Re: violent porn

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:26:23 +0100, "Harry the Horse"
<HarryAtTheStable@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Alex Heney" <me8@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:rbmof2h1kmd9489n745bfjp9p7tiosb35t@xxxxxxxxxx
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.

You appeared to be using the phrase as a shorthand for saying that the
argument is reasonable. The argument is not reasonable but it can be made.
Just I could concoct an argument for the compulsory eating of aspargus for
breakfast.


It can be reasonably made.

It is not an argument I agree with, but I can certainly understand it.

And would be closer to agreeing with that than to agreeing that
absolutely any images should be legal to possess. Even though a very
reasonable argument can also be made for that opposite extreme.

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.

That would self evident to anyone who thinks that laws should be
proportionate to the threat that they seek to legislate against.


Not at all.

That would depend on what you thought the threat being legislated
against was.


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

My position is not as strong as Cynic's. I have great doubts about the way
that 'child porn' is pursued by the authorities (I think most of the
prosecutions are probably an utter waste of time) but I can accept in the
very special case of child protection there needs to be a law to prohibit
the possession of the images. However if that 'special case' were to be
used as a wedge to argue for the more general prohibition of sexually
explict images then I would strongly reject such arguments as being utterly
specious.

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

On the contrary. The only legitimate argument in having a child porn law is
to protect children. If no children are involved in its production then the
reason for it fails.


I'm not at all convinced of that.

There may not be actual children involved in one specific case, but
the point of that particular aspect of the law is that it will be
almost impossible to actually produce the children who were involved
in many "genuine" cases, so it will then be extremely difficult to
prove whether the images/movies are of real events with real children,
or not.

Without taking away the requirement to do that, it would be almost
impossible to get convictions in most cases, even where the images
were genuinely of children being abused.



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.

Bollocks. The conviction was in 2003 and this wretched woman has been
campaigning for the criminalisation of pornography since then.


Oh.

I hadn't realised the conviction was so long ago.

I had thought it was after the consultation document was produced.


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

Yes, in response to the mother's campaign.

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

Good God, Alex, how have you reached middle age and retained such
gobsmacking naivete?


It would be nice if I had.

But it is a long time since I had any of that. Perhaps you didn't
notice the "just for once" there.

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?

Perhaps because we have read the court reports of how the 'child porn' laws
have been interpreted.


Now please answer the question.

I have no idea how you think that response relevant.

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.

There is no 'of course'. Don't talk in absolutes when you have no idea
whatsoever how this law might be interpreted. My fear that the presence of
a prop gun might be interpreted as 'serious violence' reasonable
speculation. That you can't imagine the authorities treating as such is
down to your lack of imagination and complacency .


Rubbish.

It is absolutely clear from the proposals, that it MUST depict real or
apparently real scenes of *actual* violence.

*Potential* violence, which is all a gun in the scene is up until the
point of being fired, is absolutely clearly not covered.


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"?

The decision whether or not to click on a link.

Why would they have to make it in a "split second"?

I make3 hundreds of decisions per day about whether to click on a
link. I make none of them in 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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what? That doesn't cover someone who wants to look at 'rough porn' but
also wants to stay the right side of the law.


Where did I suggest it might?



But an obviously mock hanging would.

Wrong.

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

I have read them and I take the government's words at face value. It is you
who is supplying the prejudice by *assuming* that the government will
interpret the words in a fashion that you would find palatable.



No I'm not. And no you are not.

If you take the words at face value, then the only interpretation is
about what level of violence is "potentially life threatening or
disabling". And that would be a decision for the jury, although the
government are thinking of providing "guidance" on that.

There is no interpretation regarding the fact that it MUST depict real
or apparently real violence.


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.

Who defines 'obviously'. How loose must the noose be for it to be treated
as 'obviously mock'.

I don't know. You were the one who introduced the concept of an
"obviously mock hanging".

I assumed you meant that it would be obvious to anybody looking at it
that it wasn't real.

I would assert that any posed 'hanging' is obviously
mock because no porn publisher is going to commit murder on video

You can assert that all you like, but it would be wrong.

but I am
sure that the CPS will take a very different view.


So am I.

It MUST be real or apparently real.

Which means it will be up to the jury and I dispute that anyone could make
such a determination with certainty on line at the point of consumption.


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

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

That is your pious hope. I see no good reason to accept your opinion.

That is because you see no reason to accept that the proposals mean
what they say.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I'm not a complete idiot - several parts are missing!
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
.

Relevant Pages

  • 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: Tragedy in VA
    ... If there were no guns, there'd be no violence, that what you are trying ... that's what the law and sane people believe. ... discuss things reasonably, but it seems to me that reason is usually ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic)
  • Re: Plot Holes in Book6
    ... contemporary understanding of rule of law isn't even a Potterverse concept. ... I can agree too that Arthur Weasley makes a fruitful example because we know ... more about him than about other MoM employees. ... Is that for a reason deeper than that the DEs themselves are an illegal ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: Niggling away at the edges (related to Homemade bullet proof vest)
    ... The earliest version of this niggling away issue that comes to my ... traffic law includes things such as issuing DUI ... rather than driving, because they maintained control of their keys, thus ... busted for DUI for just this reason, and never drove an inch after his ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Durdle Door
    ... explain you were just having a quiet time on the beach ... Ask calmly and politely under what law they are suggesting that you ... Ask again if they know of a valid legal reason why ... lawful and peaceful use of the beach, or will arrest you. ...
    (uk.rec.naturist)