Slashdot Log In
Possession of Violent Pornography Outlawed in UK
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wed Aug 30, 2006 03:11 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.
Steganography... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Steganography... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Steganography... (Score:5, Funny)
Not only are their practices wildly unethical in their sexual attraction in covering things up, there are clear links to terrorism in the practice too! You can hide a Michael Jackson nose close up in a Natalie Portman portrait, and if that's not an act of terror to the digital information representing the image, I don't know what is!
I demand a WOWUSA Act (War On Wildly Unethical Stenography Applications) to be written and sneaked into approval thanks to a tasty acronym that the American public can associate to positive feelings. Someone seem to have to think of the children here!
DON'T GIVE THEM ANY FUCKING IDEAS! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:British Porn Cannot Compare to myRedbook in USA (Score:5, Informative)
All joking aside, it is precisely this attitude that seeking out sex is a "perverted" thing to do, that provides the incentive and the ammunition for folks like US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to make consensual adult imagery illegal [law.com], taking away resources from child pornography investigation units to go after adult pornography. And that was a year ago. How it doesn't create more of an uproar still baffles me.
Getting back to the current topic, keep in mind that much "violent" pornography is acted, not real violence. Here in the States, we call porn with real violence "snuff" films, and they are already illegal here as they depict real, intentional violence against the actors for the sake of creating the film.
Re:Steganography... (Score:5, Funny)
Just you wait- soon, they're going to come after your dinosaur porn!
Re:Steganography... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Steganography... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Steganography... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Steganography... (Score:5, Informative)
For that matter, guess they could go after some of the classics then too like The Stones' Midnight Rambler [lyricsfreak.com] .
Heck guess we could nix Brown Sugar [lyricsfreak.com] too:
"Scarred old slaver know's he's doing alright...hear him whip the women just around midnight..."
Re:Steganography... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you must have something to hide?
I'd like your credit card number, all of your tax forms, and I'd like to know what lies you've told to your friends, what thoughts of criminal activities you've had, what crimes you have been accused of, precisely what your blood alcohol level was before you drove, every instance of cruelty or indifference you've ever committed, and exactly which products you buy and stocks you invest in - oh, and what you're getting your spouse and kids for the holidays. This of course is for your job interview - and so I can ruin the surprise of your gifts for the holidays. Everyone has something to hide, except people who are 100% self-sufficient or barter for all of the goods and services they need.
If you do not have violent pornography, you would not need encryption or stegnagrophy... Encryption can hide pornography, but has no use if you're not doning anything illegal.
First off, it's "steganography." Do banks have legitimate need of encryption to protect your ATM withdrawls? Do you have legitimate need of a PIN to access your funds? Have you ever wanted to have a diary, but were afraid someone who lives with you might read it? Does your front door, car door, and safety deposit box have a lock? Why? WHAT ARE YOU HIDING?
Here in America, we are allowed to do what we want.
I would say, "Here in the United States, we are a nation of laws. We are free to act within those laws." (By and large. When that breaks down, I like to get out and protest.)
Violent pornography hurts poeple so it should be illegal.
Think of a movie with a love scene. Top Gun. Dirty Dancing. Eight Mile. You do understand that the actors (probably) didn't actually have sex while they filmed that scene, don't you? It's acting.
Now think about other sex scenes. Shawshank Redemption. Sleepers. The Accused. Bad Lieutenant. Sybil. Far less pleasant, right? But, probably, none of the actors were actually hurt while those rape scenes were being filmed. (Or at least, not physically hurt more than in filming any normal "fight scene.") Are those still "good movies," or do you just categorically call them bad and harmful to society? I happen to think Shawshank is one of the best movies ever made, and a ton of people - including the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences, The American Cinema Editors, the American Society of Cinematographers, the Directors Guild of America, the Golden Globes, the Grammy's, the Screen Actors Guild, and the Writers Guild of America all agree with me.
Do you want to tell me what, precisely, is the difference between the rape scenes in Shawshank Redemption and this violent pornography that you're defending us all from?
Put another way - if a dude spanks a chick's ass while they're simulating sex (just for the sake of argument) in front of a camera, is that violent pornography or is it not? I frankly don't see the harm in it.
Is it the violence that really bothers you, or is it the pornography? Or is it some mix of the two? Look, just because I think something should be legal doesn't mean I endorse it, or think it's a good idea. I hate alcohol with a passion, but I don't think prohibition is the solution to drunk drivers. I blame the f-ing drunk drivers. Do you think the portrayal of violence in pornography is disgusting and bad, or do you really think owning it should be illegal?
Do you really want to go after the portrayal of sadism and masochism? You think that stuff hurts people? I mean, you think it hurts them in ways they don't like?
I don't mean to make light of times when people are the victims of violence or rape - that's very serious, and there are already a ton of laws on the books. But, do you think we're doing well enough against actual violence and rape, that
No one expects the Britsh Inquisition! (Score:5, Funny)
hahaha.. (Score:4, Funny)
Here we go. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: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)
Re:Did Jack The Ripper possess VIOLENT INTERNET PO (Score:5, Funny)
Jack: HOW BOUT SEX QUERY
Hooker: YES STOP
No wonder he was frustrated.
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)
simulated violence pornography saves lives (Score:4, Interesting)
Admittedly, simulated images weren't enough for this guy, but he would have been killing much sooner if the internet hadn't sated his needs.
Re:simulated violence pornography saves lives (Score:5, Insightful)
Child pornography is illegal due to the fact that a child cannot consent to sex. The video therefore becomes evidence of an illegal act.
Violent pornography (assume the actors are adults) displays actions of cosenting adults.
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.
System of a Down? (Score:4, Informative)
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)
Re:Revenge (Score:5, Funny)
Someone needs to take one for the team.
Re:Disgusting (Score:4, Insightful)
Cause-and-Effect (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Disgusting (Score:5, Funny)
sadly
Re:Disgusting (Score:4, Interesting)
Violent naughty pictures?
Naughty pictures?
Violent pictures?
Violent pames?
Violent movies? (Everybody liked Saw, right?)
Violent sports (UFC, WWF)?
All contact sports?
How about in the non-content arena?
Alcohol?
Caffeine?
Cars with HP to exceed 75MPH or torque to better than 0-60/8sec?
While we're at it... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ah brilliant (Score:5, Informative)
This is anything BUT kneejerk legislation based on media headlines, its coming up from grassroots victims of crime.
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"
Re:Ah brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
It's illegal because a child was 'hurt' in the making of the kiddie-porn in the first place.*
*Traci Lords not withstanding
Re:Ah brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
We should ban *any* anti-abortion group because people who go to those meetings, and watch their literature might kill doctors who perform abortions.
You can't ban things based on what people do after the fact. Can 'environment' increase a 'bad' persons tendencies? sure. But I don't want my choices restricted to only the lowest common denomenator safe for everyone. We wouldn't be able to do anything.
Re:Ah brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ah brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
The actions of a few sick and twisted individuals is not typical of the standards of society. Was dear old Jack the Ripper a typical 19th century gentleman?
The problem with your line of reasoning is the incontrivertable fact that violent crime rates have been steadily progressing downwards for decades, especially in areas like youth crime. It's not that there weren't sick and dangereous criminals in decades or centuries past, it's that they weren't as high profile. The fact that we have tabloids, CNN and legions of hungry journalists out looking for the next Manson/Jack/Son of Sam only means that we hear about such individuals more often.
It isn't lack of standards in our society that's the problem, it's an overabundance of boogeymen.
Re:Ah brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't buy the "feeding the beast" argument. Do you run out and buy a Budweiser everytime you see their commercial? Of course not. You have will power and a measure of self-control over your urges. You could eliminate all the child porn, real or simulated, and you would still have pedophiles. A person can feed his or her own beast through the limitless possibilities of the human imagination. There were pedophiles prior to the internet, the TV, and even the photograph. How did they feed the beast?
"Feeding the beast" is a convenient and completely unsubstantiated argument against something. Almost anything is capable of working on our baser instincts and influencing our behavior. People are responsible for their own actions, regardless of the motivation or catalyst. As another poster pointed out, the Bible has been used to inspire and justify horrific acts of violence and subjugation over the four millenia. Even today, those extreme anti-abortionists who murder OB/GYN doctors for performing abortions use the Bible as inspiration and justification for their behavior. Would you support calls to outlaw the Bible for "feeding the beast" in those cases?
While I find simulated child-porn to be offensive, as a true freedom-loving American (not the Bush variety), I cannot think of a reason it should be outlawed. If no "actual" children are involved, the fact that most of us find it disgusting is not sufficient reason to criminalize it.
Re:Ah brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, here's your standards:
It is acceptable for a person to watch or imagine any type of fictional scenario that appeals to them. It is not acceptable for a person to commit a violent or harmful act against another person.
That an easy enough standard for you, or would you like some clarification?
Re:Ah brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy, we just kill off all the flat chested women. If men see flat-chested women, they will obviously be driven to screw little girls since they're incapable of telling them apart. If you don't have a C cup by your 18th birthday, off you go to the gas chamber to save our children.
Of course, before we start selecting for early bloomers, we'll have to kill off all the girls that develop a C cup before their 16th birthday, just to make sure the men don't get any "bad ideas". Eventually we'll evolve into a species that develops all sexual characteristics right at the age of consent, and it will finally cease to be an arbitrary number. Until it gets raised again, anyways.
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.
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.)
Re:Total Crap (Score:4, Interesting)