Re: violent porn

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 11:50:46 +0100, "Harry the Horse"
<HarryAtTheStable@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"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.

It is arguable that any realistic depiction of an act which is itself
illegal, should be illegal.

I can see plenty of flaws in that argument, but it is certainly an
argument which could be made.



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


I don't agree.

I can see why they *need* that aspect if the law is to be workable at
all.

And I can see arguments for why the law is wanted in the first place.

I'm not at all sure I *agree* with those arguments, but I can
understand them, and I don't think this law is any worse than (or even
as bad as) existing child porn laws.

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.


If that were feasible, I would agree.

But it isn't, particularly when a lot of it is produced outside the
jurisdiction of UK courts.

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.


Wrong.

They are talking about *serious* violence.

Define 'serious' violence

In the original consultation document, it was violence at the level
that causes GBH. As I mentioned before, well beyond the ABH level at
which the act becomes illegal regardless of consent.

The government response to that initial consultation can be found here
<http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-extreme-porn-3008051/Gvt-response-extreme-porn2.pdf?view=Binary>

They have altered the criteria somewhat, to make it only even more
extreme acts that will be covered:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
14. We have considered the violence threshold, which was originally
proposed at GBH level, and concluded that the test was not
sufficiently precise, would be difficult to apply and would draw in
material which would not pass the obscenity threshold. We have
concluded that the offence should apply to images of acts that appear
to be life threatening or are likely to result in serious, disabling
injury. Again, it would be for the prosecution to show that the
material fell into this category. We would consider giving
non-statutory guidance on the type of injury which we consider would
fall within this category.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


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.

Agreed.

I think the above suggestion does that.


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.

Nailing a penis to a board almost certainly would not come under the
above categorisation, as it would not cause "severe, disabling
injury".

I think you have seriously underestimated the level of violence that
is meant by these proposals.

Very little, if any, "normal" BDSM material would be covered.



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.

So how is it any sort of excuse?

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 suggest you misread what I said.


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.


I think if an animal is being abused, it will show signs of not liking
what is happening.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
You can never get rid of a bad temper by losing it.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: violent porn
    ... I can understand the argument against violent porn, ... acts, not real acts. ... The point stands that a realistic depiction of a murder is not ... But it just shows how idiotic this proposed law is ...
    (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: If you protest the war, the Prez can take your stuff
    ... my lady's law firm is one of those involved in representing the gitmo ... as a country we abrogated any claim to the high moral road and are now ... committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts ... of violence that have the purpose or effect of..." ...
    (alt.support.chronic-pain)
  • Re: If you protest the war, the Prez can take your stuff
    ... my lady's law firm is one of those involved in representing the gitmo ... as a country we abrogated any claim to the high moral road and are now ... committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts ... of violence that have the purpose or effect of..." ...
    (alt.support.chronic-pain)