Poll: UK ban on Extreme pornography

[cuddly_tomato]

Ahaha, people who watch those thing are likely to be people who'll end up killing someone so, eh, why not.

Can you cite some evidence please?

Would anyone who supports this law please watch this [http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cheT8e8sz-8], and tell me what the difference is?

 

[Saevus]

I firmly disagree with the first two items in this law on grounds of consensual but still dangerous BDSM practices easily being interpreted as illegal. Hell, there are programs on Showcase that depict people doing things that appear very likely to result in severe genital injury, perfectly viewable and legal on Friday nights around 21:30. Not that I'd know.

But in spite of my strong belief in 'different strokes for different folks' (pun unintended), I can't quite make a sweeping disagreement with making necrophilia and bestiality pornography illegal. The rub is in "appears to be", for me.

I may be verging on the whole "slippery slope" argument, but what comes after the arguably reasonable ban on pornography that depicts illegal acts? Many, many, many other forms of entertainment use and outright hinge upon depicting (visually or textually) illegal acts, sexual or otherwise - but we are okay with movies like Saw because no one is actually getting hurt. When "appears to be" is introduced, much of the mainstream media is subject to censorship.

Though the whole debacle of snuff films and Charlie Sheen is present in my mind, I must say that this law is not right, and should be altered so that only if it is legally proven that pornography depicts a person's life being non-consensually threatened, a person's body receiving real and non-consensual sexualized trauma, real acts of necrophilia, or real acts of bestiality, should it be illegal.

Idealistic, certainly. But what the hell is a democracy supposed to do if not allow people to live as freely as possible at the expense of the government working endlessly?

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Ahaha, people who watch those thing are likely to be people who'll end up killing someone so, eh, why not.

Can you cite some evidence please?

Would anyone who supports this law please watch this [http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cheT8e8sz-8], and tell me what the difference is?

Fine I have no evidence, but if you like horse porn then you're bound to start a few killings, surely?

Erm... no.

If you don't like horse porn you are more likely to start a few killings. I don't really know that but that's what it boils down too when we can just make stuff up and call it "fact".

Even if what you say was true - how exactly would banning it stop them from killing people?

 

[cobra_ky]

Ahaha, people who watch those thing are likely to be people who'll end up killing someone so, eh, why not.

it's usually people with guns and knives that commit murder, not people with porn.

 

[Karisse]

It's not so much the ban on pornography that is bothersome, but the use of the word "extreme." Who decides what is "extreme?" Who will continue to define and redefine "extreme?" Subjective language allows for broader and broader interpretation of laws and greater and greater intrusions upon civil liberties. Furthermore, by enacting laws to ban something someone must be given the power to enforce those laws, meaning more power to government entities.

I support banning of child pornography, but even that is a slippery slope of where to draw a line. Bans of any nature should be specific and have specific reasons provided for each instance to avoid such problems.

 

[Kukakkau]

well as long as it isnt really twisted.
people have the right to unwind when they come back after a long day

...i didnt read the first post properly. dammit

 

[jboking]

(c) an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse,

It should definitley be banned if the corpse didn't consent. Seriously though, necrophilia is NOT okay on any level.

 

[NeedAUserName]

I voted no, but at the same time, if you are getting of on some of the stuff up there, well... you know...

 

[Doug]

I support banning of child pornography, but even that is a slippery slope of where to draw a line. Bans of any nature should be specific and have specific reasons provided for each instance to avoid such problems.

I agree that banning child porn is the right thing to do - there is no way it can be done with the consent of person involved (i.e. the child) because they aren't old enough to do so. Further, it opens up extreme possibilities of abuse of said children.

But when it gets to consenting adults, I have to wonder why its any of the government's business what they get up to in the bedroom, assuming both parties are consenting.

To be honest, I agree with you - the "extreme" term here a major problem - how do I know some unelected civil servant with a very sheltered life won't decide that any porn I view is extreme - also, what if I accidently watch the start of "extreme" porn before I realize what it is? Will the armed police be breaking in my door and hauling me off to jail for watching something other than missionary position pornography?

"Extreme" is too vague and can be twisted too easily with our judges, in my opinion.

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.

Well, ok, not Brown directly. The Labour party and its previous overly-smiling jester, who seem to think they should control everyone else.

And can someone tell me why we were bombed for years by the IRA, and not once did we have to have ID cards?

 

[Social Pariah]

Now all you need to do is to become a dictator and start dictating our lives.

Hmmm... not a bad idea... then I'll invent some new God's to watch everyone whilst they do bad things to justify the whole thing, it'll be perfect, and I'll be doing it for the sanctity and deital protection of all.

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

It's not about the content for me, it's about the principle and I have no tolerance for any of it, I consider myself above such debase things and shall continue to do so. But still, my opinion only, of which I am entitled.

 

[ElephantGuts]

I've been thinking a bit more on this subject. I do come close to accepting the ban on the grounds that such extreme acts can hurt people and people can be coerced into performing them for money or whatever even though they don't really want to.

However, there are still people who are genuinely and sanely into these sorts of things, and it's not right to ban everyone from doing something just because some people can use it innapropriately. If you want to prevent people from hurting themselves with this sort of behavior then fine, but you'll need to think of a better way than simply saying "no" to it and denying every single person from enjoying that right.

Besides, if someone really wants to do something they will find a way to do it illegal or not, and all making it illegal means is that people will be forced into doing it underground, which could be a lot less safe and clean and cause it to blend with other illegal things like drugs and child pornography, strengthening all of them. If people are allowed to do it (relatively) openly without having to hide it, more people may do it, but they will be doing it safer. Examples with other controversial things such as back-alley abortions and Prohibition forcing people into drinking moonshine with embalming fluid and other potentially deadly chemicals in unclean dangerous underground brothels. Which is why I think that legalizing some child pornography could help tide pedophiles over and prevent them from abducting children from vans, but that's a whole other discussion (Please don't mention that here I don't actually think that's a very good idea. Unless you do. Make a thread about it if you want to discuss it, but not here).

 

[darthsmily]

As long as consent is provided for all participants I see nothing wrong with "EXTREEMME!" porn with child porn being the exception to the rule. Even if consent was given there bodies are not ready for something like that.

 

[742]

if something is consentual between intelligent persons of sound mind with no deception involved in the consent, and noone who does not consent gets hurt, i see no problem with it. "what an adult man, and an adult woman, several MORE adult men, several MORE adult women, and an adult dolphin dolphin, antelope, a dead guy leaving his body to said group in his will with explicit instructions to have sex with him, a loaf of bread a self aware robot and a bag of sex toys do in the privacy of their own home of their own free will is none of my god damn business, as long as they close their curtains first, dont tie me down and force my eyes open to watch, and label the file containing video of the event appropriately. i might look anyway though, what the hell is the bread for?" thats my position on that. and if someone wants to have sex after they die, and put it in their will, as long as its not with me, or my significant other and i dont have to watch/listen, i dont care.