×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Possession of Violent Pornography Outlawed in UK

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the grief-not-conducive-to-clear-thinking dept.

779

An anonymous reader writes "The BBC is reporting that possession of violent pornography is now punishable by three years in prison. This decision was handed down in response to a campaign waged by a grieving mother who lost her daughter to someone obsessed with violent pornography." From the article: "Shaun Gabb, director of the anti-censorship organization the Libertarian Alliance, said: 'If you are criminalizing possession then you are giving police inquisitorial powers to come into your house and see what you've got, now we didn't have this in the past.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Steganography... (4, Insightful)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010212)

Steganography is getting more and more attractive every day...

Re:Steganography... (5, Funny)

RealSurreal (620564) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010229)

Whatever turns you on I suppose.

Re:Steganography... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16010266)

Steganography is getting more and more attractive every day...

Just you wait- soon, they're going to come after your dinosaur porn!

Re:Steganography... (1)

zulater (635326) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010282)

Next it will be illegal to listen to a song entitled "Violent Pornography" by System of a Down. "It's a violent pornography, chocking chicks and sodomy, the kind of s*** you get on your tv."

Re:Steganography... (1)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010340)

> Steganography is getting more and more attractive every day...

No, that attractive chick was in a movie about Stenography. [imdb.com]

Re:Steganography... (3, Funny)

k4_pacific (736911) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010370)

Why good would that do? Violent porn images with hidden data in them are still illegal.

Re:Steganography... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16010420)

You're just not funny.

Re:Steganography... (2, Informative)

dfunct (908889) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010460)

I think your forgetting that in the UK its a criminal offence not to give the police your passwords, meaning that if you do hide things like this in encrypted volumes / images then you've got to give the police your passwords when they ask for them meaning that either way your going to jail ...

Ah brilliant (1, Flamebait)

keesh (202812) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010218)

More kneejerk reactionary pandering to tabloid fearmongering by a government that bases policy upon headlines from the Daily Mail.

Re:Ah brilliant (5, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010330)

Well actually this is off the back of a 30 month campaign, 50,000 signature petition and many MPs backing the mother of a victim of a deranged murderer whoes pasttime was viewing violent porn on the internet of the exact manner in which he killed this womans daughter. Its right there in the linked article.

This is anything BUT kneejerk legislation based on media headlines, its coming up from grassroots victims of crime.

Re:Ah brilliant (5, Insightful)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010400)

because before viewing the violent porn, this guy was obviously a choir boy...

Last time I checked, killing someone is still illegal. Why is this law needed? It's not like it's child porn is it? The 'actors' know exactly what they're getting signing up for the job, being adults and all...

Reminds me of a quote by that evil-incarnate W. Axl Rose (Guns n Roses) in reponse to people wanting to ban some GNR songs:


"If you're going to ban something, ban the Bible. More people have been killed because of/in the name of that any of our songs"


Re:Ah brilliant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16010437)

Actors? And I was assuming this was targeted at hentai.

Re:Ah brilliant (5, Insightful)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010415)

Repeated kneejerk reactions over time don't make this a non-kneejerk issue.

Somehow I doubt the sincerity of these signatures. Approach someone in a public place and just start off "Excuse me, sir, do you like violent pornography?" What the hell can you say, even if that's your bag? "Why certainly, stranger. Nothing like a good snuff video while I bugger myself with a coke bottle, yessiree!"

And of course, an MP (I assume that's a politician) coming out in favor of pornography period would be political suicide. That's an even less rational standard.

Re:Ah brilliant (3, Funny)

kwalker (1383) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010518)

I always just say "no thanks" and keep walking.

No More SoaD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16010221)

Dammit, I have no problem with that song, why do they always have to pick on the good bands...

can't resist joking about this (3, Funny)

ezdude (885983) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010224)

Talk about your slippery slopes!

Disgusting (3, Insightful)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010225)

Pictures don't cause people to commit crimes. Might as well blame crime on convenience stores. Or blame poverty on lotto tickets. It's all a bunch of political bullshit meant to make the middle class feel "safe" while wasting resources investingating pseudo-crimes.

Revenge (5, Insightful)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010275)

Rarely results in the solution we want, only the solution we can describe. This mother's witch hunt to blame her daughter's death on the internet instead of on the idiot who strangled her is creating far more than she hoped for.

Re:Disgusting (4, Insightful)

mordors9 (665662) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010309)

This is a very difficult area with no clear answers. We do know that many violent sex fiends started with looking at violent pornography. We also know that millions of people the world over, have enjoyed viewing it and did not go on to be a pervert. I heard one shrink that made the argument that if you have someone that is predisposed to being a sick fiend then viewing this material can push him over that line. Should we limit everyone's ability to view it to avoid the few people who are on the border from going across the line and becoming a violent felon is the question. Obviously someone who has had a family member effected, they will feel one way. Civil Libertarians will obviously take the opposite position. One other problem is in defining it. Many women's groups in the US argue that any pornography is violent and demeaning to women by its very nature.

Cause-and-Effect (5, Insightful)

Garrett Fox (970174) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010414)

First, this law would simply be unconstitutional here in the US. Second, I keep hearing arguments that people who end up being violent criminals were into pornography/violent video games/heavy metal/etc. first -- and all such arguments are logically flawed. Could it simply be that people who enjoy real murder also enjoy simulated murder? Let's see a cause-and-effect relationship proved before we even consider knocking holes in civil rights.

Re:Cause-and-Effect (1)

Zephyros (966835) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010474)

First, this law would simply be unconstitutional here in the US.

That would be for the courts to determine [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Cause-and-Effect (2, Insightful)

Fyre2012 (762907) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010512)

First, this law would simply be unconstitutional here in the US.

You make it sound like the US has never passed a law that was unconstitutional.

Re:Disgusting (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010435)

We also know that millions of people the world over, have enjoyed viewing it and did not go on to be a pervert.

Forget that; millions of people enjoy engaging in "violent sex."

Re:Disgusting (2, Interesting)

sTalking_Goat (670565) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010507)

That's exactly it. Consenting adults demean and beat each other senseless all the time, and no one is killed or maimed. This has nothing to do with violent sex or violent porn. It has to do with self-control and clearly defining the line and never crossing it.

Why should my rights be infringed because a small minority can't tell where fantasy ends?

Re:Disgusting (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16010436)

>Should we limit everyone's ability to view it to avoid the few people who are on the border from going across the line and becoming
>a violent felon is the question. Obviously someone who has had a family member effected, they will feel one way.

Would it not be reasonable to do a study that addresses this very question to see if the ban would have any positive impact, before jumping to censorship? Given that there's been no research (at least that I've seen) that addresses this, it seems premature to take such drastic action as this, especially when there is nothing to indicate there is an imminent threat.

But, I guess this is about politics rather than the reality of the issue.

Re:Disgusting (2, Interesting)

aztektum (170569) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010440)

My guess is, if you go back far enough, before they even got to the violent porn they were probably raised by shitty parents or they have a real mental defect. This ends up being merely and outlet for their fucked up behavior.

I however am not a head doctor. This has just been my experience in the world at large with people I've met. YMMV

Re:Disgusting (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010466)

Insightful? This reads like a 4th grader's essay. Not once did he state a personal opinion or clear fact -- it's just a bunch of questions and vague statements.

Re:Disgusting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16010480)

We do know that many violent sex fiends started with looking at violent pornography.
 
No, we do not. You have just asserted that with no supporting evidence.

Re:Disgusting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16010485)

"We do know that many violent sex fiends started with looking at violent pornography"

No, we do NOT know that. All that we MIGHT know is that those who commit violent sex acts MIGHT view violent pornography.

The cause and effect there is very likely completely opposite what you are saying, however. It is very possible, and extremely likely... in fact, it just makes much more sense, that those prone to violent sex acts would desire to view violent pornography.

But to imply that viewing violent pornography can turn you into someone who commits violent sex acts is just as knee-jerk a reaction as this new law is.

Re:Disgusting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16010513)

"We do know that many violent sex fiends started with looking at violent pornography."

Bullshit.

If i get turned on by porn featuring guys peeing on girls, and making them eat shit.... Thats my buisness, not the governments.

If i get turned on by plain old sex, thats my buisness, not the governments....

There is no line to draw. It is my buisness...

This is the dumbest thing i've ever heard, and this is why i hate the UK. They lead the world in spying on its own citizens. They pioneered the "cameras everywhere" mentality that we now are adopting in the US.

This is fucking England folks... We kicked their ass to get away from this kind of shit. Now we want to control our people just like they are.

I hope they try to ban porn here in the US. Let them try. Let them use some child as a poster boy for ending porn all together. Lets remove our sexual organs so that children can not be harmed by the 1 wacko out there.

WHAT THE FUCK HAVE WE BECOME? We have no sense of perspective in this world. If one house goes on fire, we suddenly assume the nation is going to burn to the ground.

We have no perspective. We are fucking stupid creatures that are getting dumber by the day.

If you want to jack off to some S&M, choking, vomit, piss, shit eating fun.... So be it. Sure, the second you rape someone and force them to do it against their will, be it child or adult... it is then a crime.

Until then... there is nothing wrong with it, especially in terms of porn because its concentual, and a performance designed to sexually stimulate like minded individuals who concentually have fun with each other in their own privacy. This has nothing do to with any fucking children what so ever.

Violent porn? What is violent? Anal? Choking? Gang banging? Oral? Kissing? Shit eating? Gay? Lesbo? Interacial? Vomit? jerking off???????????????????????

What is violent? Ropes? fake rape? Girls sucking horse dick?

Shall we ban Violent films and games too? Hmmm Violent Porn is no different. Do you think the violence seen in the porn is real? Its no more real than Chuck Norris kicking Vietnams ass!

Violent porn is adult play for performance. Yes the players probably do get off on it, and enjoy that kind of sex... but whos fucking buisness is that?

The government?

The children?

Give me a fucking break. Lets get some perspective. Fuck the UK. If America ever goes this route, i will kill a child to prove a point ;) (ITS A JOKE YOU NUMB MINDED ANGRY MOTHER CUNTS)

Freedom and Privacy... neither exist in the UK.... and we're losing it here in the US.

Re:Disgusting (3, Insightful)

Andrew Tanenbaum (896883) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010322)

The thing is that they -do-. In the online and offline communities where these pictures are created, it becomes acceptable for the creators and users of these pictures to think favorably about violence/pedophilia/etc. These communities become the primary outlet for the members of these communities and engulf their entire thought process, and soon their allegience is more to the community than to the rule of law, and they feel no remorse about perpetrating these acts in real life.

Re:Disgusting (3, Interesting)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010378)

But where do you stop?

Violent naughty pictures?
Naughty pictures?
Violent pictures?
Violent pames?
Violent movies? (Everybody liked Saw, right?)
Violent sports (UFC, WWF)?
All contact sports?

How about in the non-content arena?
Alcohol?
Caffeine?
Cars with HP to exceed 75MPH or torque to better than 0-60/8sec?

Re:Disgusting (4, Insightful)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010505)

it becomes acceptable for the creators and users of these pictures to think favorably about violence/pedophilia/etc.

not Wrong

These communities become the primary outlet for the members of these communities and engulf their entire thought process

not Wrong

and soon their allegience is more to the community than to the rule of law

not Wrong

and they feel no remorse about perpetrating these acts in real life.

still not Wrong

Nothing you have stated is a Wrong act. No one is harmed by those actions, except arguably the person committing them. You'll be delighted to know that if this person performs the act of murder, there are already a number of UK laws designed for just that scenario. Quite convenient.

Re:Disgusting (1)

i_should_be_working (720372) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010358)

For a long time it has been illegal in most of the world to advocate the torture, rape and murder of women (or any other group) in writing or speech. Why should it be okay to do so with images?

Re:Disgusting (1)

Frizzle Fry (149026) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010433)

For a long time it has been illegal in most of the world to advocate the torture, rape and murder of women (or any other group) in writing or speech. Why should it be okay to do so with images?

How is possession of images a way of "advocating" anything? That would apply more to making or distributing the images, but that is already illegal and not affected by this law, so not really relevant at all. Your argument that someone who looks at an image in the privacy of his home is "advocating" anything is bizarre.

Re:Disgusting (4, Insightful)

Detritus (11846) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010471)

Are they going to ban romance novels? Rape and violence are common themes in these books. The fact that many women have rape fantasies, and like to read about it in fiction, does not mean that they want to be raped in the real world.

Re:Disgusting (1)

Das Modell (969371) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010404)

I think it's a little worrying that new laws can be passed based on the emotional reasons of one person.

I don't approve of violent porn, but if it's 100% consentual then I really don't see what the problem is. What about mainstream movies that contain extreme violence, why aren't they banned?

Re:Disgusting (2, Informative)

Threni (635302) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010481)

> Pictures don't cause people to commit crimes.

Exactly. To paraphrase Frank Zappa (who spent a lot of time fighting the censorship of music lyrics):

"There are more love songs than any other kind. If music could alter people's behavior, we'd all love each other."

No one expects the Britsh Inquisition! (5, Funny)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010240)

Fetch the Comfy Chair. Now we must browse your pornography to make sure its all in good order.

Re:No one expects the Britsh Inquisition! (1, Insightful)

TheUnknownCoder (895032) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010478)

That's funny alright, but you make a valid point there: how would they know you're in posession of such material and, more inportantly, where would you draw the line between porn, violent porn, fetiche, abuse, S&M?...

Don't want to be pessimistic (or optimistic, depends on which side of the fence you're at), but if a law can't be enforced, or it's not worth being enforced, then it never will.

Using a time honoured technique (1, Funny)

EvilGrin666 (457869) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010242)

"Shaun Gabb, director of the anti-censorship organization the Libertarian Alliance, said: 'If you are criminalizing possession then you are giving police inquisitorial powers to come into your house and see what you've got, now we didn't have this in the past.'"

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

hahaha.. (3, Funny)

AntiTuX (202333) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010243)

You might call it violent porn, but I call it HOT!!

Here we go. (4, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010245)

I'm obsessed with pie, synthpop, Marx Brothers films, payphones, subways, Tex Avery cartoons, steak, cat-shaped badges, and lime green. If I go out and murder someone, hide all of the above you've got!

Re:Here we go. (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010285)

Already done. No need to commit murder to get me to hide that stuff.

what ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16010246)

that out laws B&D! oh shit hide my porn!

FTA: (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010247)

The new law will not target those who accidentally come into contact with obscene pornography or affect mainstream entertainment industry working within current obscenity laws.

But where do you draw the "accidental" line at? Or was that purposely left vague for later interpretation?

Re:FTA: (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010423)

Where the guy you're prosecuting can afford to hire a good lawyer. About $80,000/year or so ( UK 40k/year ).

Did Jack The Ripper possess VIOLENT INTERNET PORN? (4, Insightful)

CyberLord Seven (525173) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010249)

I grieve for the mother and the surviving daughter. I wish them well, but I don't know that this will accomplish ANYTHING.

There have been plenty of sick creatures such as the Boston Strangler and too many others I've read about and forgotten and who were active BEFORE the internet.

This is a waste.

Re:Did Jack The Ripper possess VIOLENT INTERNET PO (5, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010305)

Of course Jack the Ripper didn't have violent Internet porn! It was all BBSes back then.

Re:Did Jack The Ripper possess VIOLENT INTERNET PO (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010368)

Of course Jack the Ripper didn't have violent Internet porn! It was all telegraph networks [amazon.com] back then. ;-)

Re:Did Jack The Ripper possess VIOLENT INTERNET PO (2, Insightful)

ArmyOfFun (652320) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010514)

Maybe Jack The Ripper and the Boston Strangler would've had their needs satisfied by violent porn and hence never gone out on their killing sprees.

Total Crap (2, Insightful)

Luscious868 (679143) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010250)

People obessed with Grand Theft Auto have gone on killing sprees. Should violent video games be outlawed as well? What about violent movies? There will always be sick individuals out there, does that mean we have to ban everything that may have inspired their acts? Get real. Violent pornography isn't my thing, but when it comes to goverment censorship or banning of any content, there ought to be a damn good reason behind it and the death of one girl who's killer might have been inspired by a certain type of movie doesn't cut it in my book.

Re:Total Crap (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010300)

I wonder if someone can provide a link between reality TV and violent crime.

Well, I live in hope...

Re:Total Crap (1)

dragonsomnolent (978815) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010318)

No doubt, total crap, especially when pondering this:

Did the people who want to go on killing sprees get into GTA because of the gore, or does the gore in GTA turn otherwise normal people into violent people who go on killing sprees?

I dunno. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16010326)

Why don't we ask Jack Thompson?

Re:Total Crap (3, Interesting)

eln (21727) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010356)

David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) claimed the neighbor's dog told him to kill people. I think we should ban dogs.

Re:Total Crap (1)

Aqua_boy17 (962670) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010465)

David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) claimed the neighbor's dog told him to kill people. I think we should ban dogs.
No, only talking dogs. :p

Re:Total Crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16010464)

the death of one girl who's killer might have been inspired by a certain type of movie doesn't cut it in my book.

While i agree the government can take censorship too far, lets be reasonable here ... A couple of points :
- its dangerous to believe what you fill your mind with will have absolutely no effect on the way you live
- from the article: "Trial jurors had been told of his obsession with strangulation and how he looked at internet sites connected with the fetish."
- there was enough evidence for the prosecutors to establish the death with his obsession with violent porn
- its illegal to make and/or publish violent porn images for a very good reason (ie. the law wasn't created on a whim)
- if it was your sister or daughter that was tortured and killed, i doubt you would be so oppositional on restricting access to that type of material

yes, there will always be sick individuals out there - but there ARE things we can do to reduce the overall number of them.

Possession Illegal != Right to Search (5, Insightful)

poor_boi (548340) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010253)

'If you are criminalizing possession then you are giving police inquisitorial powers to come into your house and see what you've got, now we didn't have this in the past.'

There are already things that are illegal to possess. I don't see how adding another thing to that list somehow now grants law enforcement scary inquisitorial powers. As far as I can tell, the only thing that grants law enforcement inquisitorial powers is actually granting law enforcement inquisitorial powers.

Re:Possession Illegal != Right to Search (1)

fastpage (125435) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010445)

I don't live in the UK nor am I any legal expert for that matter. However if something is illegal to possess then they can get a search warrant to look for it. I don't know what the legal requirements would be to get a warrant to look through your home for violent porn. The other issue (in my oppinion) is if they get a warrant and are looking for something else and they turn up violent porn then its just another charge they can throw at you. You can't get him on this charge but you can get him on the violent porn charge. So my guess is that if you are a *suspected* sex offender and they execute a search warrant for evidence, they'll probably be looking for this stuff. But I am sure the lawyers will get to charge extra billable hours to debate what is or isn't violent porn. I'd like to be on that jury.

"During deleborations the jury has requested all the defendants issues of Hustler. More news at 11."

Cops can do what they want - there's no recourse. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16010451)

There are already things that are illegal to possess. I don't see how adding another thing to that list somehow now grants law enforcement scary inquisitorial powers. As far as I can tell, the only thing that grants law enforcement inquisitorial powers is actually granting law enforcement inquisitorial powers.

Tell that to the poor sap who had the cops break down his door without an expressed verbal notification of issuance of a warrant! And tell that to a householder who actually shot at peceived intruders and only to be gunned down by the police (Atlanta Georgia, USA) who were (mistakenly) breaking into his house because they thought that that house was the one on the warrant.

Re:Possession Illegal != Right to Search (1)

valintin (30311) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010503)

As far as I can tell, if you are wearing bondage gear and have a camera, that gives them probable cause to search everything you own. Does it matter if it's a costume or fetish party? I suppose the law will sort it all out after they search you.

Singapore (1)

P3NIS_CLEAVER (860022) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010256)

UK is becoming the Singapore of Europe....

Re:Singapore (1)

Brunellus (875635) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010434)

So when are they going to start caning chavs?

Waterfall effect (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16010257)

What about people who died as a result of watching TV shows, like Jackass? Movies, like.. plenty? Playing video games (GTA?)? How many people died by racing cars? This is ridiculous. Thank you for protecting me from myself dad.

not this shit again (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010270)

Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime does not entail death. Thoughtcrime IS death.

(1984 is the new V for Vendetta).

What nonsense is this? (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010279)

If you are criminalizing possession then you are giving police inquisitorial powers to come into your house and see what you've got, now we didn't have this in the past.

Does this person not realise that possession of an unlicensed firearm and possession of certain psycho-active chemicals are already illegal? The police can't enter your house and search it without a warrant to search for these, why should violent pornography be any different?

The problem I have with laws like this is that we are treating symptoms of psychoses as crimes. Possession of violent pornography is not, in itself, a bad thing. It can, however, be a symptom of a serious mental imbalance, as was almost certainly the case with the murderer in the article. Now we are making it even harder for people with problems like this to get professional help. We are driving them even further underground, where they are forced to become even more repressed, and even more likely to snap and kill someone.

I would much rather see mentally ill individuals treated before they harm someone than imprisoned afterwards.

You are seriously bent. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16010439)

Posession of violent pornography *is* a bad thing. Anyone who thinks otherwise is seriously bent. Posession indicates that a pleasure is obtained from having or viewing it, and anyone who obtains pleasure at the expense of others is partaking in a B-A-D thing.

Re:What nonsense is this? (3, Insightful)

epiphani (254981) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010497)

Possession of violent pornography is not, in itself, a bad thing. It can, however, be a symptom of a serious mental imbalance, as was almost certainly the case with the murderer in the article.

Or it could be a symptom of nothing at all. Maybe I like rollplaying. Maybe my girlfriend likes being tied up. Maybe she likes rough sex. Maybe I share her enjoyment. Maybe we both like watching other people play out those same roles. Gives us ideas.

Who the fuck does the government think they are deciding that its immoral, and where is the line between rough sex and violent sex?

I think this law blows, and if I were part of the country, I'd be investigating it more, and kicking up more noise about it.

should be action not posession (4, Insightful)

KDN (3283) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010312)

Gee, I think this would eliminate an entire class of movies, the teenage sex and slasher movies. Not that that would be any great loss, except to the producers. But I really don't understand the menality. Posessing a hammer should not be against the law. Bashing a head in with the same hammer should be. Having a tool like nmap should not be against the law, but breaking into a place you have no authorization should be. Having violent porn should not be illegal. Murder with or without violent porn should be.

simulated violence pornography saves lives (3, Interesting)

SuperMario666 (588666) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010313)

Isn't it better for these weirdos to have safe outlet for these destructive fetishes? These simulated images do not create the fetish, they only provide an outlet for it. As a parent, I would rather these guys wanking in front of a PC in their parents' basements than strangling my daughter in some alley.

Admittedly, simulated images weren't enough for this guy, but he would have been killing much sooner if the internet hadn't sated his needs.

Re:simulated violence pornography saves lives (0, Flamebait)

grolschie (610666) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010499)

Isn't it better for these weirdos to have safe outlet for these destructive fetishes? These simulated images do not create the fetish, they only provide an outlet for it. As a parent, I would rather these guys wanking in front of a PC in their parents' basements than strangling my daughter in some alley.

Admittedly, simulated images weren't enough for this guy, but he would have been killing much sooner if the internet hadn't sated his needs.
These images do not satisfy the craving, they feed it and stimulate it. Eventually the images will not trigger the required endorphine release and something more will be needed to satisfy the urges.

Irrelevant Argument (1)

SpAcMuN (534870) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010319)

Shaun Gabb, director of the anti-censorship organisation the Libertarian Alliance, said: "If you are criminalising possession then you are giving police inquisitorial powers to come into your house and see what you've got, now we didn't have this in the past."
I can't agree with this statement by Shaun Gabb. Whether you agree with the law or not, I'm not sure that banning posession of one more thing will open the flood gates for invasive searches any more than any other ban does. Further, if the item in question is one that "ought" to be banned, then it ought to be banned on its merits alone, not on whether it will give police something else to search for based upon whatever reasonable cause requirements they have in the UK. Now it is debatable whether the posession of certain items should be banned to begin with, but Shaun's argument seems irrelevant in this case.

Re:Irrelevant Argument (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010418)

However, now that this stuff is illegal, they may make in mandatory for your ISP to report you if they detect you going to sites with violent pornography on them. I'm sure they already do it with child porn. You could probably find a lot of people downloading violent porn and arrest a lot of people. And just what constitutes "violent"?

Psst.. (1)

Mr2cents (323101) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010320)

I live outside the UK. If you want to get rid of your violent porn, just send it to me!

(You're welcome).

YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010323)

Mrs Longhurst said: "My daughter Sue and myself are very pleased that after 30 months of intensive campaigning we have persuaded the government to take action against these horrific internet sites

Listen, lady. I don't think you understand how the internet works. See those tubes? We have guards in them so crazy laws don't spread to other countries.

Because, without the violent porn (5, Insightful)

also-rr (980579) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010324)

He doubtless would have been a fine, upstanding member of society without the capacity to hurt a single hair on anyone's heads.

Criminal law should not be a knee jerk response to any one event but rather a disspassionate evaluation of deterrent, punishment, rehabilitation and public safety (based on logic and evidence!) made in order to maximise the net gain to society. That is how just laws are written and the biggest benefit is gathered.

So when am I really responsible for my own actions (1)

Beached (52204) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010332)

The problem with laws like this is that it implies that people are incapable of seeing graphic events without becoming part of them, and are not responsible for their own actions. It is like if I saw someone murder someone on tv, that will make me a murderer. There will always be people who are sick and easily corruptable. They are not the majority and we should not be held responsible for their actions. They have hospitals and jails for people like that.

This stuff isn't for me, but why should I prevent others from seeing it as long as current laws(rape,murder...) are abided by. Also, where does the line between voilent and rough get drawn?

The scapegoats made me do it! (1)

MrSquishy (916581) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010491)

So when am I really responsible for my own actions
You are not responsible for your actions.
You are, however, responsible for mine.

Plans (1)

Devalia (581422) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010341)

Has announced plans...
Doesnt that just mean they want to try and bring this in, and hopefully get shot down by the House of Lords?

And the sneaky thing about this sort of law... (2, Insightful)

MarkusQ (450076) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010342)

The really sneaky thing about this sort of law is that it's so subjective. Drugs, you can send to a lab, and radar guns are pretty darned accurate most of the time, but this sort of thing? Who decides?

For example, suppose you have a video tape with graphic killing, violence, blowing up buildings and stuff as well as sex scenes. Is it violent porn? What if you accidentally taped a few minutes of the playboy channel over a bunch of network news? Or a Hollywood blockbuster? If you say the people have to actually doing the violence while having sex there would be almost nothing that fits the definition. On the other hand, if you say that anything that contains both elements counts, than almost anything could be called "violent porn" with enough twisting.

And even if you could get the definition down, do you suppose they'll actually release the images in question when someone is publicly accused under this law, or just say "Trust us, it was violent porn."

Of course, laws like that never get abused, so this is really all just theoretical.

--MarkusQ

Yeah, right (1)

Mayhem178 (920970) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010344)

From TFA: The new law will not target those who accidentally come into contact with obscene pornography or affect mainstream entertainment industry working within current obscenity laws.

Bullshit. There's money to be made in court. And, while I can only offer an American viewpoint on this matter since I have never been to the UK, I suspect this will only encourage the abuse of "reasonable suspicion" as a valid motive for police searches. It's bad enough that most police assume that everyone is guilty of something.

What does she know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16010351)

Violent porn never did me any harm. I say let's strip this meddling bitch naked, tie her up and flog her!

Don't worry (1)

Fishy (17624) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010357)

The wording is so slack you will never see a single conviction for this offence.

Knee-Jerk laws only exist to win votes.

Not so fast... (5, Informative)

psmears (629712) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010373)

“possession of violent pornography is now punishable by three years in prison”

Umm... no it isn’t. FTFA:

The government has announced plans to make the possession of violent porn punishable by three years in jail.

The government have announced plans to make it illegal. So it may happen. But also, the civil liberties types have plenty of time to raise objections, get the sentence changed, get exemptions added etc... which has got to be a good thing.

Nanny (1)

M0bius (26596) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010377)

In the US, we're developing into a nanny state... I guess the UK is developing into a nanny kingdom.

Right to privacy. (5, Funny)

Kenja (541830) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010382)

What a man and a woman... and two dwarves, a donky and a chicken. Do in the privacy of their own home, using thousand island dressing at times, is their own, and the people who pay to watch, buisness.

Exactly what material does this new law cover? (1)

DrJimbo (594231) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010395)

I've RTFA and I'm still not clear on exactly what material is covered by this new law and what material is still legal.

I wish they would please post some examples of what is legal and what is not so I'll know for future reference what kinds of things are okay and what I need to avoid.

Thanks in advance.

And why is this important? (1)

pickyouupatnine (901260) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010408)

I guess its important for us to know this law change because of the overwhelming majority of nerds that enjoy taking their aggression out on their cock by watching violent pornography.

How vague can you get? (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010410)

"It is already a crime to make or publish such images but proposed legislation will outlaw possession of images such as "material featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury".

But beating each other to death on a rugby or soccer field is A-OK! Morons.

Jaysyn

Does pornography increase incidents of rape? (5, Insightful)

maynard (3337) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010413)

Well, if the study Porn Up, Rape Down [ssrn.com] is correct... then no. The author shows a strong correlation between increased access to pornography and a statistical reduction in reported rapes. Further, the author showed geographical correlations within the US whereby locally reduced access to pornography occurred in the same locations as areas with high rape rates.

Things that make you go Hmmmm....

Cue the fights over definition. (1, Insightful)

Irvu (248207) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010429)

The problem with this is the question of a clear line. What exactly makes an image violent? The linked article mentions strangulation, what about BDSM? Do we distinguish between "heavy BDSM" and "light BDSM"? What are the defining characteristics? Is spanking allowed or disallowed? Or do we distinguish between "violent spanking" and "play spanking"?

While this may sound silly this law makes it necessary for those questions to be answered. Over time court cases will come up and, lacking any standards, the police will choose between punishing noone unless they commit some other "real" crime (like murder), or punishing anyone whom they don't like. The latter seems a more likely route. This also then raises the issue of costs. Will this bill be enforced or will it fall by the wayside? If it is enforced how will much money will be spent on that?

This is why one needs to be careful when making law, even though few politicians are. Such laws don't solve anything, they typically raise more questions then they answer and pass the actual problems off to others. It's not that I don't believe that people shpuld be protected from such preadators. They should. I'm just skeptical of this law's ability to do so on the face of it.

Too broad? (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010444)

but proposed legislation will outlaw possession of images such as "material featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury".
Did you just outlaw all action movies? Most likely there is a sexuality requirement in the law, but if a movie has both soft sex and bodily harm, that could make the difference fuzzy.

Stupid legislation. We never outlawed action movies just because they portray immoral behaviour. There is no telling whether the guy who commited the crime would have acted differently if it were illegal to access these pictures. Most likely he would have accessed them anyway, and my bet is that if he couldn't, that would have made his real-life actions worse.

Obessions kill. (2, Funny)

787style (816008) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010447)

We almost lost Ronald Reagan because someone was obsessed with Jodie Foster. If only we had thought to ban her, then I wouldn't have been subjected to Nell.

Thought Police (2, Insightful)

drDugan (219551) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010449)

Repeat after me:

There are no bad ideas, only bad actions.
There are no bad ideas, only bad actions.
There are no bad ideas, only bad actions.

Preventing people from having certain information for moral reasons (assertions that the information is "bad") not only fails, it is harmful to the ideas of an open, accepting society that promotes health.

Ideas are just information, and all information has positive value. Once governments get into the business of dictating what people think, totalitarianism becomes possible.

Censorship sux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16010455)

Censoring material kills curiosity. Curiositiy is a very primitive and childish feeling... forbidding it makes people mad, unconfortable or stupid :/

Whose fault? (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010502)

This decision was handed down in response to a campaign waged by a grieving mother who lost her daughter to someone obsessed with violent pornography.

So, was the person having a personality that made him enjoy violent pornography and killing people, or did violent pornography turn him into a killer?
Strangely I find the former case far more logical, but who said legislation follow logics, especially when it grants power to those writing them? :-p

The UK law on these matters (1)

Budenny (888916) | more than 8 years ago | (#16010506)

The UK law on these matters is considerably more subtle and worthy of respect than most correspondents seem to realise. It makes the possession of some materials a strict liability offence. These include child pornography. It makes it an offence to sell or distribute, but not to possess, others. It is not obsessed with sexual content - it covers, and treats similar material in similar ways, material which promotes racial hatred and cruelty to animals. It distinguishes between acts and conspiracy to commit acts. The UK record on civil liberties in recent years is appalling, but on the specific matter of material calculated to promote the commission of crimes of a sexual nature, it is pretty good.

Real or Simulated? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16010510)

So, does this cover the thousands of movies and TV episodes that deal with this subject matter, often in an exploitive and sensationalist manner? Or does it have to be *explicit* ???

I recently watched the latest incarnation of the "I know what you did last summer ..." series, and let me tell you, one of the scenes was quite fatal *and* sexual. If this is OK because it's considered 'mainstream', what about lesser known stuff like SALO or crappy asian 'snuff' movies?

How about 'art'? Take a ride on the wild side some time and search for 'fansadox' or 'dolcett' -- just please come back to the real world when you're done, OK?

---

If people attracted to this type of pornography are looking for an outlet for their anger, perhaps due to an authoritative maternal influence ... what will be the result of laws like these that result in an increasingly authoritative 'pre-crime' society?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?