Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Privacy Censorship Your Rights Online

UK to Ban Possession of Certain 'Violent' Pornography 557

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK to Ban Possession of Certain 'Violent' Pornography

Comments Filter:
  • by Reziac ( 43301 ) * on Tuesday April 29, 2008 @12:23PM (#23239760) Homepage Journal
    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 [] )

    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:Hentai...? (Score:2, Informative)

    by gowen ( 141411 ) <> on Tuesday April 29, 2008 @01:14PM (#23240540) Homepage Journal
    Cartoons don't count: Section 62 of the act says: "a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real" before any image falls under the Bill.
  • by mdwh2 ( 535323 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2008 @08:21PM (#23246440) Journal
    The threshold is not that they look "realistic" but that they look "real", which is a very different thing.

    I don't think I particularly disagree with you, but note that there's two slightly different phrases in the bill []:

    An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following

    (a) an act which threatens a persons life,
    (b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a persons anus, breasts or genitals,
    (c) an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or
    (d) a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),

    and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.

    I.e., the reasonable person ... thinks it was real test applies to the person/animal, but the actions themselves must be "realistic".

Perfection is acheived only on the point of collapse. - C. N. Parkinson