Poll: UK ban on Extreme pornography
- Thread starter Lord George
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I tend to take a liberal stance on things like censorship, but as per usual, such things are all about context. The point I really want to make is that these, the things they are attempting to censor - and I might be entirely wrong, but I think the law was already passed? - are virtually impossible to censor anyway.
To use a particularly hyperbolic example, imagine trying to stop people on the internet swearing. It would be impossible. And I know more people that have fetishes than those that swear. Well, that isn't true. But as I understand it, about as many people have fetishes as don't.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree, because sitting on a fence is awesome. I just don't understand how they could put the law into practical execution if they were to try.
To use a particularly hyperbolic example, imagine trying to stop people on the internet swearing. It would be impossible. And I know more people that have fetishes than those that swear. Well, that isn't true. But as I understand it, about as many people have fetishes as don't.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree, because sitting on a fence is awesome. I just don't understand how they could put the law into practical execution if they were to try.
Yes, it is impossible to consent to assault.Alex_P said:
I agree, it is difficult to police, I think perhaps all this will achieve is making people who're into that sort of thing more demonised than they already are, and serve to make the public more intolerant.VonBonBon said:
I'm kind of mixed on this one..
I mean.. you couldnt have chosen worse examples of what 'Extreme' pornography can be defined as; everything on that list sickens me.
And yes, of course, I understand everyone should be free to choose what they do and enjoy in their own home and all that.. but jeebus man, where do you draw a line in the sand and say "ok, THAT is NOT normal, and WE will not tolerate such because it is a.) disgusting, b.) unnatural, c.) demented, or d.) dangerous?
Sure, choking people during sex might be a great turn on, and being choked might be your thing to rock your socks and all.. but the problem becomes if you actually DIE during the act do to a complication. I'm sure dying isnt something you wanted to do (or maybe you did), but if consent cannot be proved, someone is looking at manslaughter/murder charges and things get awfully complicated from that point.
When I was a kid, i used to like licking the tips of 9 volt batteries for the little 'tingle' it gave my tongue. Of course, this is not acceptable behavior and could harm me. If someone wants to protect me from myself because I lack the capacity or the willpower to do so, I cannot on one hand fault them for the kind effort. On the other hand, if i'm not hurting anybody else, then where is the ethical dilemma?
I think what it comes down to is people do not want to live around other people who have odd tastes as to what they do. It's uncomfortable and in some cases dangerous.
Society makes laws to protect the WHOLE of society, not necessarily the rights of a specific individual that thinks he should be able to make love to dead bodies because it's the only way he finds excitement.
To make society work, we all have to make small sacrifices. Sure, I'd like to drive 200 mph everywhere I go, but the reality is, I have no right to endanger others by doing it. My 'freedoms' only extend so far as they do not harm others.
But Society has rules and we have to accept them sometimes even if we personally do not like them. We live in a Majority Rules system... and if you don't like that, you'll have to simply go somewhere else where YOU are the majority.
That is life.
I mean.. you couldnt have chosen worse examples of what 'Extreme' pornography can be defined as; everything on that list sickens me.
And yes, of course, I understand everyone should be free to choose what they do and enjoy in their own home and all that.. but jeebus man, where do you draw a line in the sand and say "ok, THAT is NOT normal, and WE will not tolerate such because it is a.) disgusting, b.) unnatural, c.) demented, or d.) dangerous?
Sure, choking people during sex might be a great turn on, and being choked might be your thing to rock your socks and all.. but the problem becomes if you actually DIE during the act do to a complication. I'm sure dying isnt something you wanted to do (or maybe you did), but if consent cannot be proved, someone is looking at manslaughter/murder charges and things get awfully complicated from that point.
When I was a kid, i used to like licking the tips of 9 volt batteries for the little 'tingle' it gave my tongue. Of course, this is not acceptable behavior and could harm me. If someone wants to protect me from myself because I lack the capacity or the willpower to do so, I cannot on one hand fault them for the kind effort. On the other hand, if i'm not hurting anybody else, then where is the ethical dilemma?
I think what it comes down to is people do not want to live around other people who have odd tastes as to what they do. It's uncomfortable and in some cases dangerous.
Society makes laws to protect the WHOLE of society, not necessarily the rights of a specific individual that thinks he should be able to make love to dead bodies because it's the only way he finds excitement.
To make society work, we all have to make small sacrifices. Sure, I'd like to drive 200 mph everywhere I go, but the reality is, I have no right to endanger others by doing it. My 'freedoms' only extend so far as they do not harm others.
But Society has rules and we have to accept them sometimes even if we personally do not like them. We live in a Majority Rules system... and if you don't like that, you'll have to simply go somewhere else where YOU are the majority.
That is life.
What qualifies as "assault"? Does something like this [http://www.nerve.com/PersonalEssays/Conner/Stinging-Fingerprints-When-He-Slapped-Her-She-Came-Alive/] (link is magazine article, not porn) count?NekoAnastasia said:
Flogging? Electrostim? Intense bondage?
Extreme stuff like blood and breath play?
Where does the law currently draw the line?
-- Alex
The law's a bit messy and tends to leave it down to the judge's discretion. The Spanner Trust provides a lot of information about this law in the UK and exactly what it means for SM practicioners, if you're interested, here's some of the info:Alex_P said:
"In law, you cannot, as a rule, consent to an assault. There are exceptions. For example, you can consent to a medical practitioner touching and possibly injuring your body; you can consent to an opponent hitting or injuring you in sports such as rugby or boxing; you can consent to tattoos or piercings if they are for ornamental purposes. You can also use consent as a defence against a charge of what is called Common Assault. This is an assault which causes no significant injury."
This was given further clarification in the famous Spanner case, in which several gay men were sent to prison for engaging in entirely consentual SM activities.
"The Law Lords ruled that SM activity provides no exception to the rule that consent is no defence to charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm or causing grievous bodily harm. These are defined as activities which cause injuries of a lasting nature. Bruises or cuts could be considered lasting injuries by a court, even if they heal up completely and that takes a short period of time. Grievous bodily harm covers more serious injury and maiming. Judge Rant introduced some new terms to define what he considered to be lawful and unlawful bodily harm. Judge Rant decreed that bodily harm applied or received during sexual activities was lawful if the pain it caused was "just momentary" and "so slight that it can be discounted". His judgement applies also to bodily marks such as those produced by beatings or bondage. These too, according to him, must not be of a lasting nature. In essence, Judge Rant decided that any injury, pain or mark that was more than trifling and momentary was illegal and would be considered an assault under the law." Source: www.thespannertrust.org
Its times like these where I'm quite happy to be an american living with the Lawrence v Texas decision.
Essentially the Decision by the US supreme court was thus: A law cannot be made based SOLELY on moral grounds. Which has been used to kill sodomy laws and might be used to kill Prop 8's effect in California.
While some things wouldn't be covered by this (blood letting and pain, snuff) other things I think are easily covered by it including auto-erotica (I think that's what it's called, the strangulation thing) and play including biological waste materials (I don't have to like it, but it's covered) I am however unsure if this would cover bestiality. I think 16 states of the Union don't have laws preventing bestiality. UK does... ahh I need to go dig up that old site.
Essentially the Decision by the US supreme court was thus: A law cannot be made based SOLELY on moral grounds. Which has been used to kill sodomy laws and might be used to kill Prop 8's effect in California.
While some things wouldn't be covered by this (blood letting and pain, snuff) other things I think are easily covered by it including auto-erotica (I think that's what it's called, the strangulation thing) and play including biological waste materials (I don't have to like it, but it's covered) I am however unsure if this would cover bestiality. I think 16 states of the Union don't have laws preventing bestiality. UK does... ahh I need to go dig up that old site.
how young are you talking here? i cant imagine anyone young and impressionable enough to say "hey this looks like a cool idea, lets do it!" to be watching this sort of stuff anyway.zhoomout said:
I agree completely. And we don't want thatNekoAnastasia said:
so let the weirdos have their messed up porn and everyone else can keep their noses out.
I normally have no problem with people doing whatever the hell they want to, so long as it isn't hurting anyone.
Since most of the restrictions suggested were related to the prevention of bodily harm I agree with the ban on extreme porno (I can't remember if child pornography is illegal, if it isn't then I would place that under the ban too).
People can argue 'what they do in their own privacy is their own business' as much as they like but it doesn't change the fact that it is quite proveably abnormal, perverted and, potentialy, dangerous.
Since most of the restrictions suggested were related to the prevention of bodily harm I agree with the ban on extreme porno (I can't remember if child pornography is illegal, if it isn't then I would place that under the ban too).
People can argue 'what they do in their own privacy is their own business' as much as they like but it doesn't change the fact that it is quite proveably abnormal, perverted and, potentialy, dangerous.
here's an experiment for you. go look at all kinds of different fetish porn and see if you pick up any of them. failing that, try and find documented evidence of anything like that ever occurring. fetishes aren't contagious.zhoomout said:
you're misunderstanding the argument. the law does not distinguish between real pornography and hentai, which consists of completely fabricated images that do not exploit any real human beings. why should drawn pornography be illegal? who does it hurt? how explicit do the drawings have to be to be considered offensive? can i go to jail for drawing stick figures?zhoomout said:
well, when someone tries to ban something more important i'll be happy to complain about that. in the meantime i'll oppose any erosion of our civil rights.arcainia said:
i can truly say without exaggeration that this is the most horrible thing i have ever seen someone sincerely advocate. please tell me i'm misunderstanding.Bulletinmybrain said:
are you honestly suggesting that we should ban S&M, therefore encouraging rape, all so it will be easier to catch sadists and put them in jail?
Professional athletes get paid ludicrous amounts of money to play sports where they have an increased risk of injury. shouldn't sports be banned too? the health risks of pornography are much more controllable. regulation and oversight is fine, but that's a far cry from completely banning it.wilsonscrazybed said:
are you sure about this? what if you googled it up and saved it to his hard drive just before the police arrived? what's the point of banning possession but not distribution?NekoAnastasia said:
EDIT:
personally, i'm not willing to stake my freedom on the slim chance they manage to charge me.VonBonBon said:
I agree with you, Cobra, on pretty much everything. In your point about athletes, it's allowable by the current law to consent to injury for sports, medical examinations, etc, just not kinky sex, apparently.cobra_ky said:
Go here: http://www.thespannertrust.org (plain text website, no porn or anything) to read all about the current law regarding assault, the new extreme pornography law, in its original legalese and what it means. They have a downloadable PDF which I'd quote but I can't be bothered to install Adobe Reader.
The Spanner Trust are a UK organisation opposing the new extreme pornography law and lobbying for other changes to the laws which deem most SM activities illegal. It cites the history of the most famous Spanner case, which is where the name comes from.
As far as I can tell btw, the ban doesn't effect hentai because it says something along the lines of "any reasonable person might believe is real".
In america at least the biggest problem with so called "cybercrime" is proving that you were actually the person who was on the computer at the time the data was saved. At least here if you have plausible deniability they can't convict you of anything. So if your friend said "well Person X also had access to the computer" or it was a shared system they couldn't charge you with squat without making you tell them what you did (the cops are sneaky, if they have nothing they'll generally try to say their helping you when you damn yourself for them)cobra_ky said:
yeah i saw the bit about sports, though i was making a more general argument about banning the sex industry on the grounds it's a health risk.NekoAnastasia said:
i'm surprised that this law would still allow hentai in the U.K., since what i've gathered from this thread is they have far more puritanical sex laws than the U.S., and hentai can get you 20 years in prison here.
i think there was another thread that mentioned <a href=http://www.cbldf.org/pr/archives/000372.shtml>this case, but it's a perfect example of the dangers of legislation that relies on "contemporary community standards" or "any reasonable person".
Bizarre. Haha, we're not that puritannical about sex, though. Heard of Page 3 girls?cobra_ky said:
Would you also ban boxing? What about motor sports? And what about mountain climbing, horse riding, hand gliding, and crossing the road? People have the right to put themselves at risk.wilsonscrazybed said:
Who defines "dark and creepy"? To some a foot fettish is "dark and creepy". To others simple nudity is "dark and creepy".wilsonscrazybed said:
Watch this [http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cheT8e8sz-8], and explain what the difference is, because I really don't see one.
I'm too much of a romantic to have much of an opinion on this, but maybe you guys can clear this up for me...
How can a character in a comic book 'consent' to something? They are not sentient, have no rights under any country's government, and are nothing more than some squiggles on a piece of paper. You don't go to jail for burning a piece of paper with a stick figure on it. It isn't murder.
Long story short, why are some people treating nonexistant characters with human rights?
How can a character in a comic book 'consent' to something? They are not sentient, have no rights under any country's government, and are nothing more than some squiggles on a piece of paper. You don't go to jail for burning a piece of paper with a stick figure on it. It isn't murder.
Long story short, why are some people treating nonexistant characters with human rights?
gotta draw the limit somewhere, we all have to live together, i think we can do with subjecting animals or corpses to sexual deviancy, other than those two i think im pretty good with whatever people want to do, it's their choice and they dont involve me
While I in no way advocate extreme pornography I don't think it should be censored, as really it is a slippery slope.
reminds me of this;
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Sure they can take away the Extreme porn now, but what will come next?
I do agree with making it only legal with consent, but once you have written consent(much better as proof in a court case) really you should be able to do whatever you want.
reminds me of this;
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Sure they can take away the Extreme porn now, but what will come next?
I do agree with making it only legal with consent, but once you have written consent(much better as proof in a court case) really you should be able to do whatever you want.