Law against violent pornography

Law against violent pornography (Full Version)

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

Message

missturbation -> Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 2:54:21 PM)
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?

crouchingtigress -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 3:04:17 PM)
the short answer: a fish.

LadyEllen -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 3:05:47 PM)
I find no vagueness whatever. It criminalises every picture of any act falling under s&m, and possibly also every picture of any act involving bondage as a separate activity to s&m, and possibly even every picture of any act in which one or more parties are being humiliated -which can be interpreted to be as the result of fear. The only question now, is whether I get a male or female prison, it seems. E

crouchingtigress -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 3:10:59 PM)
long answer...well spotted miss...that is pretty vauge....i am not sure how you Brits are over there....over here there is a lot of this stuff, submitted by congress filled with sound and fury....but very rarely enforced...and then challenged by the judicial system...then it disppears...till another congressman necromances it and it is reborn with a new big scary name and a lot of fear surrounding it. the worry thing is that the tides are sort of turning towards this sort of knee jerk legislation, hopefully the tide will turn the other way soon.[8\|]

daddysprop247 -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 3:11:09 PM)
sooo depressing. from my knowledge, such porn has long been illegal in the U.S., at least since the mid to late '80s. being younger, and not having had the opportunity to see all the great hardcore rape, degradation, torture porn in its legal heyday, i feel very much shorted. fortunately you can still find such material (in sadly limited quantities) discreetly/carefully shipped to you from countries where it's not illegal, or from porn producers who don't mind shunning the law.

missturbation -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 3:21:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen I find no vagueness whatever. It criminalises every picture of any act falling under s&m, and possibly also every picture of any act involving bondage as a separate activity to s&m, and possibly even every picture of any act in which one or more parties are being humiliated -which can be interpreted to be as the result of fear. The only question now, is whether I get a male or female prison, it seems. E Yeah but then they are vague about who will be charged and who will not. It looks to me as though its all going to be whether you can prove it was consensual and that you werent afraid at the time. Now i dont know about anyone else but some of the best play i have had has scared me to some degree.

missturbation -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 3:25:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crouchingtigress long answer...well spotted miss...that is pretty vauge....i am not sure how you Brits are over there....over here there is a lot of this stuff, submitted by congress filled with sound and fury....but very rarely enforced...and then challenged by the judicial system...then it disppears...till another congressman necromances it and it is reborn with a new big scary name and a lot of fear surrounding it. the worry thing is that the tides are sort of turning towards this sort of knee jerk legislation, hopefully the tide will turn the other way soon.[8\|] It just seems to me to be a catch all law so they dont miss anything but with no real guide lines what will and wont actually get you prosecuted.

daddysprop247 -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 3:26:43 PM)
missturbation, have you seen some of the hardcore S&M porn available online where in scene after scene some poor girl is being seemingly used, abused, degraded, tortured, just plain sent thru the ringer....but in every single film, the very last scene shows all the participants smiling and posing together, maybe hugging or otherwise looking all lovey-dovey. the producers apparently must do this in order for the porn to be legal...they have to put in some visible proof that it was all consensual. unfortunately that kind of thing just totally ruins the porn for me...it pretty much invalidates the whole thing if at the end you know everyone will be skipping and holding hands.

missturbation -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 3:31:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: daddysprop247 missturbation, have you seen some of the hardcore S&M porn available online where in scene after scene some poor girl is being seemingly used, abused, degraded, tortured, just plain sent thru the ringer....but in every single film, the very last scene shows all the participants smiling and posing together, maybe hugging or otherwise looking all lovey-dovey. the producers apparently must do this in order for the porn to be legal...they have to put in some visible proof that it was all consensual. unfortunately that kind of thing just totally ruins the porn for me...it pretty much invalidates the whole thing if at the end you know everyone will be skipping and holding hands. Well no i havent i have to admit, im not really into porn. I wouldnt particularly want to watch the kind of porn you are describing anyway, but each to their own [:D]

Devilslilsister -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 3:34:02 PM)
quote: 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:- why did you sign it? maybe i'm reading that wrong.....? The petition is against the law already there? Not a petition against the pron?

missturbation -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 3:38:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Devilslilsister quote: 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:- why did you sign it? maybe i'm reading that wrong.....? The petition is against the law already there? Not a petition against the pron? No the petition is against the law being brought in hun. I dont want to be prosecuted for having pics of my beaten ass or me being flogged etc etc. Off topic, look at me im not on a ban at the mo so i posting and making the most of it lol

daddysprop247 -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 3:40:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation Well no i havent i have to admit, im not really into porn. I wouldnt particularly want to watch the kind of porn you are describing anyway, but each to their own [:D] ah! lol. so your concern is not so much for pornography itself, but more regarding things like the distribution or possession of personal images?

LadyEllen -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 3:42:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen I find no vagueness whatever. It criminalises every picture of any act falling under s&m, and possibly also every picture of any act involving bondage as a separate activity to s&m, and possibly even every picture of any act in which one or more parties are being humiliated -which can be interpreted to be as the result of fear. The only question now, is whether I get a male or female prison, it seems. E Yeah but then they are vague about who will be charged and who will not. It looks to me as though its all going to be whether you can prove it was consensual and that you werent afraid at the time. Now i dont know about anyone else but some of the best play i have had has scared me to some degree. In what way is it vague on that point? It says that at the second threshold, it need only to "appear to be real acts" and to "convey a realistic impression of fear, violence or harm". Further it indicates that consensuality does not mean an image would fall outside the law. In practice perhaps, (perhaps), the law is aimed at those images for which it was drafted, in response to those images portraying acts leading to the apparent death of a participant, following the strangulation of a woman by a man inspired by such images. The way the excerpt you posted reads however, it covers every possible instance of a portrayal of s&m, as well as possibly images of bondage and humiliation. E

missturbation -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 3:43:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: daddysprop247 quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation Well no i havent i have to admit, im not really into porn. I wouldnt particularly want to watch the kind of porn you are describing anyway, but each to their own [:D] ah! lol. so your concern is not so much for pornography itself, but more regarding things like the distribution or possession of personal images? No, i believe porn should be made without having to advertise at the end everyone is friends. As you have stated it ruins the porn for you, shaing hands at the end of it seems pathetic to me. My concern is that what we choose to do in our private lives, be it getting beaten, making violent porn we should not be restricted as long as it is consensual, safe and sane.

daddysprop247 -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 3:44:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation No, i believe porn should be made without having to advertise at the end everyone is friends. As you have stated it ruins the porn for you, shaing hands at the end of it seems pathetic to me. My concern is that what we choose to do in our private lives, be it getting beaten, making violent porn we should not be restricted as long as it is consensual, safe and sane. i agree! well, except for the safe and sane part, lol.

minnetar -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 3:48:55 PM)
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

missturbation -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 3:50:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen I find no vagueness whatever. It criminalises every picture of any act falling under s&m, and possibly also every picture of any act involving bondage as a separate activity to s&m, and possibly even every picture of any act in which one or more parties are being humiliated -which can be interpreted to be as the result of fear. The only question now, is whether I get a male or female prison, it seems. E Yeah but then they are vague about who will be charged and who will not. It looks to me as though its all going to be whether you can prove it was consensual and that you werent afraid at the time. Now i dont know about anyone else but some of the best play i have had has scared me to some degree. In what way is it vague on that point? It says that at the second threshold, it need only to "appear to be real acts" and to "convey a realistic impression of fear, violence or harm". Further it indicates that consensuality does not mean an image would fall outside the law. In practice perhaps, (perhaps), the law is aimed at those images for which it was drafted, in response to those images portraying acts leading to the apparent death of a participant, following the strangulation of a woman by a man inspired by such images. The way the excerpt you posted reads however, it covers every possible instance of a portrayal of s&m, as well as possibly images of bondage and humiliation. E Lady E, I don't want to argue with you on this [:D] In my opinion it comes across as we'll charge you if we want to and we won't if we don't. For me a law like this should be handled a little better and not infringing on peoples safe, sane and consensual lifestyle.

missturbation -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 3:51:23 PM)
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 Erm judging by some of the violence in films etc i'd say not but not 100% positive.

LadyEllen -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 4:07:54 PM)
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. The excerpt posted has as its first threshold that the image should be for the purpose of provoking sexual arousal - which would be difficult to prove in relation to a film or video game if the image is part of a whole which is not otherwise produced with that purpose. For instance, the movie "9 to 5" features scenes which would definitely fall foul of this proposed law at the second threshold, but those scenes are part of a story which is unintended to provoke sexual arousal, so it would be exempt from the ban or any prosecution. E

LadyEllen -> RE: Law against violent pornography (4/26/2007 4:16:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation Lady E, I don't want to argue with you on this [:D] In my opinion it comes across as we'll charge you if we want to and we won't if we don't. For me a law like this should be handled a little better and not infringing on peoples safe, sane and consensual lifestyle. I dont want to argue with you either MissT! To me it comes across as all encompassing - making practically all of us liable to arrest and prosecution, for practically all of us have some image somewhere, photo or download, which would fall foul of the two thresholds and the descriptions and criteria attached to them. That it might be impractical to arrest and prosecute all of us in the near future is largely irrelevant - they have or can acquire the resources to do so eventually, and it will keep detection and prosecution rates up, so its almost a certainty I'd say. I note too, that it doesnt say anything about who might be prosecuted? For me, a law like this should be drafted a whole lot better. Relating it to movies, what they want is to ban "snuff movies", but here they are banning and outlawing any movie featuring violence, including those enacted by professional actors where no one actually gets hurt. Relating it to paedophilia, they are here banning holiday pics of your family, when we all know what the real problem is - if they can draft law to rightfully discern between these two conditions, then how is it they have a problem to discern in this case I wonder? E

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125