At the end of the day... (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Can I see some peer-reviewed research papers showing such a link? (Seriously, I don't know either way - let's see what scientists say, not politicians.)
Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:4, Insightful)
In other news... (Score:2, Insightful)
Each is going to be every bit as likely to have any effect on the world at large as this ban.
Crow T. Trollbot
Re:At the end of the day... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the trouble, we have politicians making imporant decisions that can affect many peoples' lives and lifestyles without any solid research to back it up.
Same goes for important tech related legislation by completely unqualified people.
But the problem is over THERE (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is not that an imbalanced mind sees extreme porn. The problem is that the mind in question is imbalanced. Denying all minds access to extreme porn will not solve the problem...the mind in question will still be imbalanced.
And the mind in question will still be likely to cause harm.
All this law will do is create another subjective standard by which some people can be arbitrarily criminalized.
Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:5, Insightful)
A real free society cares about the rights of the people they don't like too.
Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:3, Insightful)
But that means WORK! Whereas banning means REVENUE! Violated the ban? 30 days in jail (which amounts to nothing because of your "get out of jail free if not a violent offender" card) and a fine of XXX pounds.
But you propose actually training people to help others with their problems? And what happens when those people STILL have problems (after all, "unstable people" and "terrorists" are limitless)? That's political suicide. Much easier to draft a short, simple law that is completely meaningless since you can't ban the internet, however is extremely useful when you want to apply it arbitrarily to your political enemies or the "enemies of the state"; whoever they happen to be today.
the fallacy of modifying your behavior (Score:4, Insightful)
crazy people will do crazy things. very little will set them off, and if it isn't bdsm images on the internet (really?) then it will be something else. so basically, you can't alter your behavior in such a way that prevents crazy people from doing crazy things. all you do is limit the activities of noncrazy people, and the crazy people still do crazy things. it's just something you have no control over that sets them off instead
likewise, you can't alter your behavior to prevent terrorist attacks. if the west acceded to every demand from violent jihadists, would violent jihadist become pastoral sheep farmers? no, they would go right on with their bloody agenda, they would just find some other lame excuse, because the root of their motivation is not the behavior of the west
it's a common fallacy, actually, that has parallels in childhood psychology: when parents divorce, children often blame themselves for their parents getting divorced. of course, it's crazy to blame the child, and no one does, except the child himself. but it is a common human psychological response to violence: when violence is committed against them, or their society, the first thing people do in their pain is blame themselves, or their society. then they think they can do something differently, and they won't be victimized anymore. no: you have to blame the perpetrators, not yourselves
the biggest believers of the blame the victim mindset is often the victims
a society or individual will always wonder why they are victims of violence when they did nothing wrong. it is trying to rationalize that which can't be rationalized
you can't change the behavior of crazy people, you can only identify them and limit their actions. that works far more than altering society itself to fit the needs of crazy people, when all you really do in such a situation is inconvenience noncrazy people
Three cheers for correlation! (Score:2, Insightful)
General law shouldn't be based on extraordinary cases.
Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, this is a good point. In some sense, the issues are very much related anyway - the question would be how do you define an "unbalanced person", and the idea behind these laws is presumably that anyone who views "extreme" porn must be "unbalanced", who needs dealing with in some way.
The UK (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't follow British politics closely enough - once the Liberal Democratic Party supplants Labour, are they going to be doing more of this, or less? Any Brits out there wanna educate me?
Great Idea (Score:4, Insightful)
- Ban all pictures of food, then no one will be triggered to over-eat.
- Ban all pictures of children under 18, who knows what sicko needed just that picture to set them off.
- Ban all pictures of senior citizens, their appearance might make them appear like easy targets and trigger a robbery.
- Ban all pictures of women, best not take any chances of triggering any sexual thoughts in a rapists head.
- Ban all pictures of men, these days, you never know what could happen, maybe a gay or even a female rapist may be triggered.
Imagine all the problems that could be solved by banning pictures. It's these darn pictures that cause this behavior. No rape or violence used to happen before cameras and the internet came around. If there was, it was certainly the fault of painters and those scantily clad stick figures on the cave wall.Thought Police (Score:5, Insightful)
Government censorship is evil, whatever the reasoning given for its implementation. Since this idiotic law would not apply outside of the "daddy knows best" government of the UK, the next step would be for the UK to implement filtering nationwide to stop these "unbalanced minds" from getting access to these images from other, less "enlightened" countries with more freedom[^H^H^H]access to filth...
I love these unsupported theories.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Cripes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Man, the bullshit is really flowing now. If I may be serious for a moment, the reality is that the only unbalanced minds worth concerning ourselves about receive government paychecks.
Here's the thing. Why don't the British and United States governments just come out and admit it: they really like the way the Chinese do things, and would like to be just like them. Freedom of speech? Screw that. The Internet? Dangerous toy. Popularity Ratings? Phooey. We don't care what you think. The Rule of Law? An inconvenience.
I have some advice for the lawmakers in both countries: stop sprinkling this shit with sugar in a vain effort to make it more palatable: it's always been shit, it's still shit, and it will always be shit, and trying to convince us that your shit don't stink just insults our collective intelligence.
I gotta tell ya: in spite of all the efforts the Federal Government has made to rationalize this same kind of shit, even the really stupid, complacent "it'll never happen here" people I know are beginning to notice the stench. It's getting that bad.
Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The UK (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't need cameras to do that. A simpler and cheaper mechanism is to run a pressure sensitive cable/whatever across the road.
They may officially be to "just count cars" but I think there is more to it than that.
Re:ok answer this question. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right, we should form that point just ban any form of stimulus from the world. problem solved.
How about we identify these individuals and offer treatment and therapy? That way we can help someone and not have to punish the 98% of the population that won't murder women and molest dogs.
Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:5, Insightful)
No body is making you click on those bondage/rape links.. but i'm sure you have to "see what filth other people are capable of doing" or some other justification.
Just some thoughts.
Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Slippery-as-hell slope (Score:5, Insightful)
What happens when we find that some of these easily-triggered violent people are also determined to have outbursts of violence when they see fairly innocuous material, for example a children's cartoon that happens to show some spooky-looking villain for a moment? Who says that's not going to trigger a psychotic episode in some potentially violent unstable person? How long until your favorite action/adventure movies become illegal to buy without some kind of "license" or approval stamp?
Also, what business is it of the government to decide what we are legally permitted to peruse for entertainment/"private" purposes? As long as it's not media of actual illegal violent acts being enacted (as opposed to acting, well-simulated, or consensual violence), why is it any of their concern? This has rights-violation written all over it. Frankly, in the privacy of your own home, as long as it's not child porn or photos of someone literally being murdered or tortured, I can see NO sound objection to restricting what people can legally observe.
And I thought the U.S. had some whacky politicians (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:5, Insightful)
As with "hate crime" laws, things quickly move into "cure worse than the disease" territory.
Legislation is an unnatural ecosystem, and could use some sort of predator as a feedback loop.
Re:ok answer this question. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not-to-mention mothers-- the mere sight of a mother anywhere could be the stimulus that triggers him to go bananas.
Don't you think we ought to ban mothers, as well? Or at least, perhaps, you know... A shawl or two? That ought to supress any feelings he might have.
So, if it's a foregone conclusion, what do you think suppressing and jailing the BDSM community will do for everyone?
Why is it a choice? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not a third option....Do nothing!
Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:5, Insightful)
YOU don't get a say over what consenting adults do and wish to share with other consenting adults WHO CHOOSE to view or participate in it.
I don't care whether it is art, for fun, to explore the darker side of their eroticism, or simply because they get off on it.
Any law to restrict production or possession of amateur porn, art films, extreme porn, whatever you want to call it infringes upon my rights; and actually it infringes upon your rights as well. If you don't see how then think of it this way:
You have a person or group of people deciding what behaviors or images are "not normal" or "too extreme."
How, at what level, and by whom this is decided is likely to change over time - therefore, even though at present a censorship law like this may not affect anything you believe in or participate in, (or may even find personally objectionable), it very well could in the future....
Re:Evidence? (Score:4, Insightful)
A better question is: Is there any actual evidence that any form of media triggers violent behavior?
Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you have the Playboy Channel? I sure don't, but it was an option when I signed up for cable. I didn't want to see it, so I didn't GET it added. I'm not sure who's forcing you to browse hard-core XXX sites, but I'd take this issue up with them. If, in fact, you do NOT have someone forcing you to view this material, then why do you keep looking for it? I don't care for racism, so I don't troll racist message boards. I don't believe I'd care for dead-puppy-humping. Go figure, I never visit dead-puppy-humping sites.
Let me ask you this: What qualifications or basis do you have to make the "best" moral judgements for everyone else? I'm rather curious.I think the last two words of that quote sum it up wonderfully. You don't understand it, so it MUST be bad for everyone ELSE. I don't understand it either. Doesn't mean I have the right to make that moral call for everyone around me....{side note, if you'd read my post, you'd see that neither my fiance nor I have engaged in this particular play style.}
This one was rich... While I've not had any partners ask for the "rape" scenario, I've had quite a few girlfriends get quite creative as far as fantasies go. I'm familiar with the material. As I've also had around 10 years experience in the psychiatric field, I'm quite content in keeping the analogy. You believe it's the wrong analogy? Fine. Show you're less "ignorant" than I am on the source material. Give us a more relevant analogy.
Doing weird stuff to each other (Score:3, Insightful)
In all these countries people are pushing legislation that furthers agendas that have nothing or very little to do with the "war on terrorism."
Germany has been the most extreme case, outlawing TOR, etc.
I wonder what effect this will have on the long run...Perhaps it will push the very people they want to outlaw to a "new techie underground" (SciFi/Cyberpunk/Cypherpunk galore)?
Re:ok answer this question. (Score:5, Insightful)
> he rapes and kills the dog and tries to mulest mom
> they let him go hoping for the best knowing full well with a few years he will act on said impulse and end up in prison in the psych ward
> how do you propose to fix this problem
Certainly you aren't suggesting that outlawing photos of B&D sex will fix this problem?!
Re:ok answer this question. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, we can just continue to ban everything in a "free" society because of a few bad apples.
Another thought, when will people realize that banning anything does not work! Ban on guns... people still get guns. Ban on drugs... people still get drugs. Ban on XYZ... people still get XYZ.
Erotic photos from LEGAL films outlawed?! (Score:3, Insightful)
They pass a movie like Hostel II. They declare the movie is legal. Watching the movie is legal. Advertising the movie is legal. To be very specific, watching a girl being bound and hung upside down naked while someone bathes in her dripping blood is legal.
But saving a clip from the movie and putting it on the Internet would be illegal.
Politicians are brain damaged.
Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:But the problem is over THERE (Score:5, Insightful)
You could say the same thing about any other form of entertainment. In a free society, we're supposed to be able to decide how to spend our free time, so long as we aren't harming anyone while doing so.
I agree completely. It sounds like this politician is unbalanced and needs a reality check. Porn doesn't encourage any stable person to go out and rape any more than Die Hard makes stable people go out and shoot people.
Re:But the problem is over THERE (Score:5, Insightful)
And some people's chosen form of entertainment is pornography. You've somehow convinced yourself that only "unbalanced" people enjoy pornography, but I know of no scientific study that indicates it is anything more than just another form of entertainment that many perfectly healthy adults enjoy watching. Most surveys since the VHS days indicate that the majority of the population in western countries has viewed pornography at one point or another, and a significant fraction of the population views it on a regular basis.
There's no indication that those huge numbers of people have become molesters or otherwise scarred by their exposure. Indeed, sex crimes in the US have declined greatly as the internet became more available, which brought pornography into many homes on a dramatically more frequent and extreme basis. If pornography led to criminal behavior in healthy individuals, we should be in the middle of the most horrific crime spree of sexual assaults in the history of mankind.
The main "damage" that psychologists have found with some pornography viewers is that pornography can set up unrealistic expectations, both for what sex "should" be like and what physical ideals and -- a criticism that is similarly offered for most forms of recorded entertainment, where actors and actresses are unrealistically attractive and their lives generally are much more interesting and exciting than the average viewers'.
You sounds bit like a headmaster circa 1900, when masturbation was considered to be a horrible act children should be beaten for experimenting with. It was widely "known" at the time that masturbation led to criminal behavior, insanity, and sexual deviancy. Of course the same charges were leveled against homosexuality and every other form of sex that is outside "missionary position in marriage for procreation under the covers with the lights out". Of course there's no evidence whatsoever for such claims other than mere belief by those who espouse them.
Re:Prehaps instead.. (Score:3, Insightful)
- That the justification for it is the "protection of morals" - you'd think they've stopped trying to do that in the 18th century or so.
- The idea that "[i]t is not possible at law to give consent to the type of activity covered by the offence"
- The criminalization of possession of staged activity of such type.
- All of 805: leaving aside the, um, "contentious" reasoning behind it, since when can they just randomly ban things to send "messages" about what they consider to be appropriate? That doesn't leave a whole lot of free speech intact if they can randomly ban fictionalized material because they deem it "possibly harmful" or "desensitizing".
This is supposed to be one of them First World countries, right?Re:To drag it back on topic, though (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that is what those who propose this law *want* you to believe.
Some facts:
1) SNUFF MOVIES ARE A MYTH!
Excuse me shouting, but in 30 years of searching by police agencies worldwide there has never been a *single* "snuff movie" found (someone being murdered for sexual gratification and then the film being sold or distributed), let alone anyone being prosecuted for it!
2) He looked at sites like "Necrobabes" and "Hanging Bitches" which are *staged* porn sites with actors posing for photos. Nobody is killed in these any more than people are killed in films like Saw or Hostel or Captivity!
3) Martin Salter MP, the guy who is pushing this law, has a clear anti-porn agenda. He has just been quoted as saying "No-one is stopping people doing weird stuff to each other but they would be strongly advised not to put it on the internet" he has also repeated the myth about Snuff Movies and claimed that "it is all too easy for this stuff to trigger an unbalanced mind" even though the original Government Consultation admitted that there was *NO* evidence that images such as this caused harm!
> I fail to see what good it does to provide movies for _that_ deranged minority.
You have this argument backwards. What you fail to see is that *NO* good will come from attempting to block imagery like this *in the hope* that it will somehow stop a "deranged minority" hurting others.
Peter Sutcliffe, the "Yorkshire Ripper" murdered prostitutes and justified it by his reading of the Bible. Should the Bible therefore be banned because it stimulates a "deranged minority" to murder??
> I'll say they're messed up in the head as it is. With or without movies, that's a disturbingly unbalanced person who gets an erection at the thought of taking a life.
Exactly, see above. These people will find justifications by one means or another. Criminalising the rest of us is not going to make a difference.
Re:the fallacy of modifying your behavior (Score:2, Insightful)