Re: violent porn

"Alex Heney" <me8@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:75vmf2pe1ekkjge6vqn4d014v8eod14ah4@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 00:56:41 +0100, "Harry The Horse"
<HarryAtTheStable@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Alex Heney wrote:

I can understand the argument against violent porn, in that at the
levels being talked of, it does involve depiction of acts that are
illegal in themselves *and* which involve significant harm to those
involved.

You do realise that what is being talked about is in the most part
simulated
acts, not real acts. Simulating a strangulation is no more illegal than
acting a murder is illegal.


It is only talking about realistic depictions.

So what? The point stands that a realistic depiction of a murder is not
illegal. Otherwise a lot of flim directors would be in prison. I cannot
see what difference it makes if the motive for the depiction is sexual
stimulation rather than to provoke a sense of horror or excitement in the
audience.

And I think the main reason for including simulations is to make it so
that it doesn't have to be proved that the violence was real.

No doubt. But it just shows how idiotic this proposed law is

And I do believe that any such imagery, outside of news reporting,
probably *should* be illegal.

Why? The government admits that there is little evidence to suggest that
such material causes crime or damage;

Because people are harmed in the making of it, if it *is* real.

Then the best way of policing that is at the point of production not at the
point of consumption.

and there are plenty of devotees of
S&M role play who will testify that no serious damage is done to
consenting
participants of such acts.

But those are not the subject of these proposals.

Yes they are.

They are talking about *serious* violence.

Define 'serious' violence and how someone accessing a legal S&M web site in
the US would be able to be certain that any images he views are or are not
in violation of the law. A key principle of justice is framing laws in a
way that the citizen can reasonably tell whether or not he is breaking that
law. Some bondage techniques might come under that description; others
might not. Obviously the extremes (e.g nailing a penis to a board) are
pretty unambiguous but there will be a huge amount of material in the grey
area. We can be pretty sure that there will be many speculative
prosecutions with unwarranted destruction of reputation as a result.

Well beyond the ABH level that is enough to negate consent in most
cases.

The fact that some sexual practices 'disgust'
middle England is a pretty lame excuse.

It is no sort of excuse at all.

Yes it is. Disgust is not a sound basis to frame law. Many homosexual
practices utterly disgust me and probably disgust the majority of
heterosexual people in the UK. But I don't seek out gay porn or go to gay
bars so it doesn't affect me. I suggest those who are disgusted by violent
porn do the same: avoid it.

I said that was why they are bringing in these laws. Not that I think
it is a valid reason for doing so.


But the bestiality and necrophilia are a *lot* more questionable, as
it is hard to see how anybody is done any harm by them.

The animal cannot consent to being abused. I can see a rather stronger
case
for banning the images of bestiality than for simulated scenes of sexual
violence between consenting adults.


I have never seen any evidence that suggests the animals are being
abused. Not that I have taken significant interest, so I could well be
wrong.

I would suggest that unnatural copulation with an animal is by definition
abuse.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: violent porn
    ... acts, not real acts. ... The point stands that a realistic depiction of a murder is not ... that it doesn't have to be proved that the violence was real. ... I can see why they *need* that aspect if the law is to be workable at ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: violent porn
    ... acts, not real acts. ... The point stands that a realistic depiction of a murder is not ... that it doesn't have to be proved that the violence was real. ... Killing an animal is also abuse, arguably (whether by a farmer or by a ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: violent porn
    ... acts, not real acts. ... The point stands that a realistic depiction of a murder is not ... that it doesn't have to be proved that the violence was real. ... Killing an animal is also abuse, arguably (whether by a farmer or by a ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: illegal pics of legal acts?
    ... image is anything other than a depiction of what is being simulated. ... criminalise images of legal acts, they are talking the act that was ... possession would be a crime. ... acts are still illegal, and the Government is happily using the precedent ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: illegal pics of legal acts?
    ... of legal acts. ... but illegal to possess. ... image is anything other than a depiction of what is being simulated. ... and a depiction of that staging may be ...
    (uk.legal)