Re: violent porn

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 16:12:32 +0100, "Harry the Horse"
<HarryAtTheStable@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Alex Heney" <me8@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dr8of2h56vi2i7ibk1pqcgoh9d8be021sg@xxxxxxxxxx

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

OK, so that's the whole of the western literary canon in the bin.

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

In the sense that imbecile arguments can be made then, yes, it is an
argument that could be made.


I am sure there are imbecile arguments that could be made.

But that is NOT the sense I was using, of course.


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.

But that's the point. To be 'workable' it must be made unjust. That is not
a respectable argument.


Only if you consider it to be "unjust" that you can be convicted where
the images were not actually of real events, but strongly appeared to
be.

You may think it unjust (as Cynic does) for possession of *any* images
to be illegal.

But if you accept that some should be, then whether they are real or
just appear to be is really irrelevant.


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

I can see why the law is 'wanted' alright. It is to be seen to be 'doing
something' after a high profile murder enquiry. I can see no reason why it
is needed.

It is actually nothing to do with this murder enquiry.

That is just a coincidence of timing. The consultation paper was
published some time last year.

Just for once, this does not appear to be a knee-jerk reaction by the
government.


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.

Yet the UK is the only 'advanced' western democracy that is contemplating
such a law.

Are you sure?

I don't know of any, but I don't have any idea where to get hold of
other countries equivalents of our consultation documents, nor would I
be able to read most of them.

If it were as reasonable as you assert then surely we would see
other countries preparing similar laws. There is certainly no chnace that
the US would implement such a law as it would violate the first amendment.


That won't stop them.


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 the hell is someone browsing a web site supposed to make such a
judgement on the spur of a moment? Does the presence of a prop 'gun' in the
scene constitute 'life threatening' violence?



Why on earth do people like you and The Todal have to resort to such
stupid and ridiculous arguments?

Based on what the document says, it would be VERY clear to ANYBODY
that this was illegal material.

And OF COURSE the presence of a "prop gun" does not constitute any
sort of violence at all, never mind life-threatening.



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.

It plainly does nothing of the sort. Over a hundred words of explanation
with 'non statutory' guidance to follow. That might be reasonable for a
publisher to weigh if considering whether such material could be published;
it is not reasonable or appropriate for a consumer of the material to have
make that determination over a split second.


Why would they have to make it over a "split second"?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. We have considered the concerns expressed by broadcasters and
those in the internet industry and intend to ensure that there are
adequate defences to cover those who need to have contact with the
material in the course of their legitimate work, those who stumble
across the material accidentally or are sent it unsolicited. These are
likely to mirror the defences provided for the possession of indecent
photographs of children in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 S160 (2): if
the defendant can prove he had a legitimate reason for having the
image; or he had not seen it and did not know or suspect it to be
illegal; or it was sent to him unsolicited and he did not keep it for
an unreasonable time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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.

But an obviously mock hanging would.

Wrong.

Please try to read the proposals WITHOUT your prejudices turned on.

Try to understand what is actually proposed, because it is clear from
your response here that you have not understood it at all.

If it is "obviously mock" *anything* then it is not covered.

It MUST be real or apparently real.


I think that such anomalies underline
the absurdity of this proposed law.

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

I think you are being very complacent. The effect of such legislation will
be to create a prenumbra of dread, where people will avoid whole categories
of porn in order not to risk prosecution. That might suit the moralisers
and the authoritarians but it represents an attack on privacy that is
disproportionate.

I suggest you misread what I said.

My apologies.

I think if an animal is being abused, it will show signs of not liking
what is happening.

Is that accepted as a defence in child porn cases? If not, why in
bestiality cases?


It won't be.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
All things are green unless they are not.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ping: Imperial Leader
    ... > So Hoof, you can now sue the pants off *Liceman* ... > supporting 700women.org in getting this law passed. ... > We are delighted to announce that President Bush signed the Violence Against ... > Women Act yesterday afternoon. ...
    (sci.med.diseases.hepatitis)
  • Re: violent porn
    ... It is arguable that any realistic depiction of an act which is itself ... I can see why they *need* that aspect if the law is to be workable at ... I can see no reason why it ... it was violence at the level ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Party
    ... those who they think might be capable of some act of violence to the law. ... Not those who ARE doing violence, but those that the reporter THINKS MIGHT ...
    (uk.rec.sheds)
  • Re: Party
    ... those who they think might be capable of some act of violence to the law. ... Not those who ARE doing violence, but those that the reporter THINKS MIGHT ...
    (uk.rec.sheds)
  • Re: OT Patriot Act fight, Feingold no longer stands alone
    ... 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act, or USAPA) introduced a plethora of legislative ... investigative powers of law enforcement agencies in the United States. ... surveillance provisions, and an amendment providing judicial oversight ... including the appropriate procedures for interception of ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)