See other Pious Perverts Articles
Title: Another Nail In The Coffin Of Intermet Freedom?
Source:
BBC News
URL Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/berkshire/5298700.stm
Published: Aug 30, 2006
Author: ruthie
Post Date: 2006-08-30 12:06:57 by ruthie
Keywords: None
Views: 390
Comments: 12
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
#1. To: ruthie (#0)
Can't government leave us the freak alone? Sorry for the dopey question.
hihi JT it seems that governments want to come into our bedrooms to make sure we are only engaging in "nice" sex this proposed legislation is so dangerous because it is NOT backed up by evidence. even the case that caused the campaign to ban "violent pornography" has gone back to the court on the basis that the murder verdict was too restritive and that a conviction for manslaughter should have been considered - the man accused said her death was accidental during consensual "breath-play" BDSM games. a similar case in Scotland of a woman strangled by her lover occurred when he choked her to enhance her sexual gratification but it went too far and she died. the insidious danger in this legislation is that under a veil of protecting people from harm it restricts freedoms when no proof of a direct connection between porn and sexual assault actually exists!
love ruthie Proving that viewing violent imagery leads to the viewer committing violent crime at a later date is a moot point. I think the concern is that there is an industry that gets money from viewers to watch a person or an animal being killed or badly hurt. I think that's a legitimate societal concern. Passing a law against viewing this material in print or cyber form constitutes an invasion of privacy, true, but how else do you get at the perpetrators of this vile industry? Arresting the viewers I imagine is the most effective way in the eyes of law enforcement to track into the industry and the film makers. The Brits say the new law will apply to anyone caught with images "featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury." Let's hope the intent and spirit of the law is followed in reality. As it applies to violent consensual sex, I don't know if that will happen, quite frankly, but if it does, perhaps it should. Being violent with one's partner, or a partner accepting violence, come on, sadomasochism is not something that should be protected in society - that's mental illness that should be treated at the very least. I'd agree with you, though, in terms of consensual violence, the people should not be jailed unless one of the partners is a child or animal.
This is an incremental process. This law is the foot in the door, and restrictions will be added until the Internet control the powers that be exists with all the necessary tools at hand to control and thwart 'dangerous' free speech and exchange of information and ideas.
I know, I know...to paraphrase Marx/Lenin (one of those guys)by agreeing with this clamp down on intellectual freedom, I am supplying the rope to the Government that may lead to the end of my own freedoms as well. However, sometimes one can't look at the big picture without gagging over the little sores that fester due to the abuse of the concepts of "freedom and liberty." In the case of extreme violence against adults, children, animals for money gain...the smell of this infected sore ( snuff industry) is too pungent for me to ignore. My freedom is tainted by what is done to other beings by those that profit from man's baser voyeur instincts and who mock our desire to protect intellectual freedom at all cost - in this particular case, the cost is too great from my point of view to permit this extremist industry, if you will, to thrive in society's midst.
We're not in Kansas anymore.
"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country." - Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers I agree that these people should pay the consequences for their disgusting mis- use of free speech. This is the intent of the First Amendment of our Constitution in allowing us such freedom to say what we will. I merely offer caution that we don't wind up having tried to get rid of the piranhas my introducing crocodiles into the environment to deal with them.
The Brits say the new law will apply to anyone caught with images "featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury." Let's hope the intent and spirit of the law is followed in reality. As it applies to violent consensual sex, I don't know if that will happen, quite frankly, but if it does, perhaps it should. Being violent with one's partner, or a partner accepting violence, come on, sadomasochism is not something that should be protected in society - that's mental illness that should be treated at the very least. I'd agree with you, though, in terms of consensual violence, the people should not be jailed unless one of the partners is a child or animal. this is a fallacious argument as it can be applied to gun manufacturers, car manufacturers, indeed any industry that creates environmental pollution. proving a direct correlation between violent pornographic imagery and actual incidents of violent sexual offences is absolutely pivotal to the issue. it is far, far more than a moot point, imho. i take it you advocate a ban against any programme or publication that shows acts of violence? would you ban all advertising of foods that may in excessive amounts cause obesity or disease? i would have thought it was far easier to track down the perpetrators of crimes against children and other vulnerable or unwilling victims by monitoring the circulation of material depicting this stuff. i believe that when a government takes action to restrict freedoms where there is either no or inconclusive evidence of causative harm, that government has failed in its duty to uphold the freedom of its people. i'm not saying that the influence of pornography (violent or otherwise) shouldn't be a concern for a society - far from it. i am not an advocate for porn, nor do i find anything slightly arousing about violence. but i think it is utterly wrong to suggest those that do get turned on by looking at images are more at risk of attacking others for sexual gratification when there is inadequate evidence to prove a causal link. shall we ban CSI? what about all the other drivel that is pumped out from our televisions - there's plenty of kinky sex, violence and gruesome imagery available to feed the imaginations of the masses. as Simone De Beauvoir put it, "Must We Burn DeSade?" you rightly cited the statement about images "featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury" - but what exactly does that mean? what is an "image" in this context - is it a photograph, a cartoon, a sketch, a digital creation using Poser? what exactly does "appears to be" or "likely to result in" mean? this is NOT good law, it is decidedly weak, vague, and open to argument. it smacks of feeble compromise in an attempt to define a degree of what constitutes "violent pornography" in order to be socially acceptable. a cynic might argue that in a legal sense, something is only pornographic if it makes a judge have an erection under the bench without the aid of a penis-pump! can i take issue with your assertion thay it should apply to violent consensual sex? what business is it of yours or mine if people want to hurt each other for sexual gratification in the privacy of their own homes? why shouldn't other people be denied the mutual expression in private of their sadomasochistic desires? i thought it was a mark of how civilised a society truly is by its ability to tolerate people who don't subscribe to the majority. or are you seriously suggesting there is something inherently feeble about the British people that they can't resist sexual perversion and indulge in an orgy of sexual violence as the Spanish, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Finnish and others apparently can? you might consider S&M to be a mental illness and you are entitled to hold that view. in fact i defend your right to say it. you do not have the right to force that view on others. i rather suspect that the British Houses of Parliament and the American Senate would lose a huge number of members if consenting S&M adults were carted off for treatment of their mental disorder! (i know someone who used to work in London in the Ministry of Defence aka MI5. when she wasn't tracking the Libyans, she was involved in bailing out politicians (usually Labour) who had been "honeytrapped" by S&M prostitutes of both sexes working for the Russians - one day she might publish her memoirs and won't that be fun to read? ;) interestingly, the original campaign for a ban on violent pornography has been blurred by combining it with child abuse - it is already well-covered (and rightly so) by law and i wholeheartedly support the prosecution of anyone involved in this kind of activity. the abuse of animals is also something i agree with you about but the viewing and possessing of the images is not the same as the actual assault. let me suggest something else - what if the repression of these sexual images actually causes more harm than good? what if the fact that men (well i'm presuming this is mainly about men lol) can look at some kinky images then masturbate actually channels away their violent fantasies in a safe way? i don't know how the male mind works (it is ever a mystery to women!) but i suspect a regular sexual, err "discharge" is, umm like releasing a pressure valve? what if this kind of censorship actually prevents the release of pressure and there are more risks of explosion into actual sexual violence? it would certainly explain why the rates of sexual assault in Sweden dropped significantly AFTER the laws on hardcore porn were relaxed, wouldn't it?
love ruthie Ruthie, you and I obviously hold different views on this issue. I am not as passionate about the issue as you appear to be, possibly because it's a UK law. But even if I lived in the UK, I would think the law was valid. Once again you and I are looking at the issue from different perspectives. I do not see this law to have much effect on viewers of porn. It's a law to shut down the snuff films/extreme sexual violence industry. How else do you get at this industry if not by tracking the viewers? The victims are not likely to come forward, except in a body bag. I am not making an argument that viewers of extreme porn go out and lash out at innocent victims on the street. Maybe the mother whose child was killed and who was active in the movement to have this law be passed believed it to be the case. I don't because there is no conclusive evidence either way that viewing extreme violence causes violent behavior in the viewer. The verdict is out. For every study that points to "yes" there is another study that points to "no." What I hope the law will do is shut down the funding of the industry as viewers are reluctant "to pay per view" and get caught. As well, I hope the law will track the industry through the "help" of viewers who get caught and want a lesser sentence for co-operation. There are issues in society that can't be ignored and snuff film industry bestiality film industry is one of those canker sores that makes $ off of innocent victims who are hurt in the course of the filming. Society has a responsibility to protect the victims and potential victims in those type of films. I'm not sure how snuff films equate to gun laws or watching CSI - if they are analagous in your mind, you are welcome to pursue that stretch of disbelief. I don't. As for S&M, what anyone does in their bedroom if it is confined there, then it is their business. But if it's brought to the public domain, either by virtue of film for profit or by virtue of requiring medical or police assistence (ie. taxpayer funded services) then yes, I do believe that counseling should be offered at the very least. You said I am free to think what I want about S&M, so I'm taking that privilege, thank you very much.
thank you for your frankness - i appreciate it very much and although we are opposed on the implications of this law i'm with you on protecting children, vulnerable adults, non-consensual victims and animals from cruelty and sexual exploitation. if the circulation of this extreme material you mention is driven further underground i fear the people committing these original crimes won't go away or stop but they will be harder to catch. i don't accept the argument that prosecutions like in Operation Ore have really made a dent in the amount of paedophilic material on the Net. i recently found myself discussing Internet crime with a Procurator Fiscal (a kind of Scottish Investigating Magistrate, like the French system). he said that Ore was a costly failure and they know the child porn just went on the file sharing instead like Limewire and became even more difficult with encryption to detect or trace. the real problem he said was the idea of prosecuting the credit card companies for profiting from the proceeds of crime (a criminal not a civil offence). wouldn't that be interesting if instead of the 3 Nat West bankers being extradited over Enron, for the directors of Amex, Visa and MasterCard to be hauled over to the UK on pornography charges? i won't hold my breath...
love ruthie http://www.backlash- uk.org.uk/index.html the UK government has today formally announced its plans via the Queen's Speech to legislate against the posession of "violent pornography" and make it a criminal offence. if people are caught with images that qualify, they could be sent to prison for 3 years. i know i'm going to upset some F4M members over this and i'm going to refer to things that are a bit umm rude but i really feel we are having our freedoms eroded in the UK without there being any clear evidence of a link between this stuff and actual crime. in fact there are studies which suggest the opposite is true and that countries which adopted more liberal laws on pornography saw a REDUCTION in violent crime. the case that prompted this legislation is itself in doubt as the man convicted of murdering a schoolteacher said to be obsessed with violent porn has been given leave to appeal his conviction. the woman's mother was making her out to some kind of a saint who was a pure victim of a sexual predator. i suspect she was into consensual "breath-play" and it simply went too far. there was a similar case in Scotland a couple of years ago where the murder conviction was reduced to manslaughter where a man squeezed his lover's throat too hard during anal sex and she stopped breathing - he panicked and disposed of her body (still dressed in kinky gear). but it has given Mr Blair an excuse to crush even further our freedom of speech, thought and liberty to look at what we wish - without having the proof that he reducing crime or making vulnerable people safer. personally, this stuff is pretty sickening and i can't understand how on earth any man can be turned on by pictures of rape and torture but that's not the point. just because i don't like it doesn't mean its harmful. i don't like pictures of Mr Blair's psychopathic smirking either but i have to put up with it!
love ruthie
#2. To: Jethro Tull (#1)
Can't government leave us the freak alone? Sorry for the dopey question.
XXXXXX
http://www.myspace.com/ruthiesb69
#3. To: ruthie (#0)
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?
#4. To: scrapper2 (#3)
+ 
+ 
= 
#5. To: Ferret Mike (#4)
This is an incremental process. This law is the foot in the door...
#6. To: ruthie (#0)
"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.
#7. To: scrapper2 (#5)
"In the case of extreme violence against adults, children, animals for money gain...the smell of this infected sore ( snuff industry) is too pungent for me to ignore. My freedom is tainted by what is done to other beings by those that profit from man's baser voyeur instincts and who mock our desire to protect intellectual freedom at all cost - in this particular case, the cost is too great from my point of view to permit this extremist industry, if you will, to thrive in society's midst."
+ + =
#8. To: scrapper2 (#3)
Proving that viewing violent imagery leads to the viewer committing violent crime at a later date is a moot point. I think the concern is that there is an industry that gets money from viewers to watch a person or an animal being killed or badly hurt. I think that's a legitimate societal concern. Passing a law against viewing this material in print or cyber form constitutes an invasion of privacy, true, but how else do you get at the perpetrators of this vile industry? Arresting the viewers I imagine is the most effective way in the eyes of law enforcement to track into the industry and the film makers.
XXXXXX
http://www.myspace.com/ruthiesb69
#9. To: ruthie (#8)
#10. To: scrapper2 (#9)
XXXXXX
http://www.myspace.com/ruthiesb69
#11. To: All (#10)
(Edited)
XXXXXX
http://www.myspace.com/ruthiesb69
#12. To: ruthie (#0)
Bad news from across the pond.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest