Banning extreme porn

[pinkpumkin]

What do people think about this proposed new legislation. That wants to ban violent pornographic images.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/inside/consults/current/

It looks like its based on the child porn legislation exept this time it could include banning depections of consensual sadomasochism and fantacy rape and torture. Does this mean they end up banning fillms like 'Kiss the girls' or even 'passion of the Christ?'

Also would pictures of torture at Abu grarib (many of which were of a degrading sexual nature) fall within this remit of this law? Would people be censored from viewing them? What would be the political implications of this?

 

[behemoth]

To be honest I don't care if they ban something I am never likely to look at. In an ideal world porn would be something done by consenting adults. But we don't live in an ideal world.

 

[In Bloom]

What a pile of shite. Since when was what consenting adults get up to in private anybody else's business?

 

[poet]

To be honest I don't care if they ban something I am never likely to look at.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

-- Martin Niemoeller

 

[Giles]

I think that this law is unnecessary, and that it will have little effect anyway, since many of the web sites that are involved are not subject to UK law.

And unlike the case of child porn, there isn't an easy international consensus over what is allowed and what isn't, so its unlikely that a ban will be enforced around the world.

The "giveaway" is in the document referred to: it says that the proposed law will "send a message"! FFS, they are almost admitting that the law won't stop people looking at such stuff, but, hey, it will SEND A MESSAGE, so that's all right then.

Waste of time.

Giles..

 

[IMHO]

I want to see pictures of a baby with its guts just ripped out, in death throes, whilst being anally shagged by a starving dog. Why shouldn't I?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I want to see pictures of a baby with its guts just ripped out, in death throes, whilst being anally shagged by a starving dog. Why shouldn't I?

cos you are clearly insane...

 

[tobyjug]

I want to see pictures of a baby with its guts just ripped out, in death throes, whilst being anally shagged by a starving dog. Why shouldn't I?

Basically because as no-one is likely to volunteer to have that done you are an accessory to a criminal act.

 

[IMHO]

OK ... so where do we draw the line?

 

[tobyjug]

OK ... so where do we draw the line?

Ban all porn unless it involves adult participants who can be proven to be taking part of their own free will without being influenced by being sexually abused as children and who are also proven not to be suffering from any mental illness.

 

[Loki]

Ban all porn unless it involves adult participants who can be proven to be taking part of their own free will without being influenced by being sexually abused as children and who are also proven not to be suffering from any mental illness.

And how's that gonna work on the internet?

 

[laptop]

And how's that gonna work on the internet?

They've learned. They're not even trying to make the existence of such porn "illegal".

They're proposing to make its posession within the UK illegal. Which, given that the presence of a file in cache counts as posession, makes it illegal for anyone under UK law to view it.

 

[lostexpectation]

ah now

its already illegal to to publish it, in the uk...

this won't lose me any sleep

 

[Loki]

They've learned. They're not even trying to make the existence of such porn "illegal".

They're proposing to make its posession within the UK illegal. Which, given that the presence of a file in cache counts as posession, makes it illegal for anyone under UK law to view it.

There's no way they could monitor the contents of tens of millions of peoples' hard drives. We've got five computers in this flat alone all sitting behind a router and firewalls. Nothing gets in that we don't want to.

I suppose they could install monitoring software with every ISP and snoop where users are looking but that would be a helluva costly exercise to manage, millions look at porn every day. How could you tell if a bondage pic is of two people doing it for fun or coercion? Not to mention the infringement of privacy.

 

[laptop]

There's no way they could monitor the contents of tens of millions of peoples' hard drives. We've got five computers in this flat alone all sitting behind a router and firewalls. Nothing gets in that we don't want to.

So the proposed new offence turns largely into a bonus charge to levy against people whose computers they've already seized.

I suppose they could install monitoring software with every ISP and snoop where users are looking but that would be a helluva costly exercise to manage, millions look at porn every day. How could you tell if a bondage pic is of two people doing it for fun or coercion? Not to mention the infringement of privacy.

See above.

I think there'll be some interesting internal discussions about the ramifications that the announcement doesn't (as reported) deal with: do those who are conviced go on the sex offenders' register and are they banned not just from working with children but from working with people/goats/gerbils... ?

 

[Red Faction]

Ban all porn unless it involves adult participants who can be proven to be taking part of their own free will without being influenced by being sexually abused as children and who are also proven not to be suffering from any mental illness.

but as porn = people being paid to have sex
and having sex for money = prostitution
and prostitution = illegal

surely then porn = illegal anyway?

 

[Ryazan]

Sexual imagery itself is not oppressive, , not to go on about the more violent forms of pornography, or simulated violence that such niches provide. But rather a lot of porn actresses from eastern and central Europe are being swallowed up by the American industry right now. It is the reasons of why a woman (or man) feels that going into porn is the best choice to get some money, for long term like studying, or just a wage that need to be looked at, as well as looking at how that links in with possible affects on relationships, and attitudes towrds others sexually, women, let alone the law side of things. Porn affects working class women directly, much more than it does the consumer.

 

[Haller]

They've learned. They're not even trying to make the existence of such porn "illegal".

They're proposing to make its posession within the UK illegal. Which, given that the presence of a file in cache counts as posession, makes it illegal for anyone under UK law to view it.

They're also saying that they won't be banning images of 'milder forms of bondage and humiliation'. There's therefore to be a continuum with a line placed in an arbitrary way that is almost impossible for a citizen to identify.
You go in search of 'milder' porn, find yourself with some harder stuff that you don't want and, at present, you surf onwards. If this law comes into force, the fact that you have seen it becomes an offence with a proposed maximum sentence of three years.
This applies - the consultation document makes clear - even to images with models who 'genuinely consent to taking part'.
It is an extraordinarily dangerous proposal.
The consultation document talks about 'aberrant sexual activity' which is 'of a kind that most people would find abhorrent'. They're talking about consensual S&M. But the terminology they're using is easily extended to others.

 

[kea]

has anyone pointed out yet that this is simply closing a loophole in the law? it's already illegal to publish these types of porn in the uk, this legislation merely extends that to internet possession.

oh and there are already threads about this by the way.

 

[Fruitloop]

has anyone pointed out yet that this is simply closing a loophole in the law? it's already illegal to publish these types of porn in the uk, this legislation merely extends that to internet possession.

They're not really the same thing though, are they?

 

[Giles]

but as porn = people being paid to have sex
and having sex for money = prostitution
and prostitution = illegal

surely then porn = illegal anyway?

Is prostitution itself illegal? Are you sure?

Giles..

 

[Giles]

has anyone pointed out yet that this is simply closing a loophole in the law? it's already illegal to publish these types of porn in the uk, this legislation merely extends that to internet possession.

oh and there are already threads about this by the way.

It's not a "loophole in the law". The current law recognises the limits of the UK law's power, the proposed new one doesn't and will be almost unenforceable.

But I'll bet that they will go ahead anyway, because this government, more than most, like to be seen to be "doing something" about any perceived problem, even if what they have done is a waste of time, money and effort.

Giles..

 

[kea]

They're not really the same thing though, are they?

what's not really the same as what?

 

[Fruitloop]

Having an image in a cache isn't really the same as making and publishing it.

 

[kea]

It's not a "loophole in the law". The current law recognises the limits of the UK law's power, the proposed new one doesn't and will be almost unenforceable.

it IS a loophole, in that the law as it stands doesn't cover the internet and wasn't formulated with it in mind. hence in the current situation there is a loophole, ie. the internet.
whether the law is going to be effective or not is another issue, and imo a much more interesting one than the usual 'morality' debate.

 

[kea]

Having an image in a cache isn't really the same as making and publishing it.

no - this is about possession, the current law is about publication. so? do you have a substantive contribution to the issue? is your point relating to the moral difference in legislating for publication and for possession, or perhaps it's about the effectiveness of attempting to unilaterally legislate for the internet?

 

[Fruitloop]

The law will be ludicrously unenforceable, which is a good thing IMO. It will probably make heaps of money for anyone running an anonymizing proxy based in the Seychelles though.

 

[kea]

The law will be ludicrously unenforceable, which is a good thing IMO.

it's a good thing that the government are spending time and money passing a law which is going to be unenforcable? wouldn't it be better for them not to bother?

fwiw, it seems clear to me that if they wanted to address this loophole in the existing law effectively, they should be building bridges internationally to develop some kind of international system of governance and policing. i know that idea won't be popular with net users, me included, but looking at it from the pov of government, that would seem to be the best way to achieve both this objective and in the longer term to gain valuable control over what is at the moment very much not under governmental control (and we all know how much they like to control things .... in fact the net is rather a thorn in all governments' sides from that pov).

can anyone point me towards any intergovernmental efforts to develop internet policing? i know that police forces do co-operate in terms of things like child porn, but i'm talking about developing some kind of overarching international legal structure to govern net denizens ....

 

[Fruitloop]

no - this is about possession, the current law is about publication. so?

What do you mean, so? Publication and possession are two completely different activities, and I find it worrying that the law is being extended from one to the other with hardly a shred of public debate. Also, publishers have ways and means of determining whether something is suitable for publication before it goes to press - I don't think that these days you could inadvertently publish something in the UK that would be regarded as obscene. I don't see where similar certainty or protection exists for people viewing images on the internet.

The other thing I don't see is why this is even being done. What exactly is it going to help? It just seems that there's a political climate at the moment which is germane to getting things banned, and a public campaign against the usual defenders of HR and free speech laws, and that this is being pushed through by Mary Whitehouse-esque elements purely because they can.

it's a good thing that the government are spending time and money passing a law which is going to be unenforcable? wouldn't it be better for them not to bother?

Like the weed prohibition - it's a good thing it's unenforceable 'cos it's a shit law.

 

[kea]

i meant 'so?' as in, 'so what's your point?'

why is this being done? well as i said in my above post, it seems to me that it's an attempt by government to police the internet, which, since it's rather difficult to police it at the moment (re: issues such as publication etc), is probably a thorn in their side.

the issue of publication/possession is a different one tho, seperate from the issue of whether this legislation would be effective and the general debate about attempts to govern the net. yes the proposed legislation does jump from publiaction to possession but why is that? erm, it's because on the net, the publishers are often not in this country and hence action against them can't be taken, whereas the people in this country downloading the stuff are sitting ducks. in that sense, the legislation will probably be effective to some extent, because the people it targets are in this country and hence available to our court system, whereas if the government had merely extended existing leigislation re: publication to the net, it would have been completely ineffective because they wouldn't have been able to take action against teh people it targets.