Violent Porn Banned

[Sgt Badass]

So, is it the porn that caused the guy to kill or was he unhinged anyway? And can they even police this?

And who's to say what's violent porn and what's just made up? Heck, if they can make dinosaurs look real...

[tkingdoll]

I'm trying to ascertain whether the fake stuff is illegal too, it looks that way but I want clarification. Because that would outlaw movie stills. EDIT: it seems unlikely to apply to fake images, e.g. movie stills.

It is already a crime to make or publish such images but proposed legislation will outlaw possession of images such as "material featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury".

The majority of the violent images this law refers to are SM pictures between consenting adults. We have archaic SM laws in this country to start with, but this is just one step closer to the absurd.

I am concerned about the precedent this sets. We should be repealing our ancient SM laws, not bolstering them.

[Admin]

Is there a link to the story? ???

[Mojo]

I'm trying to ascertain whether the fake stuff is illegal too, it looks that way but I want clarification. Because that would outlaw movie stills. EDIT: it seems unlikely to apply to fake images, e.g. movie stills.

It is already a crime to make or publish such images but proposed legislation will outlaw possession of images such as "material featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury".

Good grief! Where is this from? What proportion of "main-stream" films feature "violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury"?

The majority of the violent images this law refers to are SM pictures between consenting adults.

It needs a bit more than what you have quoted to make it apply specifically to images relating to SM, rather than, say, Casualty or Lord of the Rings...

As John says, is there a link to the story?

[tkingdoll]

I think it has to be real. If it's a movie still, then it can very easily be proven to not be real. Basically, a lot of consensual SM is illegal, and it's already illegal to take pictures of the illegal acts and it's illegal to distribute the illegal pictures of the illegal acts.

Now, it will also be illegal to own the illegal pictures of the illegal acts.

So, if John asks you to sandpaper his whotsits in the privacy of his own home, and you send me the pics, which I keep for my own private purposes, we all go to jail instead of just you two.

For reference on the UK's insane SM laws, see the Spanner case.

The article I quoted from in my last post was this one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/b...re/5297600.stm

As I clarified in my last post, this new law won't affect movie stills etc. Just those pictures which it's already illegal to take. No nailing your bits to the table for kicks, gentlemen!

[Mojo]

No nailing your bits to the table for kicks, gentlemen!

I think that while the House of Lords decision in R v. Brown (1993) says that it is illegal to nail somebody else's bits to a table, even if they consent, it didn't criminalise nailing your own bits to a table for kicks.

:o

[Mojo]

I think it has to be real.

I'd be interested to see how they draft something that makes images of a real event illegal but images that just look as if they're of a real event legal, without putting an almost impossible burden on either the prosecution (if they have to prove that the event was real) or the defence (if they had to prove it wasn't).

[Mongrel]

I think that while the House of Lords decision in R v. Brown (1993) says that it is illegal to nail somebody else's bits to a table, even if they consent, it didn't criminalise nailing your own bits to a table for kicks.

:o

Although I feel sure that there would be a referral to a psychiatrist. Whilst I'm open to (no pun intended) "Different strokes for different folks" that degree of self-mutilation is probably indicative of much deeper problems.

[Oleron]

So, is it the porn that caused the guy to kill or was he unhinged anyway? And can they even police this?

And who's to say what's violent porn and what's just made up? Heck, if they can make dinosaurs look real...

They have evidence of correlation but no evidence of causation. The mother of the murdered girl is insistent that the sadist that was responsible became a sick pervert murderer after watching sick internet material.

Is it not more sensible to suggest that a sick pervert murderer went in search of violent images to try and satisfy his needs and went on to kill as the 'fantasy' was no longer enough for him?

Indeed, would he have killed earlier if he hadn't had access to pervy material?

Truth is, no-one can really say for sure. So we end up with a knee-jerk law that is unworkable, unnecessary and will make for some crazy legal arguments if it is ever used.

[Oleron]

Just so long as they don't try to take away my 300 back issues of "Spank and Spunk".

:P

[Admin]

So, if John asks you to sandpaper his whotsits

???

Fair enough. I'll slip on my Bacofoil rompersuit to get me in the mood. :D

[Admin]

They have evidence of correlation but no evidence of causation. The mother of the murdered girl is insistent that the sadist that was responsible became a sick pervert murderer after watching sick internet material.

Is it not more sensible to suggest that a sick pervert murderer went in search of violent images to try and satisfy his needs and went on to kill as the 'fantasy' was no longer enough for him?

Indeed, would he have killed earlier if he hadn't had access to pervy material?

Truth is, no-one can really say for sure. So we end up with a knee-jerk law that is unworkable, unnecessary and will make for some crazy legal arguments if it is ever used.

I agree with that completely.

I imagine there are many possible causes for the correlation other than the single cause the argument assumes.

[tkingdoll]

I think that while the House of Lords decision in R v. Brown (1993) says that it is illegal to nail somebody else's bits to a table, even if they consent, it didn't criminalise nailing your own bits to a table for kicks.

:o

Surely the new law would cover that too though (or photos of it), as nailing your bits to a board would "result in serious injury". More research for me! I'll be back with an answer if I can find one.