Poll: UK ban on Extreme pornography

[Emperor Inferno]

I'm not exactly an advocate for censorship, but I have to say I agree with this. And even if you don't agree with it, it is pretty easy to understand: these are serious health issues here. By outlawing this kind of material, they must hope to squelch these sorts of things happening. It's just like outlawing a sport because too many people died playing it. Not only that, but things like sex with animals or corpses are source for extreme public health concerns, it is known that beastiality is the root cause for HIV presenting in humans, and dead bodies carry all sorts of bad things.

 

[cobra_ky]

Wow this is, well stupid. One thing I would like to ask is why do some of you care about whether an animal can consent to anything or not? We literally kill animals without asking their permission, consent is only important for humans.

animal rights is another touchy subject all together. but generally most people agree that hunting and slaughter is ok, it's wrong to make animals suffer needlessly.

I said yes because, while i don't want to stop people doing what they want, i want it to become illegal to tell me about it in sick humor etc. I never want to hear that crap

the law isn't there to plug your ears for you. next thing you know, someone will pass a law because they don't want to hear what you have to say.

I'm usually more open-minded when it comes to people's rights to certain vices, as long as it's their choice to make. However, today I can't agree with allowing people to see such disturbing things.

My opinion isn't all that well thought out, but my first impression of the matter is "If you have to watch that degree of pornography to be aroused where more harmless pornography has failed, you need help not more rights!"

i can only speak for myself but i doubt there's many people who need to or even can be aroused by that level of pornography or any other. i'm not supporting this stuff because it gets me off, it's because i believe in personal freedom.

Also, those films endanger the lives of the people in them. There's a reason why regular films use stunt doubles and special effects when ever graphic stuff goes down. If they didn't, film makers would be charged with reckless endangerment or worse. Remember, those are real people that are doing those things. Porn studios aren't as easily traceable as movie studios. What about those films about participants that are permanently injured? With shady studios the factor of human trafficking comes into play. I doubt directors would solicit people off the street with the line, "Hey! Wanna be in a movie where you cut off your- !?" I'm not saying all people who are in such films are doing it against their will, but I'm willing to bet some are. I don't think the right to watch such films is worth the cost it takes to make them.

stunt doubles are people too you know. and human trafficking is already illegal; if that doesn't deter them, do you think banning porn will? history has shown that legislating morality never works. prohibition failed, the war on drugs hasn't stopped drugs, and centuries of illegalizing prostitution hasn't stopped it. the only thing these laws accomplish is forcing the activity underground, where it becomes much more dangerous.

Finally, I don't think it's healthy to watch those sorts of things anyway. I'm not saying "pronz is badz!!", I'm just saying a line needs to drawn somewhere. When people watch those films, assuming they get off to it, they'll eventually want to act out those things they see. Most people wouldn't follow through with such urges out of morality or compliance with the law, but failing to do so can cause sexual frustrations. (I'd like to cite the episode of South Park, "Overlogging" as a reference. Stan's dad becomes so accustomed to the weird fetishes of the internet that when the internet stops working he loses it, explaining "Once you see things like that, you can't just go back to Playboy.") It's just plain unhealthy to watch those graphic things. I can't imagine a normal, healthy contributor to society (insert stereotypical sunshine variety doctor, teacher, or businessman) going home and having to watch somebody dig up a dead grandmother to boink, just so they can blow off some of the sexual urges they had that day.

you have the causation backwards. fetish porn exists because fetishes do. if you want argue otherwise, cite a better source than a fictional character.

(what the internet DOES do is facilitate transmission of pornography and allow communities to develop. as people realize they're not alone they become more comfortable and open about their fetishes, so we hear about it more today. that's why it seems like it's increasing.)

I think in some cases the line needs to be drawn between 'its ok to do it between consenting adults ' but 'its not ok to profit from it by selling media of it'.

I've seen some stuff before online and I'm thinking some foolish girls have got into porn and not realised what they signed up for. There's a world of difference between sating your own fetishistic desires, and doing what some creepy porn director says because you need the money, or think it'll be a break into the industry. Note I'm not anti porn, I just realise that there's darker areas of the business that could use some tightening up (damn that line needs some editing).

if they're over 18 then they're legally responsible for whatever contracts they sign. and there's always openings in straight porn. (god, everything's a double entendre, isn't it?) and if you're worrying about the performers' safety, then we need regulation and oversight, not an outright ban. like i said, banning pornography will force it into a criminal underworld, where there will be absolutely no responsibility for anyone's safety.

EDIT:

I'm not exactly an advocate for censorship, but I have to say I agree with this. And even if you don't agree with it, it is pretty easy to understand: these are serious health issues here. By outlawing this kind of material, they must hope to squelch these sorts of things happening. It's just like outlawing a sport because too many people died playing it. Not only that, but things like sex with animals or corpses are source for extreme public health concerns, it is known that beastiality is the root cause for HIV presenting in humans, and dead bodies carry all sorts of bad things.

it is by no means known how HIV spread from monkeys to humans. it is far more likely that it was initially transferred by a monkey bite or eating monkey flesh. not that i'm defending bestiality, which i still think is animal abuse, but i want to see some hard science showing the health risks before we starting criminalizing other sexual acts.

 

[notyouraveragejoe]

I am disturbed that there even exist such things. I'd say yes, one reason being because there doesn't seem to be good enough precautions to stop kids watching this stuff.

I find this quit disturbing that our government is starting to censor this, I mean what next anything that could be seen as violent, or likely or cause hatred, or likely to interfere with the government where will it end? I am interested to hear your views on this and if you agree with it or not

The problem is more that pornography is supposed to be arousing. There is a big difference between someone watching a film with violence and enjoying it and actually obtaining sexual pleasure from seeing violence inflicted on other people. The latter can produce all kinds of sexual predators.

But wouldn't the person already obviously be a sadist. Then if you take away that outlet you are pretty much making the sadist need to seek an outlet elsewhere. The point I'm trying to make is, aren't you more likely to produce sexual predators by removing pornography, especially if that pornography is a sadists outlet.

 

[J-Man]

Yes. Necrophilia, bestiality etc. just seem to me disgusting. But that's subjective. My issue is that its almost impossible to stop kids from getting to it. Just give them an internet browser and off they go.

The entire country is wired with cameras watching your every move, they are trying to pass laws to get every single man, woman, and childs DNA and finger-prints on a database.

Now this.

Welcome to Alcatraz.

Jesus Christ, what the fuck are you, an anarcho-libertarianist-conspiracy theorist?

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Yes. Necrophilia, bestiality etc. just seem to me disgusting. But that's subjective. My issue is that its almost impossible to stop kids from getting to it. Just give them an internet browser and off they go.

The entire country is wired with cameras watching your every move, they are trying to pass laws to get every single man, woman, and childs DNA and finger-prints on a database.

Jesus Christ, what the fuck are you, an anarcho-libertarianist-conspiracy theorist?

Tell me one single aspect of that which was incorrect.

 

[Alex_P]

I dislike it on principle, it is a seedy, perverted, insipid and degrading blight on society, that I take care to avoid at all times if possible. Merely in my opinion of course, based on my own personal principles and morals.

Porn doesn't have to be seedy and degrading and insipid.

Some of the people working in hardcore BDSM and fetish porn are doing a lot for performers' rights. Some of them are doing really impressive and honest and artistic stuff on the side. Many of them are active in feminist and queer rights causes.

Meanwhile, the mainstream porn community still gets in a tizzy when a homosexual couple wants to walk down the red carpet at the AVN Awards.

-- Alex

 

[J-Man]

Yes. Necrophilia, bestiality etc. just seem to me disgusting. But that's subjective. My issue is that its almost impossible to stop kids from getting to it. Just give them an internet browser and off they go.

The entire country is wired with cameras watching your every move, they are trying to pass laws to get every single man, woman, and childs DNA and finger-prints on a database.

Jesus Christ, what the fuck are you, an anarcho-libertarianist-conspiracy theorist?

Tell me one single aspect of that which was incorrect.

The point is that this is done for the safety, and well-being of the people, not for some quasi-illuminati shit, which I think is what you're implying.

 

[Danglybits]

I think that consenting adults may do what they please as long as everyone is on the same page. Necrophilia is a touchy thing I think it's gross but if you like it I don't care. Obviously though the corpse cannot protest or accept. However, in the really unlikely event that someone leaves instructions that this sort of thing is okay with them I don't really care. Again with the animals, animal abuse should be stopped wherever it occurs but I do think that animals can refuse to participate in anything. It's called biting.

But since sex acts involving animals are already illegal in pretty much every country (there is an exception but I can't remember it right now)and I'm pretty sure that necrophilia is illegal I don't think that adding this ban is going to accomplish much, except for restricting the actions of adults. Of course I haven't read the actual text of the ban so I can only speculate.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Yes. Necrophilia, bestiality etc. just seem to me disgusting. But that's subjective. My issue is that its almost impossible to stop kids from getting to it. Just give them an internet browser and off they go.

The entire country is wired with cameras watching your every move, they are trying to pass laws to get every single man, woman, and childs DNA and finger-prints on a database.

Jesus Christ, what the fuck are you, an anarcho-libertarianist-conspiracy theorist?

Tell me one single aspect of that which was incorrect.

The point is that this is done for the safety, and well-being of the people, not for some quasi-illuminati shit, which I think is what you're implying.

And where did I say that? If I never said that, but you think that, then you are projecting or unable to read a forum post correctly.

Governments have this tendancy to accumulate power during the course of their tenure, this is natural. Governments make laws all the time. The problem is they very rarely, if ever, give up those powers later on. Not only that, but when each law might be made for good reasons, they are very often enforced for bad ones. Look at laws concerning internment and investigation of people accused of serious crimes, and the loss of the right for a defending solicitor to be given the full case files of his clients case. This is what led to Barry George being incarcerated for the murder of Jill Dando, also played a part in the incarceration of Colin Stagg. Basically, the evidence against both men boiled down to "They are a bit weird", but was acceptable because of the slow errosion of rights the UK has suffered over the past 30 years.

Governments need power to work. They do need to be, to some degree, above the law. They also need to be disciplined about it. Our current government has been as undisciplined as a rich child in an ice cream palour. They have taken so many rights away, created so many new laws, and even re-written the laws for themselves, it has almost become a junta here.

 

[Moloch-De]

I say definitly no.
It is not the porn that worries me, pass a law that states: Don't stick your c*ck into an animal...But to forbid stuff that is appearing to be something unwanted is just wrong. That is censorship with no limits. Murder is forbidden so they could forbid stuff that is appearing to be murder like about every first person shooter. With censorship it is like a war, every smal patch of soil they claim won't be counquered back and it will only be used to launch attacks further into the shrinking dominion of free speach.

 

[Doug]

The extreme acts like necrophilia, bestiality and pedophilia are already banned. Banning the viewing of such images, even if they are just drawings is down to debate. Banning images that are likely to cause things to happen is one step too far for myself. That I could easily type bestiality into google search and view more images than I would ever want or need to, if I were into that, just proves how pointless such a ruling is.

That myself and my girlfriend are into mild sadism along with masochism, and that we make images with no intent to distribute makes us somehow criminals? I think not.

Personally I'm thinking that half the British judicial system must be quaking in its boots right now. I've known enough judges and solicitors in my time and MAN, they are into stuff I wouldn't even consider.

Someone with sense! But what I find very troubling is this whole idea the government has a right to decide what are allowed to find sexually exciting.

It stinks of his labour bullpoo about 'protecting society' when its about them monopolising power away from the individuals. Its bad enough the government can stomp into anyone's homes, and arrest them without charge or trial for 40-odd days.

What's next, enforced vegetarianism whilst bowing to Prime-Father Brown daily?

 

[Doug]

The entire country is wired with cameras watching your every move, they are trying to pass laws to get every single man, woman, and childs DNA and finger-prints on a database.

Now this.

Welcome to Alcatraz.

Jesus Christ, what the fuck are you, an anarcho-libertarianist-conspiracy theorist?

No... he watches the news and can see the camera's in every city. We officially have the highest number of CCTV camera's per person in the world. The DNA database is a government white paper that they seem to have give up for now.

Enjoy the ID cards, by the way.

And where did I say that? If I never said that, but you think that, then you are projecting or unable to read a forum post correctly.

Governments have this tendancy to accumulate power during the course of their tenure, this is natural. Governments make laws all the time. The problem is they very rarely, if ever, give up those powers later on. Not only that, but when each law might be made for good reasons, they are very often enforced for bad ones. Look at laws concerning internment and investigation of people accused of serious crimes, and the loss of the right for a defending solicitor to be given the full case files of his clients case. This is what led to Barry George being incarcerated for the murder of Jill Dando, also played a part in the incarceration of Colin Stagg. Basically, the evidence against both men boiled down to "They are a bit weird", but was acceptable because of the slow errosion of rights the UK has suffered over the past 30 years.

Governments need power to work. They do need to be, to some degree, above the law. They also need to be disciplined about it. Our current government has been as undisciplined as a rich child in an ice cream palour. They have taken so many rights away, created so many new laws, and even re-written the laws for themselves, it has almost become a junta here.

Well said!

 

[Jamash]

There's a story in the news that may have some connection to this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7772189.stm

What the story doesn't mention, but what was reported on the radio, was that they also filmed the attack, basically making their own extreme porn.

I know this was completely illegal anyway, and even with a ban on extreme porn it would have happened, but do you think it's incidents like this, and attempts to prevent incidents like this, that are behind the motion to ban extreme porn?

If they didn't get arrested and the video found it's way onto the internet, can you honestly say that it shouldn't be banned?

 

[cuddly_tomato]

There's a story in the news that may have some connection to this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7772189.stm

What the story doesn't mention, but what was reported on the radio, was that they also filmed the attack, basically making their own extreme porn.

I know this was completely illegal anyway, and even with a ban on extreme porn it would have happened, but do you think it's incidents like this, and attempts to prevent incidents like this, that are behind the motion to ban extreme porn?

If they didn't get arrested and the video found it's way onto the internet, can you honestly say that it shouldn't be banned?

Of course. But there are already laws in place to deal with that, there are no need for any more. The three men in the article have been arrested and charged with rape and assault, why tack on "owning a picture of Madame Lash"? Would having this new law have prevented those men from raping and assaulting that woman? Of course not. They know rape is illegal and were prepared to do it anyway. So what are the net effects of bringing this law in?

1. You create a whole new set of criminals - people who (up until now) have legally had naughty pictures of BDSM sex on their computers are now criminals.

2. Police, prosecutors, and the courts, as well as dealing with rapists, child abusers, sexual assaults, human sex trafficking and other sex crimes are now going to have to deal with people who's "crime" is looking at something like "Tortured_titties.com" (and there are LOT more fettishists than there are rapists).

3. More man-hours and police resources are going to have to be dedicated to deal with something that was never a problem in the first place, that means less man-hours and police resources are going to go on things like investigating rape and sexual assault.

4. ???

5. Profit.

 

[poleboy]

Unsure.

Some of the situations mentioned in the OP are pretty disturbing to me. I think bestiality is wrong. Animals cannot consent and much more often than not are forced into taking part in bestiality porn. Necrophilia puzzles me greatly. To me, it's a serious taboo in the same vein as eating human flesh and a debasement of one's humanity. I agree that these things should not be encouraged, and therefore producing (and possibly owning) this type of material should be a prosecuteable offence.

However, the general outline of the law seems very vague and simplistic. Who is to determine what is offensive and on what terms? Better to put outright bans on specfic things and leave the rest in a greyzone than create such easily abuseable laws.

 

[Auron555]

... people wank to animal head?

 

[Jamash]

My previous post

Of course. But there are already laws in place to deal with that, there are no need for any more. The three men in the article have been arrested and charged with rape and assault, why tack on "owning a picture of Madame Lash"? Would having this new law have prevented those men from raping and assaulting that woman? Of course not. They know rape is illegal and were prepared to do it anyway. So what are the net effects of bringing this law in?

1. You create a whole new set of criminals - people who (up until now) have legally had naughty pictures of BDSM sex on their computers are now criminals.

2. Police, prosecutors, and the courts, as well as dealing with rapists, child abusers, sexual assaults, human sex trafficking and other sex crimes are now going to have to deal with people who's "crime" is looking at something like "Tortured_titties.com" (and there are LOT more fettishists than there are rapists).

3. More man-hours and police resources are going to have to be dedicated to deal with something that was never a problem in the first place, that means less man-hours and police resources are going to go on things like investigating rape and sexual assault.

4. ???

5. Profit.

You're right, but I can't help but wonder if that crime occurred because those 3 guys had a taste for extreme pornography, and wanted to make their own.

Without knowing the minds of those monsters and delving deep into their psyche, it's easy to make the assumption that they were motivated by their desire for more and more extreme forms of pornography, or at least influenced by it, because of the fact that they filmed their attack.

True or not, it's probably an assumption that a lot of people would make and could be behind the Government's decision.

Personally I'm on the fence over the whole issue, I just posted that story to try shed a bit of light on some of the possible reasons behind the Government's ban on extreme pornography. They could be thinking, if we ban extreme pornography less people will view it, therefore less people will be influenced by it which hopefully will result in less violent sex crimes.

 

[Alex_P]

4. ???

4. Despite the pointless expense and mistaken implementation, the gesture of "protecting" people from stuff turns into political capital you can use to help win an election. (See "security theater [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater]".)

-- Alex

 

[blackcherry]

The extreme acts like necrophilia, bestiality and pedophilia are already banned. Banning the viewing of such images, even if they are just drawings is down to debate. Banning images that are likely to cause things to happen is one step too far for myself. That I could easily type bestiality into google search and view more images than I would ever want or need to, if I were into that, just proves how pointless such a ruling is.

That myself and my girlfriend are into mild sadism along with masochism, and that we make images with no intent to distribute makes us somehow criminals? I think not.

Personally I'm thinking that half the British judicial system must be quaking in its boots right now. I've known enough judges and solicitors in my time and MAN, they are into stuff I wouldn't even consider.

Someone with sense! But what I find very troubling is this whole idea the government has a right to decide what are allowed to find sexually exciting.

It stinks of his labour bullpoo about 'protecting society' when its about them monopolising power away from the individuals. Its bad enough the government can stomp into anyone's homes, and arrest them without charge or trial for 40-odd days.

What's next, enforced vegetarianism whilst bowing to Prime-Father Brown daily?

Now whilst I wouldn't quite go that far (Brown gets a lot more flak than he has ever deserved- please PM me if you are interested in discussing this as my views on this could fill a topic in themselves!) as in reality there is no political party able to run the country at the moment that would do much different to what is currently happening.

Whilst I'm not exactly the staunch supporter of Brown I really think people in the UK need to have someone who makes us believe in ourselves again. More importantly, we need to stop the media being so bloody negative! Jesus, I'm sure this legislation isn't as bad as its been made out to be, same with almost everything in this country.

I honestly think that if Obama had born in this country, rather than becoming the current shining pinnacle of optimism that he is, he would get nowhere, shouted down by the naysayers in the media, all of them hoping they can break him so they can get coverage on the pieces.

Oh sorry, kind of went on a rant there about everything and nothing. As I say Doug, feel free to PM me. Would love to have a talk away from this about your opinions on various topics to do with the UK.

 

[Dele]

Yes. Necrophilia, bestiality etc. just seem to me disgusting. But that's subjective. My issue is that its almost impossible to stop kids from getting to it. Just give them an internet browser and off they go.

The entire country is wired with cameras watching your every move, they are trying to pass laws to get every single man, woman, and childs DNA and finger-prints on a database.

Jesus Christ, what the fuck are you, an anarcho-libertarianist-conspiracy theorist?

Tell me one single aspect of that which was incorrect.

The point is that this is done for the safety, and well-being of the people, not for some quasi-illuminati shit, which I think is what you're implying.

And where did I say that? If I never said that, but you think that, then you are projecting or unable to read a forum post correctly.

Governments have this tendancy to accumulate power during the course of their tenure, this is natural. Governments make laws all the time. The problem is they very rarely, if ever, give up those powers later on. Not only that, but when each law might be made for good reasons, they are very often enforced for bad ones. Look at laws concerning internment and investigation of people accused of serious crimes, and the loss of the right for a defending solicitor to be given the full case files of his clients case. This is what led to Barry George being incarcerated for the murder of Jill Dando, also played a part in the incarceration of Colin Stagg. Basically, the evidence against both men boiled down to "They are a bit weird", but was acceptable because of the slow errosion of rights the UK has suffered over the past 30 years.

Governments need power to work. They do need to be, to some degree, above the law. They also need to be disciplined about it. Our current government has been as undisciplined as a rich child in an ice cream palour. They have taken so many rights away, created so many new laws, and even re-written the laws for themselves, it has almost become a junta here.

You propably need that security to maintain social integrity when things start getting rough economy-wise. Becoming an orwellian society is unlikely if you ever decide to join EU (leaving isonationalism that is). If you dont like where UK is headed, dont vote for labor on next elections.