Re: violent porn

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 13:11:01 +0100, "Harry The Horse"
<HarryAtTheStable@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

No I don't.

The jury are NOT part of "the state".

The point is how does someone
ensure that they are not breaking the law?


In the vast majority of cases, very easily.

In some borderline cases, with very great difficulty, if possible at
all.


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?


I have never "evaded" your point, never mind doing it "again".

See above.


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.

I don't think so.

There will be some uncertainty, but the grey area is very much
smaller, IMO, than it is with child porn.

And as such, is less open to abuse by prosecutors.

I'm not saying it *definitely* won't happen, but I do think it not
very likely.

I also think there would be less motivation to try and prosecute, as I
do not believe BDSM is viewed with the same general loathing as
paedophilia.

And I believe that most of the abuse of the CP laws is down to
prosecutors believing that "where there is smoke there is fire", and
people who get their kicks from looking at photos of children must be
a danger to children.

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.


Huh?

What you say is not even close to being a possibility.

It cannot be a very much weaker test than it is.

The test *IS* that it MUST be realistic in and of itself.

In *addition* to that (so it cannot possibly weaken the test), it must
also be a sexual situation.



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.


It can be, if sample pictures (from previous cases perhaps) are
presented first, together with statements saying which ones would be
illegal and which are legal.

Unfortunately, this seems unlikely to be the way the courts will
operate the law :-(


<snip>

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.

Agreed.

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.


If you could be *sure* it was unreal, I would agree.

But with modern editing and special effects, it is almost impossible
to be sure.

So you play safe, and say that if it appears to be, then the
distribution should be illegal.

For the production of it, the prosecution should have sufficient
evidence to be able to say whether it is real or not, so there is less
of an argument against *producing* fake but very realistic material.


--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
.... KARAOKE is Japanese for "Tone Deaf"
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
.

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 ... any more than the child porn laws are currently. ...
    (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: 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)
  • Re: Ebay Insurance FACTS, not fiction.
    ... and understanding of the law and argue over the facts. ... It was this case that the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1999 was written ... detriment of the consumer. ...
    (uk.people.consumers.ebay)