RE: Law against violent pornography

RE: Law against violent pornography (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

missturbation -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 4:20:15 PM)
I agree. Whilst I understand that you have many reservations about the Government's proposals, they are not aimed at any particular part of society. The above comment makes me think that in fact it is partially aimed at a certain part of society, ie us bdsmer's [:D]

SweetMegan20 -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 4:26:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation The second threshold would also be an objective test for the jury in respect of actual scenes or depictions which appear to be real acts. We would aim to cover activity which can be clearly seen, leaves little to the imagination, and is not hidden or disguised. By actual scenes or depictions which appear to be real acts, we intend to catch material which is genuinely violent or conveys a realistic impression of fear, violence and harm. Whilst I understand that you have many reservations about the Government's proposals, they are not aimed at any particular part of society. The consultation was not concerned with the legal consensual material which already circulates and which does not already breach the OPA. The fact that some extreme pornographic material may in fact be consensual while appearing to be otherwise, does not mean that it falls outside the criminal law. I have no problem against this law. People shouldn't be jacking off to people that are being tortured and killed for REAL.

LadyEllen -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 4:28:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation I agree. Whilst I understand that you have many reservations about the Government's proposals, they are not aimed at any particular part of society. The above comment makes me think that in fact it is partially aimed at a certain part of society, ie us bdsmer's [:D] Translating the Government speak here, it means not aimed at any particular ethnic group, religious group, sexual orientation (meaning het/bi/homosexual), sex or gender, ability/disability group or other group which is identified in diversity programmes. So, a Hindu TS lesbian in a wheelchair would be prosecuted, for example, if she had such an image, but it is not aimed at her for her religion, origin, gender, sexuality or disability. E

missturbation -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 4:28:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SweetMegan20 quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation The second threshold would also be an objective test for the jury in respect of actual scenes or depictions which appear to be real acts. We would aim to cover activity which can be clearly seen, leaves little to the imagination, and is not hidden or disguised. By actual scenes or depictions which appear to be real acts, we intend to catch material which is genuinely violent or conveys a realistic impression of fear, violence and harm. Whilst I understand that you have many reservations about the Government's proposals, they are not aimed at any particular part of society. The consultation was not concerned with the legal consensual material which already circulates and which does not already breach the OPA. The fact that some extreme pornographic material may in fact be consensual while appearing to be otherwise, does not mean that it falls outside the criminal law. I have no problem against this law. People shouldn't be jacking off to people that are being tortured and killed for REAL. If this law was that clearly defined neither would i but its not. You could be prosecuted for having pics / films of your 'play' and be prosecuted. Still agree?

LadyEllen -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 4:30:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SweetMegan20 quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation The second threshold would also be an objective test for the jury in respect of actual scenes or depictions which appear to be real acts. We would aim to cover activity which can be clearly seen, leaves little to the imagination, and is not hidden or disguised. By actual scenes or depictions which appear to be real acts, we intend to catch material which is genuinely violent or conveys a realistic impression of fear, violence and harm. Whilst I understand that you have many reservations about the Government's proposals, they are not aimed at any particular part of society. The consultation was not concerned with the legal consensual material which already circulates and which does not already breach the OPA. The fact that some extreme pornographic material may in fact be consensual while appearing to be otherwise, does not mean that it falls outside the criminal law. I have no problem against this law. People shouldn't be jacking off to people that are being tortured and killed for REAL. Absolutely Megan, but thats not what it says. E

missturbation -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 4:30:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation I agree. Whilst I understand that you have many reservations about the Government's proposals, they are not aimed at any particular part of society. The above comment makes me think that in fact it is partially aimed at a certain part of society, ie us bdsmer's [:D] Translating the Government speak here, it means not aimed at any particular ethnic group, religious group, sexual orientation (meaning het/bi/homosexual), sex or gender, ability/disability group or other group which is identified in diversity programmes. So, a Hindu TS lesbian in a wheelchair would be prosecuted, for example, if she had such an image, but it is not aimed at her for her religion, origin, gender, sexuality or disability. E You may well be right but i have a sneaky feeling its aimed at more than just the 'abusers' without consent out there.

SweetMegan20 -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 4:37:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation quote: ORIGINAL: SweetMegan20 quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation The second threshold would also be an objective test for the jury in respect of actual scenes or depictions which appear to be real acts. We would aim to cover activity which can be clearly seen, leaves little to the imagination, and is not hidden or disguised. By actual scenes or depictions which appear to be real acts, we intend to catch material which is genuinely violent or conveys a realistic impression of fear, violence and harm. Whilst I understand that you have many reservations about the Government's proposals, they are not aimed at any particular part of society. The consultation was not concerned with the legal consensual material which already circulates and which does not already breach the OPA. The fact that some extreme pornographic material may in fact be consensual while appearing to be otherwise, does not mean that it falls outside the criminal law. I have no problem against this law. People shouldn't be jacking off to people that are being tortured and killed for REAL. If this law was that clearly defined neither would i but its not. You could be prosecuted for having pics / films of your 'play' and be prosecuted. Still agree? No. I think people are making a big deal out of nothing. Its not vague, its very clear. It very clearly states that the pornography must number 1, be violent, and number 2, appear to be real. If it is play, it is fine.

LadyEllen -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 4:37:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation You may well be right but i have a sneaky feeling its aimed at more than just the 'abusers' without consent out there. It is, or at least it includes everyone in order to cover the abusers. Let us be clear - I dont think anyone would object to the prosecution of those perpetrating acts of abuse, taking photographs of that abuse or publishing those images. But this says very clearly that consent is irrelevant, and it is what it looks like which is relevant in law, rather than what might have been going on. This sweeps up all of us who have images of what we call safe, sane and consensual activities, since the law denies that there is any such thing. The real test for this badly drafted nonsense will be the European human rights law, which guarantees a right to private life, which this UK law could be said to infringe in the case of SSC activities. However, by the time that test is made, hundreds if not thousands will have been prosecuted, be signing on a sex offender register and have had their lives and possibly their livelihoods ruined by the infamy associated with such a prosecution, which does not discern between abusers and the like of us; we will all be abusers in the eyes of the public and of course our wonderful Sunday tabloids. E

missturbation -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 4:41:23 PM)
No. I think people are making a big deal out of nothing. Its not vague, its very clear. It very clearly states that the pornography must number 1, be violent, and number 2, appear to be real. If it is play, it is fine. Does play never appear real or violent?

missturbation -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 4:42:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation You may well be right but i have a sneaky feeling its aimed at more than just the 'abusers' without consent out there. It is, or at least it includes everyone in order to cover the abusers. Let us be clear - I dont think anyone would object to the prosecution of those perpetrating acts of abuse, taking photographs of that abuse or publishing those images. But this says very clearly that consent is irrelevant, and it is what it looks like which is relevant in law, rather than what might have been going on. This sweeps up all of us who have images of what we call safe, sane and consensual activities, since the law denies that there is any such thing. The real test for this badly drafted nonsense will be the European human rights law, which guarantees a right to private life, which this UK law could be said to infringe in the case of SSC activities. However, by the time that test is made, hundreds if not thousands will have been prosecuted, be signing on a sex offender register and have had their lives and possibly their livelihoods ruined by the infamy associated with such a prosecution, which does not discern between abusers and the like of us; we will all be abusers in the eyes of the public and of course our wonderful Sunday tabloids. E Yep, all this concerns me big style.

SweetMegan20 -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 4:47:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation No. I think people are making a big deal out of nothing. Its not vague, its very clear. It very clearly states that the pornography must number 1, be violent, and number 2, appear to be real. If it is play, it is fine. Does play never appear real or violent? You can always tell they're playing around.

littlesarbonn -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 4:49:47 PM)
The law as written sounds somewhat okay. It's the interpretation that often gets out of hand, causing some diehard morality nut to go on a rampage and start arresting everyone that does something he finds objectionable. No longer does it stay within the constraints of the law as written but becomes the law as enforced, requiring serious resources to fight a governmental entity (whatever level it is) that has almost unlimited resources to go after someone. This is why in the past so many people who truly believed they were doing nothing wrong took a plea bargain instead of fighting it all the way. When faced with the reality that is a judicial system that doesn't give equal access to all socioeconomic classes, well, it's not hard to figure out who is going to get knocked down in the long run.

missturbation -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 4:50:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SweetMegan20 quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation No. I think people are making a big deal out of nothing. Its not vague, its very clear. It very clearly states that the pornography must number 1, be violent, and number 2, appear to be real. If it is play, it is fine. Does play never appear real or violent? You can always tell they're playing around. You can?????? Well i just hope the police are as good at telling the diff between playing around and actual abuse as you are.

LadyEllen -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 4:51:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SweetMegan20 quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation No. I think people are making a big deal out of nothing. Its not vague, its very clear. It very clearly states that the pornography must number 1, be violent, and number 2, appear to be real. If it is play, it is fine. Does play never appear real or violent? You can always tell they're playing around. I can, you can. But it doesnt give room for interpretation in the excerpt, which talks about appearances of reality. We also have to bear in mind that, for instance, it is impossible in law to consent to say a whipping - such a situation is assault with a weapon in law, therefore is a violent act, falling under offences against the person and this new law should an image be made of it. E

LadyEllen -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 5:01:57 PM)
an imaginary scenario; Mrs A ties up and whips her husband Mr B, because thats what they like to do. Person C takes a picture of the whipping. Person C is discovered with the picture and is arrested. "It was consensual" says Person C. "It cant be, says the law; its an act of violence - which cannot be consented to in law" "The whipping was done for erotic reasons?" asks the law. "Yes, says Person C" (for he cannot say otherwise, without making Mrs A liable to additional prosecution) "Then the picture was produced for your erotic enjoyment" says the law, "so it passes threshold one of my regulations" "And it also conveys a realistic impression of a situation of violence, fear and harm" says the law, "so it passes threshold two of my regulations" "Youre nicked mate" E

MistressMelissa -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 5:04:39 PM)
Greetings, From personal experience if you cross from the US into Canada you best not have "any picture showing the restraint of another person" is the words I believe Canadian Customs Officers used when they confiscated my collection of BDSM magazines, DVDs and VHS tapes from the cab of my semi. Amazing what collects in your truck over a couple of years. They tried to take my laptop also but I talked them into just erasing the "offending" files. I had to do the ole look right, look left, look forward and I have not been back to Canada since. Don't really want to go and I use to have some good times up there. Most of what they took was pretty tame compared to sites like Hogtied or Water Torture and the rest of that group. They didn't care about the rubber or latex mags, so I guess fetish clothing is still OK. While many things are not illegal in the US, many of the producers are scared to push the limits. Not since the 80's. That's the main reason I'm picky about the type of photos I put up on Ds Haven. It's one thing to talk about WIIWD, but it's another to provide picture proof. Play all you want but don't take pictures is all I can recommend.

LadyEllen -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 5:06:56 PM)
well, I'm off to bed. Best make use of my own bed while I can! E

missturbation -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 5:09:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen well, I'm off to bed. Best make use of my own bed while I can! E Lol - sweet dreams Lady E. Enjoy the bed lol

FelinePersuasion -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 5:19:03 PM)
opps never mind I mis read it lol.

missturbation -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 5:21:51 PM)
lol no worries [:D]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125