RE: Law against violent pornography

RE: Law against violent pornography (Full Version)

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

Message

Aneirin -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 6:27:08 PM)
I signed the petition too,as did all the others I know who are into this,not so much because of the content of the proposed law,but because it is yet another erosion of our personal freedom. The law as I see it,could be another cover all law,the Government appearing to be doing something about some public concern.True,like many other laws that come into being,there will be a spate of prosecutions,much as an example,but do they really have the resources to find and prosecute thousands of people?Come on,they even struggle with the real crimes.And then there are the prisons which we are told are all full to capacity.They have to remember,criminalising thousands of people will lose them votes,I certainly will not vote for someone who inhibits my freedom. I believe this proposal came about,because of a violent murder which took place ,committed by a mentaly unstable person who has it happened viewed violent pornography on the internet,a link was made.If that is so,what about all the other mainstream films that are on at cinemas etc,can they not be guilty of possibly influencing people to commit horrific acts,why not legislate against them?Or is it this law might only affect (what the government thinks) a minority of people,i.e.,those interested in kink? There is an organisation here in the UK which is doing it's best to counter the Governments proposals,as follows; http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/index.html

aBondageTop -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 6:53:58 PM)
it ruins it for me if I do not know it was consensual. Real violence disgusts me.

Griswold -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 7:00:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation A few months ago i signed the petition against the violent pornography law that our government is trying to bring in. yesterday i recieved a reply as follows:- The proposals are aimed at tackling the circulation of extreme pornography which would be likely to contravene the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (OPA) if it were published within the UK. The Government takes the view that criminalising the possession of extreme pornographic images, the publication and distribution of which is already illegal in this country under the OPA, is a necessary step. With the development of modern technology the current law is no longer able to control such material and this has created a gap which the proposals are intended to fill. If such material is already being published and distributed such action is illegal under the law at present. The aim is not to bring additional material within the scope of the law but to criminalise its possession as well as publication and distribution. The Government's response to the consultation, published last August, states that the proposed new offence would have to meet two thresholds. First it would apply only to pornographic material, by which we mean material that has been solely or primarily produced for the purpose of sexual arousal. This would be an objective test for the jury in any prosecution. 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. How vague is the description of what will constitute as a crime? I can't even begin to know but....none of that rhymes.

Elorin -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 7:29:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SweetMegan20 quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation Does play never appear real or violent? You can always tell they're playing around. It is easy, in a dungeon, when a dominant does a take down scene with a sub, and physically forces her to the ground, into handcuffs, and then onto a spanking bench, that they are playing. A carefully edited video would not make it "easy" to see they were playing around. Especially if it left off what happened after she was gagged, hooded, handcuffed, and led away. A carefully framed photo makes it even more difficult. Your profile says you have no experience. In 5 years after you have participated in a BDSM community and seen some edge play, I would suggest you re-evaluate the statement that "You can always tell they're playing around." ~E

MistressNoName -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 8:07:08 PM)
To the OP: Two questions about this most disturbing subject. What is the likelihood that this law will actually pass? And if it passes, what is the likelihood that it will be vigorously enforced? And to the poster who suggested that "it's easy to see..." when people are playing...I mean you disrespect...But honestly, that is not correct. I'm remembering a knife play/chest punching scene I watched last year at TESFest. It was a demo in a crowded classroom and it was plain to all who attended that it was a consensual scene, that was well-negotiated by two players who knew each other well and had mutual respect for each other (because this was plainly stated before the scene began). But the scene itself was far from anything that looked like just playing around. It was deep and serious and they even made me jump once or twice when the Top punched the bottom's chest. I had a very visceral reaction to the whole thing. If anyone had been taping that for video release and some "authority" got hold of it, I'm not so sure that it wouldn't met the standards of the two thresholds described in this thread. And ultimately, it doesn't matter how I or any other "kinkster" sees it or understands it. When a jury sees this stuff, and they are instructed to give a certain verdict based upon one judge's interpretation of a very vaguely written law (and they are all vague exactly so that they will be open to interpretation) they most likely will not be considering all the things we consider. They may just see it as violent and therefore illegal...not to mention immoral, etc. This is why organizations like NCSF are so, so vital for our continued, peaceful existence. Otherwise, we could all be at-risk for being rounded up and prosecuted. And no, I don't think this is an exaggeration at all. This is why despite out many differences within our kink communities, we really do need to make better efforts to stick together and support one another and we need to continue to stand against this type of legislation. MNN

FelinePersuasion -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 10:29:33 PM)
Well obviously it's not real because these very same tortured and messed up porn stars are starring again in other movies. But in regards to actuall snuff films, yeah I don't think they're cosheer. quote: ORIGINAL: SweetMegan20 quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation I have no problem against this law. People shouldn't be jacking off to people that are being tortured and killed for REAL.

FelinePersuasion -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 11:56:17 PM)
That's just plain nieve. You can not always tell that play is consentual. There's some people who wil scream and cry and snot will be running down their face and their ass is red and blistered and their tits are plastered in wax, yes, she consented to it, wanted it but it doesn;t look all consentual. quote: ORIGINAL: SweetMegan20 You can always tell they're playing around.

susie -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/27/2007 12:24:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SweetMegan20 I have no problem against this law. People shouldn't be jacking off to people that are being tortured and killed for REAL. You miss the point. Your assumption is that the law is talking about real torture and snuff movies. The law actually says pornographic images which can also mean a still picture. The sort of pictures that many of us in the lifestyle have and some people even have as profile pictures on some sites. Think about this picture, a woman is tied and gagged. You can clearly see red welts on her legs from a cane. A man stands behind her holding a cane ready to strike. Can you tell from that picture that it is "play"? Under the proposed law possession of that image could leave you open to prosecution (I am not saying it would but that the law is open enough for that to happen). Secondly it states that the threshold will be an objective test by the jury. A jury could be made up of 50 year old church goers who believe that sex is for procreation only or who have never heard of BDSM. The wording has been left vague enough so that if necessary the normal man in the street who has a picture of someone being spanked could be prosecuted if they took the law to the extreme. Unlikely but with a government like ours who can tell.

MariaB -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/27/2007 1:05:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen quote: ORIGINAL: minnetar Do they have a similar law banning violence in movies, games, and so forth? i am not sure how they can corner this only on porn and not other conduct. minnetar "art" is exempt, as I understood it. E Yes it is and that includes performance art. So if you go to a public event and want to play, your best bet is to have a little notice you can pin to the wall saying, 'performance art in progress'. I will even go as far as putting a heading on any pictures depicting an S/m act, 'done for artistic merit'!

LadyEllen -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/27/2007 2:31:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MistressNoName Two questions about this most disturbing subject. What is the likelihood that this law will actually pass? And if it passes, what is the likelihood that it will be vigorously enforced? Our real hope it would seem lies in this area. Blair is about to go, to be replaced by Brown by all appearances. With luck, he will have different ideas about priority for the limited time available for passing law, and time will run out on this particular idea. Heck, we may even get a fresh election and then all bets are off. Say it comes up for the vote - do any of our MPs have the guts to vote against? We have had rebellions from Labour backbenchers before and seen the Govt defeated - but consider how it will look if one objects to this law - a tacit approval by rebels of really dangerous and wrong images (along with ours of course) that the press could have some fun with, and I suspect the vote would be won easily in the commons. Following that, the bill moves to the Lords for approval. This is also a good hope in that the Lords, for all their faults are in the habit of indicating by rejection, any bill which is written in such a nonsense way. With luck it will then go back to the commons for redrafting to make it more positive with regard to us, and to specifiy within it what the real problem is that they wish to control. Should the bill be passed in its original form though, it will then enter criminal law, and the police will have a duty to detect our crimes and to arrest us, and the Crown Prosecution Service a duty to prosecute us and the courts a duty to find us guilty - there is little defence to any charge under this law as I indicated before. The problem we have is that the police, the CPS and the courts are judged according to performance by this Govt, or more specifically performance indicators. The more crimes detected and prosecuted makes these organisations appear to be doing their jobs well; given that our crimes will be easy to detect and prosecute, we will be easy prey for them to achieve their targets. I suspect that aside from our presence at bdsm venues, (look forward to "reasonable suspicion" stop and search, taking of details and covert surveillance), the police have no idea of who might be a suspect aside from through the sites we visit on the internet - which is our greatest weakness. The police already quite rightfully have a lot of resources devoted to cyber crime, and we can be sure that GCHQ are passing them details of paedo rings et al, and will be passing them details also of who is visiting certain sites. Once detected, I think we can likely expect arrest and charge, and most likely cautions - which give us a criminal record. This means no court or gaol time, but does keep police performance figures up. I suspect we might also go onto the sex offenders register, which is rightfully kept for paedos, rapists and the like. We can also expect the taboids, especially the Sunday tabloids to be publishing pictures of us, alongside paedos and rapists. Life ruined. E

CuriousLord -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/27/2007 3:37:36 AM)
I'm not a big fan of porn. Particularly not BDSM-flavored. Still, this idea troubles me. quote: 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. This is a statement of disambiguation. It's bluntly saying that consent is irrelevant in the production of a certain type of porn. This wreaks of a "moral" inclination to pass a law against the rights of individuals to participate in activites soley of consenting adults. The author is pulling attention away from the violation of civil librities and pointing a finger to possible gains in the 1) reduction of incentive for some violent crimes and 2) publication of said violent crimes. There are three contrasting common approaches to new laws. 1) Do the greatest good. 1.a.) Civil librities come first as the government violates the social contract in restricting freedom against lawful. 1.b.) The state has the duty to moniter populations more likely to commit crimes and deride said populations in preemptive determent to such crimes. 2) Do no evil. Views (1.a) and (2) would find this proposal in violation of statute. View (1.b) would support this proposal. I would state the belief that the combination of views (1.a) and (2) is great enough to countradict adequate support of such a sentiment. However, this proposal goes through great lengths to draw attention away from or demean violations of civil librities enough that many in (1.a) as well as the more negligent in (2) may not consider implication far enough to allow polarized majority to the (1.b) voting stance. In short, this propostition's passage will depend on speeding it through legislation, advisably with a shock factor against the subject of issue, and playing down the margin of violation of rights.

missturbation -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/27/2007 1:15:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen quote: ORIGINAL: MistressNoName Two questions about this most disturbing subject. What is the likelihood that this law will actually pass? And if it passes, what is the likelihood that it will be vigorously enforced? Our real hope it would seem lies in this area. Blair is about to go, to be replaced by Brown by all appearances. With luck, he will have different ideas about priority for the limited time available for passing law, and time will run out on this particular idea. Heck, we may even get a fresh election and then all bets are off. Say it comes up for the vote - do any of our MPs have the guts to vote against? We have had rebellions from Labour backbenchers before and seen the Govt defeated - but consider how it will look if one objects to this law - a tacit approval by rebels of really dangerous and wrong images (along with ours of course) that the press could have some fun with, and I suspect the vote would be won easily in the commons. Following that, the bill moves to the Lords for approval. This is also a good hope in that the Lords, for all their faults are in the habit of indicating by rejection, any bill which is written in such a nonsense way. With luck it will then go back to the commons for redrafting to make it more positive with regard to us, and to specifiy within it what the real problem is that they wish to control. Should the bill be passed in its original form though, it will then enter criminal law, and the police will have a duty to detect our crimes and to arrest us, and the Crown Prosecution Service a duty to prosecute us and the courts a duty to find us guilty - there is little defence to any charge under this law as I indicated before. The problem we have is that the police, the CPS and the courts are judged according to performance by this Govt, or more specifically performance indicators. The more crimes detected and prosecuted makes these organisations appear to be doing their jobs well; given that our crimes will be easy to detect and prosecute, we will be easy prey for them to achieve their targets. I suspect that aside from our presence at bdsm venues, (look forward to "reasonable suspicion" stop and search, taking of details and covert surveillance), the police have no idea of who might be a suspect aside from through the sites we visit on the internet - which is our greatest weakness. The police already quite rightfully have a lot of resources devoted to cyber crime, and we can be sure that GCHQ are passing them details of paedo rings et al, and will be passing them details also of who is visiting certain sites. Once detected, I think we can likely expect arrest and charge, and most likely cautions - which give us a criminal record. This means no court or gaol time, but does keep police performance figures up. I suspect we might also go onto the sex offenders register, which is rightfully kept for paedos, rapists and the like. We can also expect the taboids, especially the Sunday tabloids to be publishing pictures of us, alongside paedos and rapists. Life ruined. E I agree with Lady E and boy am i glad you answered it lol. [:D]

MistressNoName -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/28/2007 8:17:12 AM)
quote: And to the poster who suggested that "it's easy to see..." when people are playing...I mean you disrespect... Good grief...Please forgive my occasional lapses ...that was to read, "...I mean you NO disrespect..." So sorry about that. MNN

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875