View Full Version : New U.K. Laws Combat Violent Porn
dvtimes
08-24-05, 12:20 AM
http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=10040
Just seems like the same story that's been floating around for the past couple of weeks. As far as I can see, there weren't any new announcements on Tuesday, despite what that article says.
Elisha Jade
08-24-05, 01:14 AM
Its only extreme stuff anyway by the looks of it.. not plain ol' porn
Indeed, though the problem for me is where they draw the line between extreme and non-extreme ;)
xcite-tv
08-24-05, 08:52 AM
Sorry guys but the words porn and violence should never go together but the media will keep blaming porn for any sex crime
Its like the they say all working girls are heroin addict and only doing it to feed habits
But on the other hand as long as some cross the line between sex and violence on sites then people will put 2 and 2 together.
My opinion is (and its only an opinion so no offence) is that (extreme)fetish sites should be distanced from sex sites....there is no sex anyway
we should work towards making the two words (sex and violence) as far apart as possible , as they should be. not one and the same
ok that should upset a few
dvtimes
08-24-05, 09:13 AM
Sorry guys but the words porn and violence should never go together but the media will keep blaming porn for any sex crime
Its like the they say all working girls are heroin addict and only doing it to feed habits
But on the other hand as long as some cross the line between sex and violence on sites then people will put 2 and 2 together.
My opinion is (and its only an opinion so no offence) is that (extreme)fetish sites should be distanced from sex sites....there is no sex anyway
we should work towards making the two words (sex and violence) as far apart as possible , as they should be. not one and the same
ok that should upset a few
To be honest, I would not worry.
They will only target the really bad stuff.
Which lets face it, the real violence sites are rare. I do not see this as censorship as to me these sites are on the same level as child porn sites, and to be honest I have always been surprised that they were legal.
I would be highly surprised if they targeted bondage sites. The reason is that to do so would not be easy. Say I set up a bondage site, and they tried to close it. First they have the problems with getting a non UK host to comply. Secondly I would simply fight it on human rights issues, and I may win.
In truth unlike in the USA, there is a trend to accepting porn now than ever before. Take the car advert with the girls nipples becoming erect. I would have thought 10 years ago this would have been banned, yet today its not a problem. Sex shops on now slap bang in Leeds city centre - no one cares.
The big problem UK porn has is that R18 films must be sold in sex shops. But the result is the net is the place for porn in the UK.
Sorry guys but the words porn and violence should never go together but the media will keep blaming porn for any sex crime
Its like the they say all working girls are heroin addict and only doing it to feed habits
But on the other hand as long as some cross the line between sex and violence on sites then people will put 2 and 2 together.
My opinion is (and its only an opinion so no offence) is that (extreme)fetish sites should be distanced from sex sites....there is no sex anyway
we should work towards making the two words (sex and violence) as far apart as possible , as they should be. not one and the same
ok that should upset a few
You're talking bollocks. I'll take the time to respond in detail once I've had my morning coffee, but you're oh so very wrong.
Cardinal_Sin
08-24-05, 10:34 AM
Sorry guys but the words porn and violence should never go together but the media will keep blaming porn for any sex crime
Its like the they say all working girls are heroin addict and only doing it to feed habits
But on the other hand as long as some cross the line between sex and violence on sites then people will put 2 and 2 together.
My opinion is (and its only an opinion so no offence) is that (extreme)fetish sites should be distanced from sex sites....there is no sex anyway
we should work towards making the two words (sex and violence) as far apart as possible , as they should be. not one and the same
ok that should upset a few
Damn - Does this mean I will have to close http://www.loonervision.com ? Extreme violence towards balloons + sex...
mOBSCENE
08-24-05, 10:43 AM
I would agree with some control on rape/necrophilia sites, but my worry is how they're going to define "extreme" sites. I work with some materials that could be considered extreme, but it is consensual. Then again, in some cultures, showing a cock or pussy would be considered extreme and obscene.
Hopefully you're right DV times, and they are only after really bad stuff, like real rape, and not bdsm. For rape IS about control and violence, bdsm is about trust and consent...
OK I've had my morning coffee and hopefully I can make some sense :)
Sorry guys but the words porn and violence should never go together but the media will keep blaming porn for any sex crime
How do you define violent? How would the faceless beaurocrats in Whitehall who make and enforce our laws define violence? I can promise you that in this country alone there are thousands of people who's sexuality centers on BDSM, which many people consider to be violent and extreme. Are you suggesting that these thousands of British people should have the pornography that relates to their sexuality withheld on the basis it makes some sectors of our society uncomfortable? Perhaps we should also ban gay porn in case it makes heterosexual men uncomfortable.
My opinion is (and its only an opinion so no offence) is that (extreme)fetish sites should be distanced from sex sites....there is no sex anyway
we should work towards making the two words (sex and violence) as far apart as possible , as they should be. not one and the same
Just because we chose not to include boy/girl penetration on our site does that mean our sexuality is less valid than your own? Watching decent BDSM scenes certainly make our members feel horny if our member's feedback is to be believed.
You cannot condone the governments knee-jerk attemps to suppress the sexuality of thousands of normal law abiding citizens without asking yourself where this will end. Who will draw the lines over what we can and can't see on the internet? Where will those lines be drawn? Is BDSM extreme? Is anal? Is excessive ejaculation? Certainly the BBFC seem to think so.
I would agree with some control on rape/necrophilia sites, but my worry is how they're going to define "extreme" sites. I work with some materials that could be considered extreme, but it is consensual. Then again, in some cultures, showing a cock or pussy would be considered extreme and obscene.
Hopefully you're right DV times, and they are only after really bad stuff, like real rape, and not bdsm. For rape IS about control and violence, bdsm is about trust and consent...
On the whole I'm with you on the rape/necro sites. However, as a woman who HAS been raped when I was much younger, I am not in the least bit offended or threatened about clearly fantasy rape sites as I don't see them as an incitement to the a bloke of average intelligence. I can quite see that morons might see fantasy rape sites as justification to go and force a woman into sex, but I've never been comfortable with governments legislating for the lowest common denominator of society. I for one would far rather a guy who had rape fantasies was able to gain some level of relief by going to a dodgy website than having to go out and rape someone.
mOBSCENE
08-24-05, 11:11 AM
On the whole I'm with you on the rape/necro sites. However, as a woman who HAS been raped when I was much younger, I am not in the least bit offended or threatened about clearly fantasy rape sites as I don't see them as an incitement to the a bloke of average intelligence. I can quite see that morons might see fantasy rape sites as justification to go and force a woman into sex, but I've never been comfortable with governments legislating for the lowest common denominator of society. I for one would far rather a guy who had rape fantasies was able to gain some level of relief by going to a dodgy website than having to go out and rape someone.
Rosie, I was talking about real rape sites, where women are really coerced and harmed, but I imagine the government is including fantasy sites too. The government rarely listen to the psychological reports and studies, which suggest that in fact rapists consume less pornography than the "average" guy on the whole, and also suggest there is no real link between pornography and behavioural change. If a guy is mentally ill, he's just as likely to have his urges kicked off into reality by a soap opera scene or something he sees on Blue Peter, or as in a lot of cases it'll be the voice of God, so we can blame the Bible too...
99.9 percent of people, if not more, who visit rape sites or other extreme sites will not commit any offences against someone else. Alcohol in fact could be said to cause more violence against women in the case of guys who beat up their wives/girlfriends after going on a bender, and their partners clearly do not consent if the statistics are correct - but the government attempts to liberalise drinking laws to get more in line with the rest of Europe - so why not with porn laws?!
but the government attempts to liberalise drinking laws to get more in line with the rest of Europe - so why not with porn laws?!
Because they believe that this is what your average sun reading bloke in the street wants. As always with this government they're allowing the media to dictate their policies.
And this is exactly why I'm being forced to move out of a country that (on the whole) I love.
Sorry guys but the words porn and violence should never go together but the media will keep blaming porn for any sex crime
i especially like how reports on CP usually speak of 'porn' only from the 2nd or 3rd sentence on.
xcite-tv
08-24-05, 12:11 PM
well that worked
one point you all missed from my piece was....."In my opinion"
so i am not talking "bollocks" i happen to have an opinion
Its ok for us all to talk about drugs and the harm they do.
Should you take soft drugs it always leads to harder use is whats always mooted
why then should it not be the same for "mild" violence leading to worse violence
(i dont actually believe that anyway)
hey i just hate people getting hurt in anyway and thats my opinion
xcite-tv
08-24-05, 12:17 PM
[QUOTE=Rosie]
I can promise you that in this country alone there are thousands of people who's sexuality centers on BDSM,
Perhaps we should also ban gay porn in case it makes heterosexual men uncomfortable.QUOTE]
Sorry but what does sex have to to with extreme BDSM
Or extreme BDSM have to do with sex
Gay sex at least is still sex
This is working great now
Sorry but what does sex have to to with extreme BDSM
Or extreme BDSM have to do with sex
Gay sex at least is still sex
This is working great now
so would you class voyeurism as sex or not?
Should you take soft drugs it always leads to harder use is whats always mooted
In my opinion the theory is slightly different. Soft drugs are thought to lead to hard drugs, not becuase someone who smokes a joint will get the urge to use heroin, but because, the sorces are often the same, so someone who buys soft drugs often (not always) has the option of being able to buy herion and also is mixing with people who smoke both soft drugs and take hard drugs.
Where as someone who is in to bdsm is no more likely to know any real rapists than the rest of us are. Plus just us unlikely to think its O.K than the rest of us do.
mOBSCENE
08-24-05, 12:34 PM
I am surprised at how educated and powerful people can manifest themselves as such fucking idiots. Read this article
http://www.iwf.org.uk/government/page.101.220.htm
Porn is described as a £1 billion industry - later, this money is apparently all coming from violent porn. Child porn, violent porn, etc etc, all seem to become synonymous and intertwined. Are these the legislators of our morality?
so i am not talking "bollocks" i happen to have an opinion
Dunno about that - most people talk bollocks on here, and it's always just a matter of opinion. However, without meaning to be overly offensive it doesn't appear to me that you have a particularly informed opinion about the issues at stake.
Its ok for us all to talk about drugs and the harm they do.
Should you take soft drugs it always leads to harder use is whats always mooted
I don't think "we" (the B&B great unwashed) do often talk about the harm drugs do. But then again anything can do you harm if abused and not used within reasonable limits.
why then should it not be the same for "mild" violence leading to worse violence
Possible (see my "lowest common denominator" comments above. But not ALL of us go on to beat people up just because we happen to like a little more slap than tickle in our sex life. The only time I've ever hurt anyone was with their full consent and enjoyment.
hey i just hate people getting hurt in anyway and thats my opinion
But what if they want to be hurt? What if they really really enjoy getting hurt? Shouldn't they be allowed?
The IWF are best ignored. If you beleived everything they said you would think that the net was an ocean full of child porn. I doubt the typical surfer has ever encountered child porn. I certainly haven't.
Sorry but what does sex have to to with extreme BDSM
Or extreme BDSM have to do with sex
Gay sex at least is still sex
What do you define as extreme?
Sorry but what does sex have to to with extreme BDSM.
Or extreme BDSM have to do with sex
Don't mean to sound at all patronising here, but it's incredibly hard to explain to someone exactly why sado masochistic practises are erotic if you don't have an S&M headset. It's like any fetish really - some people think feet are sexy, but it's not my thing so I can't really say I understand it. However, I certainly don't think foot fetish sites should be banned just because feet generally make me think "yuck" rather than "yum".
Sex and extreme BDSM are intrinsically linked in my life - and I don't think if you met me you'd find me all that dangerous or weird. In reality I'm just a middle class happily married woman of thirty-something who happens to really get off on extreme BDSM with my husband. (I sub to hubbie, but otherwise I'm Dom so I can talk from both sides of S&M).
Beloved and I generally have some pretty intense and extreme BDSM play sessions before, during and after some incredible sex.
Where as someone who is in to bdsm is no more likely to know any real rapists than the rest of us are. Plus just us unlikely to think its O.K than the rest of us do.
Exactomundo. However I can differentiate between wanting to string a rapist up by his nuts and wanting to string a male sub up by his nuts because that's what he'll get off on :)
The IWF are best ignored. If you beleived everything they said you would think that the net was an ocean full of child porn. I doubt the typical surfer has ever encountered child porn. I certainly haven't.
Me neither thank god - I would assume if you wanted to look at kiddie porn you'd really have to go looking for it.
mOBSCENE
08-24-05, 01:49 PM
The IWF are best ignored. If you beleived everything they said you would think that the net was an ocean full of child porn. I doubt the typical surfer has ever encountered child porn. I certainly haven't.
Probably true, but the article in question was a transcript from a discussion in the House of Lords, which was remarkably similar to a discussion in the House of Commons - and I think it's probably worth paying attention to what national policy makers are saying in their discussions - whenever they discuss issues they seem remarkably oblivious of the facts, which is worrying...
CP is probably more of a peer to peer issue - it's not that hard to find on p2p networks, which is why again the policy makers who don't understand demonstrate their ignorance of how things work by consistently talking in terms of "websites"...
xcite-tv
08-24-05, 02:03 PM
I will continue to be uninformed then
"where's My copy of the Sun"
I will continue to be uninformed then
"where's My copy of the Sun"
not answering my question on purpose, or just missed it?
xcite-tv
08-24-05, 06:15 PM
sorry i must have missed your question
in answer to your question
NO
xcite-tv
08-24-05, 06:17 PM
Ok i had written this first but thought long and hard and just answered "NO"
If you are watching something sexual as a voyeur then it too becomes sexual
and i suppose nowadays the word voyeurism means watching something sexual anyway but it used to mean and i quote
"An obsessive observer of sordid or sensational subjects"
which does not necessarily mean sex
I wish i had just stuck to "NO" now why do i do it ???? there to be shot down all over again LOL
right, this is a tad confusing now.
if i watch something that gets me a hard on, it's sex.
if i do or receive something that makes me hard, it isn't sex?
is that what you are saying?
and if so, why is it like that?
right, this is a tad confusing now.
if i watch something that gets me a hard on, it's sex.
if i do or receive something that makes me hard, it isn't sex?
is that what you are saying?
and if so, why is it like that?
And what about me? Nothing ever gives ME a hard on :cry:
And what about me? Nothing ever gives ME a hard on :cry:
what's wrong with them nipples, dear? :D
Just been watching about this on BBC 24 this morning and it does look like it will be a problem for those with content deemed extreme (as in extremely violent) quite shortly.
Not that it affects our own site in any way as we made a business decision a couple of years ago to move away from the ‘mild’ BDSM niche for commercial reasons but an interesting start to the day none the less.
Just been watching about this on BBC 24 this morning and it does look like it will be a problem for those with content deemed extreme (as in extremely violent) quite shortly.
Not that it affects our own site in any way as we made a business decision a couple of years ago to move away from the ‘mild’ BDSM niche for commercial reasons but an interesting start to the day none the less.
The definition of "extreme" being? OIr will that be left for the individual policemen to decide if its to extreme for them?
The definition of "extreme" being? OIr will that be left for the individual policemen to decide if its to extreme for them?
That has always been the case in the past.
Paul Goggins, the Home Office minister, was on Five Live this morning and he described the target of the possible legislation as being material depicting beastiality, necrophilia, rape etc.
It will be worthing reading the consultation paper to see if it gives any clearer indication of what constitues 'extreme', 'violent', 'torture' etc, but the it hasn't been published on the Home Office website as yet.
While the consulation paper still hasn't appeared online, The Times appears to have some quotes from it:
"The consultative document said: “The material under consideration does not depict consensual sexual activity, nor even the milder forms of bondage and humiliation which are commonplace in pornographic material. It depicts suffering, pain, torture and degradation which we believe most people would find abhorrent. The fact that it is widely available on the internet does not legitimise it.”
The paper said that by “extreme”, the Government means material that is violent or abusive, featuring activities that are illegal in themselves and in which, in some cases, participants may have been the victims of criminal offences.
It said there were now hundreds of internet sites offering material featuring the torture of women who are tied to some kind of apparatus or restrained and stabbed with knives, hooks and other implements."
While the consulation paper still hasn't appeared online, The Times appears to have some quotes from it:
"The consultative document said: “The material under consideration does not depict consensual sexual activity, nor even the milder forms of bondage and humiliation which are commonplace in pornographic material. It depicts suffering, pain, torture and degradation which we believe most people would find abhorrent. The fact that it is widely available on the internet does not legitimise it.”
The paper said that by “extreme”, the Government means material that is violent or abusive, featuring activities that are illegal in themselves and in which, in some cases, participants may have been the victims of criminal offences.
It said there were now hundreds of internet sites offering material featuring the torture of women who are tied to some kind of apparatus or restrained and stabbed with knives, hooks and other implements."
Looks like the usual normal and hard bdsm will be OK, if they are targeting criminal activities
It said there were now hundreds of internet sites offering material featuring the torture of women who are tied to some kind of apparatus or restrained and stabbed with knives, hooks and other implements."
It is this part which is covered under existing law and which will be a problem that existing publishers are already well aware of. When we were prosecuted for publishing adult videos back in the early 90s this is one of the areas that the prosecution concentrated on. The fact that someone was in real bondage was seen as sexual violence despite no one else being in the video and this is why most publishers steer away from anything but 100% fake bondage footage.
Looks like the usual normal and hard bdsm will be OK, if they are targeting criminal activities
If they prosecute under existing laws that are simply widened to cover the Internet I am afraid that publishing real BDSM (where any party is shown to be in distress or causing actual bodily harm to another) will get you a prison sentence if they decide to target you.
On another note – A direct result of being prosecuted for this back in the early 90s actually resulted in making us a lot of money in a roundabout sort of way so most things turn out for the best in the long run. :)
If they prosecute under existing laws that are simply widened to cover the Internet I am afraid that publishing real BDSM (where any party is shown to be in distress or causing actual bodily harm to another) will get you a prison sentence if they decide to target you.
:(
The consulation paper is now up at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/inside/consults/current/index.html
The consulation paper is now up at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/inside/consults/current/index.html
OK good link. Maybe we should all show some solidarity and make some good well thgought out statements to add in the consultation response form. I for one dont know much about bdsm so would like some of those who do to give me some good arguments to see if we can seer them one way or the other.
My advice would be to anyone publishing anything close to what is being mentioned by ministers at the moment needs to consult a knowledgeable lawyer ASAP.
This is going to gain momentum as a sure fire vote winner as far as ministers are concerned and they are going to peddle this one for all its worth.
This is going to gain momentum as a sure fire vote winner as far as ministers are concerned and they are going to peddle this one for all its worth.
See, thats where I disagree, I dont see it as a vote winner. I doubt if you asked 1000 people in the street what is important to them, that you would even get one who would say "we want a crackdown on BDSM" Infact I doubt you would get that many who even know what BDSM is.
I cant even see ministers bringing this into the public forum. It will be pushed through the back door and ultimately if they are cracking down on any porn between two consenting adults then that could, in the long run be bad for all of us
See, thats where I disagree, I dont see it as a vote winner. I doubt if you asked 1000 people in the street what is important to them, that you would even get one who would say "we want a crackdown on BDSM" Infact I doubt you would get that many who even know what BDSM is.
I cant even see ministers bringing this into the public forum. It will be pushed through the back door and ultimately if they are cracking down on any porn between two consenting adults then that could, in the long run be bad for all of us
Time will tell but I disagree 110%. Ministers only ever worry about votes and their pockets and they will see this as a big vote winner.
I doubt you would get that many who even know what BDSM is.
They are not using the term "BDSM", if you watch the news you will see that they already have a very well polished agenda.
They are not using the term "BDSM", if you watch the news you will see that they already have a very well polished agenda.
So do you not think some well written emails to the consultation board is worth it? Maybe you are right, but there are some pretty clever people round here and Im sure a few good carefully written emails pointing out the difference might make them take a look? Or am I being to naive?
mOBSCENE
08-30-05, 12:21 PM
My worry is how they say one minute that "mild humiliation found in mainstream porn" isn't being targeted, and how it's only serious sexual violence, which is illegal in itself, as well as necrophilia and bestiality, which is being targeted, and later they talk about "degradation". Degradation is a very subjective term.
Still, it does appear they are looking at the extreme end of the spectrum, and I would imagine they will be aware of the difference between most bdsm and sites that depict women being kidnapped, beaten up and raped (whether real or consensual, how can you tell if it's from Russia or SE Asia?)
As JT says, I think those of us who care about this should make our voices heard, and I for one will be drafting a communication with some well thought out ideas. I think we need to be seen to be in support of some control - bestiality and necrophilia are out for me (animals can't consent, neither can corpses, unless they sign some kind of pre-mortem nuptial agreement, lol). Having said that, we need to make sure this doesn't end up as the slippery slope of censorship, although the good thing is that even reports like this are acknowledging mainstream porn as legal and legitimate. As far as BDSM is concerned, we need to point out the complexities of it, although the "whether participants are consensual or not" is slightly worrying...
Anyway, it needs a full read and some further thought...
So do you not think some well written emails to the consultation board is worth it? Maybe you are right, but there are some pretty clever people round here and Im sure a few good carefully written emails pointing out the difference might make them take a look? Or am I being to naive?
We live in the porn world and that is not the same as the real world.
What people do in private has noting to what they will say in public.
Ive just missed it but looks like Radio Two are discusing it. Someone called Michelle just phoned up. But I just missed it!
mOBSCENE
08-30-05, 12:36 PM
You could say, look what happened to the American webmasters when they sent in all their comments on the 2257 proposals - ignored in the main! However, if they receive 50 comments in favour of their strongest option, and no comments to balance the issues, they will just be able to cite "public opinion". They may do that anyway, but at least we have the opportunity to put our views forward...
You could say, look what happened to the American webmasters when they sent in all their comments on the 2257 proposals - ignored in the main! However, if they receive 50 comments in favour of their strongest option, and no comments to balance the issues, they will just be able to cite "public opinion". They may do that anyway, but at least we have the opportunity to put our views forward...
Its got to be worth a shot. I think we need to stick together in this, even if its just some good well written comments
This is going to gain momentum as a sure fire vote winner as far as ministers are concerned and they are going to peddle this one for all its worth.
By the time there's another election this consultation will be long forgotten.
After this week, I doubt we'll hear anything about the issue again until some legislation is forthcoming, which would be next spring at the earliest, probably even later given the legislative programme.
By the time there's another election this consultation will be long forgotten.
After this week, I doubt we'll hear anything about the issue again until some legislation is forthcoming, which would be next spring at the earliest, probably even later given the legislative programme.
Fingers crossed.
mOBSCENE
08-30-05, 12:59 PM
Its got to be worth a shot. I think we need to stick together in this, even if its just some good well written comments
I'm with you on that for sure.
Could we not also use some of our free sites and traffic to encourage ordinary surfers to write in and demand that their freedoms to view consensual material, however extreme, be protected? It would be great to see on the front pages - " executive receives 50,000 letters in favour of porn" Maybe I'm in dreamland, but I'm an optimist most of the time :guinness: We also need to get bdsm practitioners to write in saying that their activities are about consent, etc, and shouldn't be portrayed as aberrant or evil...
Paul Goggins, the Home Office minister, was on Five Live this morning and he described the target of the possible legislation as being material depicting beastiality, necrophilia, rape etc.
It will be worthing reading the consultation paper to see if it gives any clearer indication of what constitues 'extreme', 'violent', 'torture' etc, but the it hasn't been published on the Home Office website as yet.
hmmmm.... but unless the animal is raped or abused, read something is inserted or the animal hurt, i doubt it's violent if some male animal has intercourse with a human female (assuming she consented).
also necrophilia is everything but violent, as it's just a dead body, no harm is done really (unless in those minds who have a more religious approach to dead bodies)
sounds to me like they lump in stuff that doesn't have any connection to the other, make them tarnish each other and therefor set up a licence to kill basically anything 'not normal' soon.
and is fucking in positions only very fit people can do really 'normal'?
hmmmm.... but unless the animal is raped or abused, read something is inserted or the animal hurt, i doubt it's violent if some male animal has intercourse with a human female (assuming she consented).
also necrophilia is everything but violent, as it's just a dead body, no harm is done really (unless in those minds who have a more religious approach to dead bodies)
sounds to me like they lump in stuff that doesn't have any connection to the other, make them tarnish each other and therefor set up a licence to kill basically anything 'not normal' soon.
and is fucking in positions only very fit people can do really 'normal'?
Just as the obscene publications act was from day one.
hmmmm.... but unless the animal is raped or abused, read something is inserted or the animal hurt, i doubt it's violent if some male animal has intercourse with a human female (assuming she consented).
also necrophilia is everything but violent, as it's just a dead body, no harm is done really (unless in those minds who have a more religious approach to dead bodies)
The proposals are aimed at combating 'extreme' porn, rather than just violent porn specifically. They're not making any connection between violence, beastiality and necrophilia other than it's all extreme.
Curious to see some new stuff relating to child porn in there though. Seems like something they didn't think of before and just want to dump into the nearest tenuously related legislation.
The proposals are aimed at combating 'extreme' porn, rather than just violent porn specifically. They're not making any connection between violence, beastiality and necrophilia other than it's all extreme.
Curious to see some new stuff relating to child porn in there though. Seems like something they didn't think of before and just want to dump into the nearest tenuously related legislation.
You are not reading the document correctly. The new areas are in addition to the existing laws which will be widened to cover the Internet.
Elisha Jade
08-30-05, 01:54 PM
dont know if this has been posted..
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/30/nporn30.xml
The proposed offence would apply to pornographic material depicting bestiality, necrophilia or serious violence that would normally result in a prosecution for grievous bodily harm. The consultation document says there are hundreds of internet sites "offering a wide range of material featuring the torture of (mostly female) victims".
The consulation paper is now up at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/inside/consults/current/index.html
Many thanks for that link Dan, most useful (cor! who'd have thought it Johny, your board being useful he he he)
Initally my thoughts on having skimmed the consultation documents is obviously 1) clear as mud and 2) mind your own fucking business you interfering sexless dickless stuffed shirts!
Let me just make absolutely clear here that I do not like or condone kiddie porn, bestiality or rape sites. I think where the vulnerable are concerned (kids and animals basically) society and thus the law does need to legislate to protect. But we're talking about consenting adults here for fucks sake, people who know their own minds, know what they like and what turns them on sexually.
The girls on our site who do the most "extreme" stuff, do it because they really enjoy it and they do it at home with their partners - we're just filming what they do for fun.
How dare they make sweeping generalisation that "most people" would find it abhorrent. My member lists shows that a whole load of people find it anything but abhorrent!
So yeah we will be responding to the consultation papers, as will most people active on the BDSM scene in the UK I suspect. I'm off to pass this link to SM Pride :)
mOBSCENE
08-30-05, 02:15 PM
It could be totally unworkable in any case, as is the case with the OPA, as it's very difficult for a jury to decide what is and what isn't. Under these proposed regulations, owning a copy of Basic Instinct or having the rape scene from Death Wish on your computer could be punishable by three years in prison. In those scenes the people are clearly consenting actors, in fact hollywood actors, but the proposals do not appear to make that distinction. In Basic Instinct, there is a rape scene, and also a scene where a woman stabs a bloke to death with an ice pick during sex. One could argue that this is using sexual violence purely for entertainment and commercial gain (controversy sells). Yet this has been shown on terrestrial free to air tv four or five times. There are hundreds of other such examples. How are they going to make the distinction between simulated rape/bdsm/beatings etc in mainstream movies, released in cinemas and streamed over the internet, and simulated rape/bdsm/beatings etc in material more clearly targeted at a porn audience? If nutters are going to be led to kill by viewing offensive material, what is to stop them splicing together all their favourite violent sex scenes from the mainstream movies, watching them repeatedly, then acting them out? That needs to be mentioned, because that's why these proposals have come about in the first place, because of ONE murder, and I don't think banning all the violent porn/films/books in the world will stop any murders at all, because it is a predilection which goes much deeper into the mind of the offender... And if the argument is that people cannot be trusted not to be turned into violent offenders by viewing violent material, then half the mainstream films and tv programs are going to have to go in the dustbin too...
Obviously there are different strands to all this - the confusion is coming from whether it's extreme violence (or mild degradation, allowable in one paragraph, condemned in another). Bestiality, real rape/violence and necrophila are different issues, I would say...
I think they key issue here is the effect this will have on BDSM sites, which could be a grey area. One of the biggest problems they will face is how to disinguish between consensual bdsm filmed for a porn site and consensual bdsm portrayed in a mainstream movie (although I know the OPA has that clause about artistic merit and all that).
These people need to be informed that sex is a lot more than missionary position once on the wedding night, and then once a week after Church, if that. They will probably get a rude awakening when the letters and emails start to pile in!
yet another area where the germans are 'ahead' when it comes to being control freaks.
all you do is establish a panel of people who rule on stuff being legal or not. and their decision is ultimate, bascially. have some info here: http://www.bundespruefstelle.de/bpjm/information-in-english.html
to name just one example of how far they go: games like Command & Conquer need to be about Cyborgs not humans and not blood but oil is spilled, else it gets an over 18 rating and cannot be displayed in shops or online.
same system can work for extreme/not extreme. all you need to do is give that panel the authority. and who would be against fighting extremisms. ;)
Shandy McAndy
08-31-05, 04:39 PM
What about the film Straw Dogs, quite explicit rape seen in it. Would that be outlawed?
No.
Gotta love a man of very few words. Reading between the lines I suspect Dan means that mainstream media is specifically exempt from this legislation - hence we can make documentaries showing perverted pleasures just so long as we don't sell them to people who might get sexual enjoyment from watching them :)
Gotta love a man of very few words. Reading between the lines I suspect Dan means that mainstream media is specifically exempt from this legislation - hence we can make documentaries showing perverted pleasures just so long as we don't sell them to people who might get sexual enjoyment from watching them :)
if that works, i will find me some sickos getting a hard on over the Discovery Channel and make that a niche. :D
mOBSCENE
08-31-05, 06:45 PM
Just interested - how does the legal distinction between "mainstream media" and porn work? If it's titillating or disturbing in a film, are we supposed to applaud the film makers because they're such nice chaps and only have the public interest at heart? Take the recent screening of Messiah - The Harrowing, with indeed harrowing scenes of dead women spliced together with meathooks, guys locked up and tortured, people burned alive in coffins etc. And of course kids can't watch any of this, because they're locked up in their bedrooms without TV's after 9pm. Aren't they? I suppose the nutters don't watch it either...
also, will the rulings be reviewed at some point?
example: Last Tango in Paris (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070849/) was a scandal back in 1972 for its anal sex scenes. today, noone really cares anymore.
It's got nothing to do with violent porn. It's all to do with votes.
Lets just hope it dies a natural death.
It's got nothing to do with violent porn. It's all to do with votes.
Lets just hope it dies a natural death.
I don't see how it can have anything to do with votes when it's years before the next general election. It's like I said the other day, the media have forgotten about it already.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.