Slashdot Log In
Possession of Violent Pornography Outlawed in UK
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wed Aug 30, 2006 04:11 PM
from the grief-not-conducive-to-clear-thinking dept.
from the grief-not-conducive-to-clear-thinking dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC is reporting that possession of violent pornography is now punishable by three years in prison. This decision was handed down in response to a campaign waged by a grieving mother who lost her daughter to someone obsessed with violent pornography." From the article: "Shaun Gabb, director of the anti-censorship organization the Libertarian Alliance, said: 'If you are criminalizing possession then you are giving police inquisitorial powers to come into your house and see what you've got, now we didn't have this in the past.'"
Related Stories
[+]
UK Wants To Ban Computer-Generated Child Porn 544 comments
An anonymous reader writes "UK Home Secretary John Reid has urged a ban on computer-generated images of child abuse, including cartoons. The Register asks if this would criminalize role-playing gamers, and what about Hentai? Currently, such images may be illegal to publish under the Obscene Publications Act, but they do not come under child pornography laws. The attempt to criminalize possession of virtual images mirrors the attempt to criminalize possession of 'extreme porn' which would also include fake images, as well as photos of simulated acts involving consenting adults (as discussed on Slashdot). A petition on the Government's new website urges an end to such plans."
[+]
UK Proposal To Restrict Internet Pornography Sparks Row 561 comments
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Steganography... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Steganography... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Steganography... (Score:5, Funny)
Just you wait- soon, they're going to come after your dinosaur porn!
Parent
Re:Steganography... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
No one expects the Britsh Inquisition! (Score:5, Funny)
Here we go. (Score:5, Funny)
Did Jack The Ripper possess VIOLENT INTERNET PORN? (Score:5, Insightful)
There have been plenty of sick creatures such as the Boston Strangler and too many others I've read about and forgotten and who were active BEFORE the internet.
This is a waste.
Re:Did Jack The Ripper possess VIOLENT INTERNET PO (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Possession Illegal != Right to Search (Score:5, Insightful)
There are already things that are illegal to possess. I don't see how adding another thing to that list somehow now grants law enforcement scary inquisitorial powers. As far as I can tell, the only thing that grants law enforcement inquisitorial powers is actually granting law enforcement inquisitorial powers.
What nonsense is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does this person not realise that possession of an unlicensed firearm and possession of certain psycho-active chemicals are already illegal? The police can't enter your house and search it without a warrant to search for these, why should violent pornography be any different?
The problem I have with laws like this is that we are treating symptoms of psychoses as crimes. Possession of violent pornography is not, in itself, a bad thing. It can, however, be a symptom of a serious mental imbalance, as was almost certainly the case with the murderer in the article. Now we are making it even harder for people with problems like this to get professional help. We are driving them even further underground, where they are forced to become even more repressed, and even more likely to snap and kill someone.
I would much rather see mentally ill individuals treated before they harm someone than imprisoned afterwards.
should be action not posession (Score:5, Insightful)
Because, without the violent porn (Score:5, Insightful)
Criminal law should not be a knee jerk response to any one event but rather a disspassionate evaluation of deterrent, punishment, rehabilitation and public safety (based on logic and evidence!) made in order to maximise the net gain to society. That is how just laws are written and the biggest benefit is gathered.
Not so fast... (Score:5, Informative)
Umm... no it isn’t. FTFA:
The government have announced plans to make it illegal. So it may happen. But also, the civil liberties types have plenty of time to raise objections, get the sentence changed, get exemptions added etc... which has got to be a good thing.
Right to privacy. (Score:5, Funny)
Does pornography increase incidents of rape? (Score:5, Insightful)
Things that make you go Hmmmm....
Yeesh (Score:5, Funny)
Revenge (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Revenge (Score:5, Funny)
Someone needs to take one for the team.
Parent
Cause-and-Effect (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
not Wrong
These communities become the primary outlet for the members of these communities and engulf their entire thought process
not Wrong
and soon their allegience is more to the community than to the rule of law
not Wrong
and they feel no remorse about perpetrating these acts in real life.
still not Wrong
Nothing you have stated is a Wrong act. No one is harmed by those actions, except arguably the person committing them. You'll be delighted to know that if this person performs the act of murder, there are already a number of UK laws designed for just that scenario. Quite convenient.
Parent
Re:Ah brilliant (Score:5, Informative)
This is anything BUT kneejerk legislation based on media headlines, its coming up from grassroots victims of crime.
Parent
Re:Ah brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
Last time I checked, killing someone is still illegal. Why is this law needed? It's not like it's child porn is it? The 'actors' know exactly what they're getting signing up for the job, being adults and all...
Reminds me of a quote by that evil-incarnate W. Axl Rose (Guns n Roses) in reponse to people wanting to ban some GNR songs:
"If you're going to ban something, ban the Bible. More people have been killed because of/in the name of that any of our songs"
Parent
Re:Ah brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow I doubt the sincerity of these signatures. Approach someone in a public place and just start off "Excuse me, sir, do you like violent pornography?" What the hell can you say, even if that's your bag? "Why certainly, stranger. Nothing like a good snuff video while I bugger myself with a coke bottle, yessiree!"
And of course, an MP (I assume that's a politician) coming out in favor of pornography period would be political suicide. That's an even less rational standard.
Parent
Re:Ah brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
This sounds like his defense lawyer's wet dream: "the porn made me do it! It was the porn!"
This makes about as much sense as if the city of New York had decided to ban dogs after the Son of Sam said his dog told him to kill people. Maybe the problem is just that people are occasionally psychopaths? Like terrorists, there's very little that you can do to stop them, and there's a very great risk that any attempted "cure" can be worse than the "disease." (E.g., an erosion of civil liberties and freedoms in the face of a very small threat.)
Parent