[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Pious Perverts See other Pious Perverts Articles Title: Another Nail In The Coffin Of Intermet Freedom? BBC NEWS Support for porn ban but doubts remain The government's proposal to ban the possession of violent and extreme pornographic material has been widely welcomed. But will it be enforceable? Under new laws announced on Wednesday by Home Office minister Vernon Coaker MP, anyone caught with images "featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury", could be jailed for up to three years. Groups representing adults who engage in more extreme but consensual sexual activities say the legislation represents a grey area. Derek Cohen, secretary of The Spanner Trust, which defends the rights of sadomasochists of all sexual orientations, said the proposed legislation was more of a "knee-jerk reaction". "The difficulty is that you have people who are in consensual activities and people engaged in more violent activities," he said. "The difficulty in legislation is can you draw a line?" Mr Cohen said that unlike child pornography or bestial pornography, which was easily recognisable as illegal, sadomasochists will find it difficult to know what side of the law their pictures fell. He added: "Violence is not consensual but injuries can be received in all forms of activities. People will not know whether their pictures are illegal or not. "It's a very difficult area, I think the burden of proof has to be very high. If this goes through I hope it receives a lot more scrutiny." Mainstream unaffected The government move follows a wide consultation process after a campaign led by Reading mother Liz Longhurst. Her daughter Jane was killed by Graham Coutts, who was said to have been addicted to violent porn. The new law will ensure possession of violent and extreme pornography is illegal both on- and offline. The government says the new law will not target those who accidentally come into contact with obscene pornography, nor would it target the mainstream entertainment industry. Jim Gamble, chief executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) Centre, said legislation was needed to keep in step with technological advances. "Today starts to answer that need in respect of how the internet can be used to supplement this area of criminality. "It builds on the fundamentals of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and helps take our fight against violent and extreme pornography to where it needs to be - in tune with technology and in-line with how the modern criminal mind works," he said. Others, such as Liberal Democrat MP and campaign supporter Sandra Gidley, say the government should have acted sooner. "It's absolutely the right decision. The scandal is it's taken so long to come to this decision. "You cannot look at this sort of material and not be affected." Labour's Brighton Pavilion MP David Lepper added: "I'm delighted that our campaign has been so successful and that the government has agreed to plug these loopholes in the law." But Shaun Gabb, director of the anti-censorship organisation the Libertarian Alliance opposes the legislation on the grounds that people should be able to look at whatever they wish. "If you are criminalising 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," he said. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/england/berkshire/5298700.stm Published: 2006/08/30 14:33:46 GMT © BBC MMVI __________ so it comes to this - despite there being no conclusive evidence of a link between viewing "violent pornography" and actual crimes of sexual violence (in fact there's evidence in some European countries that the de-criminalisation of hardcore porn has actually DECREASED the incidence of sex crimes). not that this matters to the petty moralists who are so scared of accepting their peers as adults capable of fantasizing without actually doing anything. this legislation represents the worst attributes of the "nanny state" that is growing in the UK. i'm not praising pictures of rape or BDSM or necrophilia. i'm not personally in favour of sexual images involving death, nor does sex between humans and animals appeal in the slightest but where is the proof that looking at pictures causes an increase in the incidence of actual crimes? ohh i know this is something that Diana and others here will oppose me on but i really feel the issue of online censorship is so dangerous to freedom that it has to be resisted. what next - will pictures of anal sex between consenting adults be added to the list of what is "violent pornography"? what about consenting BDSM games where people get dressed in kinky clothing and tie each other up? if a man likes to be tied to the bed by his sexual partner and she takes pictures of him enjoying their mutual kink, will that be covered by this new moral fascism? hopefully, this legislation will run aground in the courts when lawyers fight over the definition of "violence" and "pornography", and tries to weigh the human rights of the accused against the actual evidence that the material in question actually does any real harm. i am not in favour of violent sexual images. it does absolutely nothing for me and i can't understand what anyone can find arousing about this kind of stuff. however, am i more at risk of being raped or killed because other people are looking at these pictures? there is no evidence that i am
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
#6. To: ruthie (#0)
We're not in Kansas anymore.
There are no replies to Comment # 6. End Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||