Re: violent porn

Alex Heney wrote:

The problem is in the phrase 'apparently real'. I grow tired of
manking the same point but here goes just one more time. I fail to
see how the consumer of such material can judge with any degree of
certainty that he is looking at something that the state would judge
to be 'appaently real'.

And I grow tired of reiterating the same points too :-(

First, it isn't what *the state* judges "apparently real". It is what
a *jury* judges "apparently real".

Don't be obtuse. You know well that the 'state' in this context encompasses
the police, the CPS and judge and jury. The point is how does someone
ensure that they are not breaking the law?

And while one can never be certain how a jury will vote, I think they
tend to be more reasonable than "the state".

But I have never said that it will be easily possible to judge every
image.

I have just pointed out that the specific claims you and others have
made regarding certain things being covered are just wrong.

And you have evaded my point yet again. How is the consumer at this point
of consumption to know whether or not he was broken the law by looking at a
particular image?

As Cynic
pointed out elsewhere, routine consumers may be able to spot
straightaway that such material is not real. Now you may say that
having access to such context is irrelevant. But it is not. Any
image or video cannot be understood without recourse to a wider
context.

In the case of this law, it must be.

Although having said that, I wouldn't like to bet on the law being
applied correctly, any more than the child porn laws are currently.
Context *is* taken into account there, in almost every court, even
though the law does not allow it.

Indeed. Another worry I have about this law; that it *will* be abused. And
the uncertainty of what constitutes 'realistic' will just facilitate such
abuse.

With this law, I think it less likely that context would be taken into
account, because it is more likely to help the defendant than the
prosecution. :-(

Quite.


Otherwise we would flee
cinemas when a locomotive is filmed head on. Then the question
becomes whose context? The context of the nun? The context of the
religious zealot? The context of a routine consumer of this type of
porn? Or the context of the 'reasonable' person. Yet is appearing
to say that anyone who accesses this material is not reasonable so
that doesn't help the poor consumer stay the right side of the law.

The image in and of itself must appear to be of a real act of violence
which is likely to cause death or disablement, and that violence is in
a sexual situation.

Then that is a much weaker test than the image being realistic in of itself.

If you think that then I can why you are having such problems.
Judging whether something is 'appears real' is not at all objective.

That is the biggest single problem I see with the proposals.

The government response says this will be an objective test for the
jury, but as you say, it *cannot* be objective.

Agreed.

It is very difficult to say from any textual description. The old
cliche "a picture is worth a thousand words" is very true here.

I thought you going to fall back on the old reliable 'I can't define
it but I know it when I see it'.

There is a lot of truth in that.

Yes, but not as a test for prosecution.

Show a group of people 10 photos and ask them which ones appear to
depict real acts, and the majority will tend to choose the same ones.

Give a textual description of those same pictures, and there would be
very much less consensus.


But how is the viewer to know it looks 'absolutely genuine'. What I
might consider to be rather cheesy looking production values, might
be accepted by a jury to be 'absolutely genuine'.


Possible, if you were an expert in gunshots and they weren't.

But I would expect the defence to bring expert witnesses (and example
photos if any were available) showing what "real" actually looks like.

Yes, that's probably what would happen. Does help the person looking at the
image in the first place, though.

OK, but this thread started with your saying that you thought that
such images should be illegal to possess.

Where?

I did say that I think such imagery, outside of news reporting should
be illegal.

But I didn't mention "possession".

But in context, I can see why you thought that was implied.

Fair enough. I think we may have been talking at cross purposes for the
last few days!

I am actually in two minds (or maybe more) about whether possession
should be illegal or not. On the whole I tend to think not, but I am
not totally convinced.

The production and distribution certainly should be illegal. And I
should have made clear previously that was what I meant there.

I can see a case for making pornography that involves *real* harm to people
being made illegal to produce. I can see little case for making it illegal
if it is make believe. In fact, I am sure the number of cases where real
violence is used in commerical pornography is so vanishingly small to be not
statistically significant.

But I do think that IF one accepts the premise, then it is not AS
unsure as the current child porn laws.

OK, I can see what you are saying but I don't agree. Given the
international response to child porn, it is pretty easy to keep
yourself on the right side of the law. US hosted web sites, and
other 'respectable' ones, hold in escrow age details of the models
they feature.

Which is actually irrelevant in the context of UK law.

Back to the same subjective judgment by the jury of whether the
subjects "appear" to be under 18.

True. But I wasn't thinking of sites which attempt to make those over 18
look like they are under 18. Though no doubt a market exists for such
material as it would be legal to possess in the US.

If the UK
passes this wrong headed law, we will be unique in the 'advanced'
western world, so illegal and legal material may be found on such
web sites, making the decision at the point of consumption all the
more difficult.


I would be surprised if we remained unique.

Few countries seem to have quite the appetite to destroy liberty as the
present UK administration.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: violent porn
    ... You know well that the 'state' in this context encompasses ... ensure that they are not breaking the law? ... How is the consumer at this point ... is less open to abuse by prosecutors. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: violent porn
    ... It is those who think the proposed law will be twisted to encompass ... understood without recourse to a wider context. ... The context of a routine consumer of this type of porn? ... I think that it's a real problem with the child porn laws as well. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: violent porn
    ... It is those who think the proposed law will be twisted to encompass ... understood without recourse to a wider context. ... any more than the child porn laws are currently. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Maccies resort to their typical dishonesty [was Re: You wanted an example of a price drop...]
    ... Agreed - and that includes if you were to show evidence that showed someone ... had broken the law and so stated... ... when not done in the context of a court. ... If so, Steve, do you have *any* counter to my argument against Bush? ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Maccies resort to their typical dishonesty [was Re: You wanted an example of a price drop...]
    ... Agreed - and that includes if you were to show evidence that showed someone ... had broken the law and so stated... ... when not done in the context of a court. ... If so, Steve, do you have *any* counter to my argument against Bush? ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)