Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK to Ban Possession of Certain 'Violent' Pornography

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the oh-that's-a-great-idea dept.

Privacy 557

Backlash writes "Massive surveillance? Check. Building a DNA database? Check. Laws against thought crime? Not yet, but coming very soon. The UK government is soon to pass legislation that would criminalise possession of certain types of 'violent' pornography, even if it was part of a consensual session between two adults. Lord Wallace of Tankerness pointed out an ideological schism during last week's debate in the House of Lords: 'If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence. ... Having engaged in it consensually would not be a crime, but to have a photograph of it in one's possession would be a crime. That does not seem to make sense to me.'" Combine laws like this with widespread computer ownership, and it makes a whole lot of (Orwellian) sense.

cancel ×

557 comments

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

Godwin (5, Funny)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237866)

Nazis!

and now for something completely different (0, Offtopic)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237904)

Time for a serious reply: "Having engaged in it consensually would not be a crime, but to have a photograph of it in one's possession would be a crime."

Yeah.

No more fun for me and my British girlfriend. Time to put the whips and chains on ebay. (Although this is consistent with UK law that arrests citizens for gun possession, even if the gun was used to save my life. No crime committed except in the eyes of the British Moral Patrol.)

Re:and now for something completely different (-1, Offtopic)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238048)

I have to ask, why does Britain outlaw guns? What problem was there they were trying to solve? Is it because Americans had guns and were successful in throwing out the Crown? Or was there a lot of gun violence more recently?

Re:and now for something completely different (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23238158)

Not this stupid debate again.

Look, the United States of America is actually unusual in having protected ownership of guns. Most western and Asian countries now strictly control gun ownership. If you want to know why...no, I won't say it. It'll only kick of the same retarded g*n c*ntr*l threads you get over the whole damn internet.

Re:and now for something completely different (1, Funny)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238232)

"Look, the United States of America is actually unusual in having protected ownership of guns. Most western and Asian countries gave up their previous rights to own weapons to their governments, and are now pretty much fucked when they need their guns/weapons to protect themselves from criminals, or even the government itself."

There, fixed that for you....

Re:and now for something completely different (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23238344)

Good luck trying to overthrow your corrupt government with those arms you're allowed to bear, Jim Bob.

Re:and now for something completely different (2, Insightful)

ender- (42944) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238458)

Good luck trying to overthrow your corrupt government with those arms you're allowed to bear, Jim Bob.
I dunno, a minority of Iraqi's seem to be giving us a hard time with AK47s and IEDs...

Re:and now for something completely different (2, Interesting)

Malevolent Tester (1201209) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238168)

Britain's had an on/off relationship with private possession of weapons over the centuries, ranging from mandatory to outlawed, but I believe the origin of modern British gun control lies in fears over a Communist revolution during the interbellum. From there, it's been easy to scream "think of the children" every time an excuse has come up, to the point where only 1 party supports private gun ownership anymore (the BNP, ironically).

Re:and now for something completely different (1)

y86 (111726) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238172)

Liberal zombies don't like guns.

It's makes it hard for them to get to the brains if the people are armed.

Hehehehe.....

And now...back on topic (3, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238376)

I just don't get this. Why the fsck is any government getting into what a person can look at? I understand the current bans on images taken where a crime is being committed against a person, like with child porn using real kids. I can see why snuff films are illegal....someone really gets killed.

However, something like this ban where it may be a film of consensual 'violent' sex...maybe simulated rape....just isn't right. What if you take the people out of it completely....and use computer generated images for rape, snuff or kiddie crap. If someone wants to create and view those images, aside from someone having morality problems....no crime has been committed, and therefore what is the problem with people creating, owning and viewing such content if they are adult?

This brings up something I see coming...with the seeming 'rash' of young teens today, filming themselves beating the shit out of other teens, or even older people....when will we see a ban on these types of video content? Sure, it isn't sexual, but, someone is being hurt...seriously in some cases. Will we see bans on that, or is it not sensational enough since it didn't involve any ones naughty parts?

Re:and now for something completely different (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238190)

I was in Ireland back in 2003, and watching Sky News from Britain. There had been a rash of shootings committed by, if i remember correctly, immigrants with connections to drugs.

the people that were being interviewed on Sky were calling for MORE GUN CONTROL!!! There're already pretty much outright banned as far as I can tell. How is MORE GUN CONTROL going to stop criminals? A more reasoned response would be to deport the fuckers who were committing the crimes.

It's not.

It has lead to increased stabbings, however.

It's just a case of the government and those who can't take care of themselves seeking to have a tool banned (gun, encryption, fetish pr0n) instead of punishing those who misuse them. The government especially is concerned about people using tools like guns against them.

Remember, it is perfectly clear from the writings of the founding fathers that the 2nd amendment is there so that the people have the final check and balance against the government -- not about "personal defense" or "hunting."

It's the means to revolution, nothing more. The difference between a citizen and a subject is the ownership of firearms. Just ask John Adams.

Re:and now for something completely different (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238308)

seeing as only a few nuts committed gun crime (with legal guns) and those nuts that would commit crime otherwise could buy illegal guns anyhow. And the first set of nuts could have (and have) use kitchen knives instead it all seems nuts to me.

Personally I think it was to stop people from overthrowing the government in the guise of preventing a few nuts from going on the rampage.

Re:and now for something completely different (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23238400)

Look for the Dunblane Massacre [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Godwin (1)

gustgr (695173) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238138)

That was damn fast! The discussion should end here.

You sure his name isn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23237872)

Lord Tallace of Wankerness?

odd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23237894)

Having engaged in it consensually would not be a crime, but to have a photograph of it in one's possession would be a crime.
so basically if you and your girlfriend decided to do something kinky, videotape it and later split, you've now got this to worry about.

Re:odd (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238494)

"so basically if you and your girlfriend decided to do something kinky, videotape it and later split, you've now got this to worry about."

Idiot...you forgot the 2 rules of taping women during sex.

1. Do NOT let her know you're filming her.

2. If somehow she finds out...do NOT let her have copies of said video, tell her you destroyed it, and try to be more discreet in not telling her about the backup copies hidden away.

exsqueeze me? (1)

unixcrab (1080985) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237898)

Invasive checks into your laptap/phone/mp3 player at airports? check. Government agencies with direct access to all major network nodes? check. Using spy satellites on its own citizens? Not yet (as far as you know). Hang on... damnit! wrong country...

I doubt that any of them are willing (5, Funny)

Trigun (685027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237900)

to go through my porn folders to tell me if I am breaking the law or not.

  And before anyone here volunteers, you're going to need a fuckton of kleenex, eyebleach and anti-psychotic medication just to get through the folder names.

Re:I doubt that any of them are willing (5, Funny)

Dr. Cody (554864) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238032)

He's not kidding. We had one of our lab techs to an expression search on his porn drives, and grep ended up deleting itself.

Ban bread? (5, Insightful)

Kandenshi (832555) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237902)

From FTA: "Five years ago Jane Longhurst, a teacher from Brighton, was murdered. It later emerged her killer had been compulsively accessing websites such as Club Dead and Rape Action, which contained images of women being abused and violated."

I agree that a substantial number of rapists and molesters and whatnot probably do get off on "violent" porn. But so do quite a few very normal people who will never rape someone. Consensual kink is a gorgeous thing, an expression of incredible trust. The fact that some rapists get off on it is insufficient to justify banning it, after all, last I heard quite a few rapists drink water and eat bread.

Of course, this parallels some sex laws already enacted where I live. It's legal to have sex with someone who's 16, provided you're not in a position of authority over them... But have a picture of you having sex with your 16 year old girlfriend? Not a wise move.

I think that both laws are ridiculous personally. If it's not illegal to do, then it shouldn't be illegal to represent digitally with a bunch of 1s and 0s.

Re:Ban bread? (2, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238036)

The fact that some rapists get off on it is insufficient to justify banning it, after all, last I heard quite a few rapists drink water and eat bread.
Did you just compare rape porn to bread and water? I understand your point but... c'mon really?

Re:Ban bread? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23238212)

Rape porn IS my bread and water, you insensitive clod!!!

Re:Ban bread? (1)

ORBAT (1050226) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238252)

Did you just compare rape porn to bread and water? I understand your point but... c'mon really?
I seriously doubt you got his point.

Re:Ban bread? (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238502)

Trust me, I get his point and I agree with his opinion but his argument is a ridiculous straw man or slippery slope argument, take your pick.

His point is that there is no proof that violent pornography leads to violent sexual practices, and I agree with him there. Of course, research should be done on the cause and effect relationship before laws are passed; but that is not the way democratic governments work.

Unfortunately, his argument tries to group anything that rapists consume or posses into a single category, which makes no sense. There is almost definatly a correlation between rape and possesion of rape porn, there is no correlation between rape and water. Correlation isn't proof but it is better than nothing.

Re:Ban bread? (1)

QCompson (675963) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238108)

Of course, this parallels some sex laws already enacted where I live. It's legal to have sex with someone who's 16, provided you're not in a position of authority over them... But have a picture of you having sex with your 16 year old girlfriend? Not a wise move.
Exactly. It's the government greasing up the slope for some slip and slide fun.

Once it becomes (nearly) universally accepted that merely possessing pictures or video can be as harmful (or in your example, more harmful) as the actual actions therein depicted, it's easy to make the logical leap that other forms of content must be restricted as well.

Re:Ban bread? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23238164)

I suggest legislation banning slippery slopes.

Re:Ban bread? (1)

PMBjornerud (947233) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238126)

I think that both laws are ridiculous personally. If it's not illegal to do, then it shouldn't be illegal to represent digitally with a bunch of 1s and 0s.
Exactly.

I can't see the difference between this and banning "violent" movies of any type. That includes pretty much anything coming out of Hollywood with 16+ years age limit.

A movie simulating a murder is a movie simulating a murder. Whether or not the story is acted out by actors with or without clothes shouldn't really matter.

Re:Ban bread? (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238280)

Yeah, I heard a rapist once.... watched the news on television!!!11!

Proposition 5318008 is to remove from the public anything a rapist has done within a week leading up to their crime...

Re:Ban bread? (1)

Applekid (993327) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238482)

I agree that a substantial number of rapists and molesters and whatnot probably do get off on "violent" porn. But so do quite a few very normal people who will never rape someone.
We're talking about pseudo-violent porn or BDSM. What if the topic was kiddie porn? What if it was underage-looking CGI images or underage-looking drawings? The crime is the act yet the depiction is the crime for some reason.

When people like myself get marked as pedophile sympathizers for raising red flags about laws intended to protect people from thought crimes, we're not just trolling or doing it to play devil's advocate or anything like that. The slippery slope is REAL, and, strangely enough, child abuse is STILL rampant. So much for thinking of the children.

I fully expect the motion to pass and to be passed in other nations as well over the next ten years. Then watch them come for regular pornography, then anything controvertial nature, then anything critical of government, then anything contrary to the official storylines that are permitted and outlined by law.

Why stop there ? (4, Insightful)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237914)

If fictionally depicting someone being raped or abused is a crime then surely horror flicks must be banned as well. Oh and the Die Hard movies too because they can be training tools for terrorists.

It's like the printing press all over again. We need to stop people from having access to "dangerous" information.

*rolls eyes*

Re:Why stop there ? (1)

QCompson (675963) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237998)

If fictionally depicting someone being raped or abused is a crime then surely horror flicks must be banned as well. Oh and the Die Hard movies too because they can be training tools for terrorists.
No silly, because in those examples sex is not involved. It's the dirty sin inside of all of us that must be cleansed by the justice system.

Re:Why stop there ? (3, Insightful)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238154)

The Clint Eastwood movie Sudden Impact [wikipedia.org] has a violent rape scene; and in fact the movie is about the rape victim's search for vengeance.

So if any of you UK residents have any Clint Eastwood movies your best bet is to get rid of them NOW before your thought police come for you.

I guess here in the US we're next. You had the Big Brother CCTV cameras first, but we have them now, too. Our legislators never funded the "Big Brother Is watching" posters, have yours?

Re:Why stop there ? (1)

robably (1044462) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238504)

Yes [wired.com]

Re:Why stop there ? (1)

TheP4st (1164315) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238178)

Deja-vu

To underline the assaultive nature of the film's content, much of its camera work is deliberately in-out, with few pans or much lateral/horizontal movement. Because of the copy-cat violence that the film was blamed for, Kubrick withdrew it from circulation in Britain about a year after its release. [Shortly after the ban was instituted, a 17-year old Dutch girl was raped in 1973 in Lancashire, at the hands of men singing Singing in the Rain. And a 16-year-old boy had beaten a younger child while wearing Alex's uniform of white overalls, black bowler hat and combat boots. Both were considered 'proof', after the fact, that the film had an influential effect on violence in society.] In preparation for a new 1972 release for US audiences, Kubrick replaced about 30 seconds of footage to get an R-rating, as opposed to the X-rating that the MPAA initially assigned to it. (The replacement footage was for two scenes: the high-speed orgy scene in Alex's bedroom, and the rape scene projected at the Ludovico Medical Center.) In the spring of 2000, an uncut version of the film was re-released to British screens.
http://www.filmsite.org/cloc.html [filmsite.org]

Re:Why stop there ? (1)

tomph (968175) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238274)

They ban the porn because they care about what's going on in your head. They don't want you getting off on it.

Re:Why stop there ? (1)

VeNoM0619 (1058216) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238498)

No kidding, when will the government stop posing it's morals on it's own people? Accept the fact that people are DIFFERENT, and if it doesn't affect you (or the majority of others) in a forceful way, then stay out of the way. Disclaimer: I personally don't have any of these images, nor do I care if others have them. Whatever you prefer and enjoy is fine by me as long as I'm not forced into it.

I told them "We already got one" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23237918)

erm, hang on... we in the uk already have laws against thought crime, this is just another one.
You can be convicted of possessing materials that might be useful to a terrorist or might be useful in the perpetration of terrorist acts... like survival handbooks and stuff like that

Anyone wanna take pics with me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23237924)

I'm happy to take pictures of myself in simulated violent acts with anyone, male or female, and post them to a free hosting account as an act of civil disobedience.

In the background of each picture will be two televisions. One will be playing scenes from the Iraq war, the other will be playing scenes from various British gangster films.

Re:Anyone wanna take pics with me? (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238256)

I'm happy to take pictures of myself in simulated violent acts with anyone, male or female, and post them to a free hosting account as an act of civil disobedience

It's not civil disobedience if you're an anonymous coward, Mr. A/C, any more than smoking a joint in your living room is a civil disobedience act against the marijuana laws (which are also thought crimes).

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23237938)

...it's an argument in favor of the House of Lords, because lord knows no elected politician in the UK (or many other places I can think of) would risk being associated with pornography. Or with common sense.

The real irony, though, is that this incredible level of control of information comes at a time when near-anarchy prevails in more important areas.

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."

Revolt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23237942)

I really hope a revolution comes through in the near future. Someone needs to get rid of all these New World Order bastards who try passing every law they can think of to invade our rights and privacy.

This seems like a silly issue to post this comment in, but this is something that seems to pervade many facets of our lives today.

Consequence of globalization (0, Flamebait)

arcite (661011) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237944)

In a world that is increasingly connected; where slavery and human trafficking are increasing; one has to draw a line somewhere in the sand to mark where civilization ends and barbarism begins... don't you think?

Re:Consequence of globalization (4, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238064)

Agreed, but I thought the line should be "when your activity infringes on the natural rights of another person".

It's hard to see how possession of photos taken between consenting adults fits into that mold.

Re:Consequence of globalization (2, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238156)

Civilization ends and barbarism begins when people are assaulted, kidnapped, and stolen from (arrested, imprisoned, and fined) because of their thoughts and no actual crime.

The people proposing this law are actual violent criminals, advocating violence against otherwise innocent people they just don't like. They are far, far more dangerous than the targets of this law. How about some legislation to keep nanny state dictators off the streets? We'd all be safer for it.

Re:Consequence of globalization (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23238382)

Yes, when it involves REAL ACTIONS happening to REAL PEOPLE.

Perhaps these govt idiots should be spending time and money to bust REAL RAPE, etc.

There are enough studies out there to show Pornography is a 'pressure valve' and that it reduces crime.

Blaming rape on pornography is like blaming those murders in the 80s on D&D, as the media did.

"We need to ban alcohol, because some people act inappropiately when they consume it!"

Oh yeah, it worked great for alcohol, it's working great for drugs.... :P

Oblig quote (1)

Sepiraph (1162995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237948)

Orwell was an optimist.

We want them broken. (4, Interesting)

feepness (543479) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237956)

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

Re:We want them broken. (1)

xirtam_work (560625) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238122)

Absolutely. Ayn Rand was correct.

Re:We want them broken. (1)

Crafack (16264) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238132)

Parent said:

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken...

which is a quote from "Atlas Shrugged" (1957) by Ayn Rand [wikipedia.org]

/Crafack

Re:We want them broken. (1)

jockeys (753885) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238258)

It saddens and sickens me to see Rand's grim predictions coming true. Spot on.

Re:We want them broken. (2, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238486)

Not this crap again. Ayn Rand hasn't gotten anything right with her objectivism theories, and she didn't get anything right with this "we want to rule innocent men" crap either. This supposes a level of sophistication, organization and strategic thinking that is just absent from any politician. I mean, they can't even think beyond the next election cycle, can't balance their own budget, and now they're supposed to be some long-term evil geniuses bent on re-creating feudalism?

No. This is basic human nature at work. Politician's are professionals, and as such, their #1 interest is to keep their job - which they do by being reelected, not by throwing people into jail. Politician's also tend to attract people who believe that they're better than everyone else, love power and/or need the public spot light. None of which has anything to do with competence, and in fact self-selects against honesty, long-term thinking and integrity. The end result is that the people who make laws are among the least qualified to do so.

That's what behind shit laws like these - that, and stupid people who keep voting these idiots back into office. Not some kind of evil genius.

are they going to ban the owning of this image (4, Funny)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237982)

from theregister, the new logo of UK's Office of Government Commerce: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/22/ogc_logo/ [theregister.co.uk]

Re:are they going to ban the owning of this image (2, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238114)

This [hein.org.uk] is a better version. (possibly NSFW).

Perhaps outlawing it is going too far (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237986)

Though outright outlawing this type of material is only going to push it underground and do nothing to stop those who really want to consume it, I wonder if it isn't in society's best interest to at least monitor and track those who do consume "aberrant" pornography. If Joe Perv just gets his kicks from watching women raped and tortured but is otherwise a fine upstanding citizen, then a quick background scan would show him to be relatively safe (as safe as any other fine upstanding citizen) and no further monitoring is necessary. However, if Jim Proto-Raper who had a troubled childhood and a history of torturing animals is also jerking it to torture porn, wouldn't it be useful to keep an eye on him in case his behavior patterns change for the worse (perhaps his porn preferences get more and more violent over time).

I'm not saying you need to run a background check every time you want to rent Slut Teachers Get What They Deserve VI. Just that there is a balance to keep between protecting the citizenry from potentially dangerous people and allowing people the freedom to consume whatever vices they need.

Re:Perhaps outlawing it is going too far (1)

QCompson (675963) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238210)

I'm not saying you need to run a background check every time you want to rent Slut Teachers Get What They Deserve VI. Just that there is a balance to keep between protecting the citizenry from potentially dangerous people and allowing people the freedom to consume whatever vices they need.
And I suppose you want the government to keep track of all the books we check out of the library, and monitor and track anyone that reads "Lolita" by Nabokov.

Just imagine the chilling effect this would have.

Re:Perhaps outlawing it is going too far (1)

Otter Popinski (1166533) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238276)

If Joe Perv just gets his kicks from watching women raped and tortured but is otherwise a fine upstanding citizen, then a quick background scan would show him to be relatively safe (as safe as any other fine upstanding citizen) and no further monitoring is necessary. However, if Jim Proto-Raper who had a troubled childhood and a history of torturing animals is also jerking it to torture porn, wouldn't it be useful to keep an eye on him

I don't understand the distinction. If you consider Joe's "jerking it to torture porn" to be the behavior of a "fine upstanding citizen" so long as he hasn't also tortured animals, aren't you just advocating surveillance of anyone who has tortured animals in the past, regardless of whether they like violent porn?

Why? (4, Interesting)

EaglemanBSA (950534) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237990)

FTFA, it looks like the reasoning for the introduction of such legislation stems from someone watching said pr0n and murdering a woman...this is a huge step backwards for people taking responsibility for their own actions. What, the pr0n made him kill her? Come on.

I'm wondering what other images will become illegal because they elicit violence...perhaps it will be illegal to draw a picture of Muhammad too? Just my 2 cents.

The movie studios love it... (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237994)

I am sure "V for Victory" sales just went up again.

Re:The movie studios love it... (1)

0111 1110 (518466) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238296)

I am sure "V for Victory" sales just went up again.
Huh? Are you talking about this [wikipedia.org] ? I don't get it.

Re:The movie studios love it... (1)

AaxelB (1034884) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238488)

You mean V for Vendetta [imdb.com] ?

Yes, oops. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238576)

"V" for Vendetta. Talk about a joke going flat...

UK readers banned from slashdot? (0, Troll)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238006)

Lifestyles of the Poor and Obscure [slashdot.org] involves sex with a prostitute. It isn't graphic, however. But an earlier journal, NSFW [slashdot.org] does contain graphic descriptions of a sex act, although it is revealed in the story that the sex is in fact only a dream. The journal "Dork Side of the Moon [slashdot.org] concerns an attempted murder, as does Ask Slashdot: Women [slashdot.org] (which also has hookers, as do many other of my journals).

If they pass this stupid law will I have to add a disclaimer that EU residents may be incarcerated for reading my journals?

It seems that the US and the UK are in a fucktarded race to see who can become the worst police state. I pointed out in yet another journal, Police State: In USSA, cops hassle YOU! [slashdot.org] as well as a blagh on my site (down at the moment) that the US is in fact already a police state, and that any country that uses secret police (in the US they're called "undercover agents" or "plainclothesmen") IS a police state.

At leat in the UK they're not torturing people or holding them without trial, as we do in Guantanimo. But I guess given enough time, they will.

-mcgrew

Re:UK readers banned from slashdot? (1)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238144)

At leat in the UK they're not torturing people
You've clearly never seen "Strictly Come Dancing".

Re:UK readers banned from slashdot? (1)

Oktober Sunset (838224) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238456)

At leat in the UK they're not torturing people or holding them without trial, as we do in Guantanimo. But I guess given enough time, they will.
That's only because the US are so anxious to do it they just let them take them all. It's not like UK intelligence agents haven't been over to guantanamo to help with the 'interogations'.

Illegal photos of legal activity (1)

xirtam_work (560625) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238012)

As the law stands in the UK you have have sex at 16 lawfully but can not take photographs or record it on video as the participants are under 18.

I know, it's ridiculous, just as this proposed law is.

Re:Illegal photos of legal activity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23238564)

yes, that is the case presently, but we shouldn't be relying on the current existence of bizarre inconsistencies in the law to justify deliberately introducing new bizarre inconsistencies.

I am fine with it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23238024)

I am fine with this. People who have pics of people doing corpses or animals, or pics of people basicly ripping someone apart or killing them are screwed up big time. Anyone that gets off on that sort of thing needs to have their head checked. This law dosent affect soft stuff like bondage, it just affects the stuff that would be illegal to do to another person.

That leap of logic already applies in the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23238030)

Ponder the combination of age of consent laws allowing sexual activity at 16 with child pornography laws making it illegal to posses sexual images of someone under 18. That's a two year window where it's legal to do it, but illegal to keep a picture for later.

Hentai...? (4, Interesting)

snarfies (115214) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238038)

And what about hentai anime? A LOT of the hentai stuff I've seen has been, ah, rather rape-based, sometimes with tentacles, and sometimes otherwise (yes, I will admit now I've seen a lot, and even own a few titles on laserdisc). So does the UK law cover that sort of thing? Its often extreme, sometimes far more disturbing than anything in possible "reality," but it isn't that much less "real" than pornography with actual people.

Re:Hentai...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23238300)

I'll do this anonymously to save some face, but I've noticed a lot of certain S&M like stuff being blocked lately. I'm in the US and I vaguely recall some bill or discussion about pornography about a year or two ago and wondered if that had anything to do about it. Well, it just makes it a little longer process since I just have to view the page source and find the links myself.

Re:Hentai...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23238398)

japanese law does not allow unobscured viewing of the genital area, leaving the tentacles as an obvious stand in for the male genitalia which may be viewed under law.

Its a pretty funny situation if you ever go there, since sex is a lot more open and you see people doing it in public/nudity on posters etc.

Questions that need to be asked (1)

alan_dershowitz (586542) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238050)

I am playing devil's advocate here, but the government has a job to maintain a safe and working society. There are laws that restrict personal freedoms because they have a bad effect on society. For example, guns were banned. Again I'm not saying any individual action is correct, but they do have that power. A logical argument could be made that consensual acts in private by a small number of people does not have the same negative impact on society that wide distribution of depictions of those acts would. So, the importnat questions here are: are there things that the UK government _cannot_ restrict in the interest of protecting society? Is the material in question one of those things? Are the materials really harmful (and, according to who) to the extent that they need to be banned? If you are going to make an argument either pro or con regarding banning, you need to answer questions like these.

Re:Questions that need to be asked (1)

esocid (946821) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238406)

(I know you're playing devil's advocate) You really think what in question is going on is novel to society? I don't know who said it, but it's along the lines of 'imagine the most foul and revolting thing you can think of, and there's some group of people out there who get off on it.' The distribution argument doesn't really seem valid to me since there are already laws restricting the distribution to minors. So what would be the point in making it illegal to possess an image of a legal act? If this were in the US it would either not pass, or pass and be struck down because it is an imbecilic concept.

Re:Questions that need to be asked (2, Insightful)

QCompson (675963) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238490)

I am playing devil's advocate here, but the government has a job to maintain a safe and working society. There are laws that restrict personal freedoms because they have a bad effect on society. For example, guns were banned. Again I'm not saying any individual action is correct, but they do have that power. A logical argument could be made that consensual acts in private by a small number of people does not have the same negative impact on society that wide distribution of depictions of those acts would. So, the importnat questions here are: are there things that the UK government _cannot_ restrict in the interest of protecting society? Is the material in question one of those things? Are the materials really harmful (and, according to who) to the extent that they need to be banned? If you are going to make an argument either pro or con regarding banning, you need to answer questions like these.
Instead of (simulated) violent pornography in the form of pictures or video, consider it as the written word. Then ask yourself, do you really want to give the government the ability to ban books?

People are *ahem* desensitized to the idea of making certain videos or pictures illegal, because of the widely approved ban on child pornography, but in matters such as this, where consenting adults are involved in the production of the material, I can't see there being any distinction between laws like these and a government ban on certain books.

Re:Questions that need to be asked (1)

AdmV0rl0n (98366) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238500)

I am playing devil's advocate here, but the government has a job to maintain a safe and working society. There are laws that restrict personal freedoms because they have a bad effect on society. For example, guns were banned. Again I'm not saying any individual action is correct, but they do have that power. A logical argument could be made that consensual acts in private by a small number of people does not have the same negative impact on society that wide distribution of depictions of those acts would. So, the importnat questions here are: are there things that the UK government _cannot_ restrict in the interest of protecting society? Is the material in question one of those things? Are the materials really harmful (and, according to who) to the extent that they need to be banned? If you are going to make an argument either pro or con regarding banning, you need to answer questions like these.
It should be said that this 'Law' is I believe brought about after a deluded individual, basically killed someone and somewhere in the case there was a link between 'extreme' porn, and the committed offense.

The family campaigned for this law.

The problems only begin here. The legal system in the UK is in meltdown, and has been for sometime. But at the same time, you have an Orwellian state that just cannot help itself. When its not putting in new methods of citizen monitoring, its losing the data its collecting into either public domain, or into criminal hands.

The monitoring it has brought in, usually under the dubious anti-terrorism - war on terror claims, are now globally used against an ever more persecuted civilian population. Its being used via gold plating and additional use never talked about when these laws and systems were being discussed. Children are being monitored by systems that were supposed to only monitor terrorist activity. Your walking the dog is being monitored by the local council to make sure it only poops in designated areas, and in cases where it does not, a juicy fat fine is going to automagically end up on your doorstep.

In the meantime, the real criminal, and terrorists whom these systems were originally supposedly to be aimed at laugh at the overfilled prisons, and at the abject comedy that is the EU human rights laws, - end result, Terrorism in the UK is rampant and operates without being affected.

In the meantime, these systems are turned upon people, legitimate people, and new 'crimes' are being created. These systems are then used to persue the individual - usually poor bastards who have little choice, the system is designed to ensnare and cap people.

These systems are becoming an every day thing. Boil the frog. Drive your car in London, its a 'congestion charge'. That'll be £8. No, wait, its a Green charge now, that will be £25 - thank you, pay - do not pass go.

You overfilled you bin sir, that will be a £200 fine. Your dog pooped in a none pooping area, you environmental scum, pay £100.

I have little doubt that anyone with some time can go and look into the disturbing direction this is taking, but let me put this into context for anyone whom does not understand.

In terms of 'Extreme Pornography' I can tell you how this will progress.

1. Some form of invasive monitoring will be required.
2. Some form of invasive Policing will be required.
3. The prisons are actually full. So its going to lead to some sort of civil 'fine', its going to again affect the bulk of the populace, and miss the real 'fiends' that this stupid law supposedly goes after.
4. They will need some clever assholes who can tell the difference between porn and extreme porn. Don't expect consistency either, because one man's art is another's disgusting extreme porn.

I'll add that Porn availability in the UK is already covered under existing laws. What this is aimed at is the massive underground. The problem is its a very very bad law, as most of these Orwellian bastard laws are, and it won't stop anyone who is committed to getting and watching 'extreme' porn, but its going to lead to a significant portion of adults who do indulge in and enjoy this stuff being criminalised, and its going, mark my words, to lead to the extreme use of state, language and press to lead to people being dumped into the same co-location as paedofiles.

In the meantime, the state has armed itself with yet another weapon. One that will allow it 'more' reason to invade, create monitoring, and in the end, 'Tax' the none criminals, claiming they are criminals, and have to pay.

Lastly, and with brutal frankness and honesty, they can't stop 'extreme pornography', all this will do is criminalise the ones they do catch.

An unfair law is no law at all.
The UK is the most monitored, and invasive society on the planet. This is just one more method, 'crime' and basis for this to be continued.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness (1, Troll)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238074)

Is an idiot, and this is the reason. We have a major problem in Europe with the abuse and exoploitation of women, many effectively slaves brought in from the former Soviet Union and China (I bet that the Chinese watchers will try and mod this out of sight, but yes, some of your nationals in the UK do engage in people smuggling and some of them are violent pimps. So are some of our own - but I digress.)

While there is a market for violent pornography or child pornography, criminals will supply it. In doing so I doubt they will consider the civil rights of those forced to take part.

That is why, to my mind, even though it may be of limited effectiveness, it is right to make possession of this material illegal. Anything you can do to destroy or disrupt the market is attacking the revenue stream that makes the criminals do it in the first place. If you cannot persuade people that they should not pay other people to abuse, rape and beat strangers for their entertainment - then more stringent sanctions are needed.

The situation is rather different from, say, drug legislation. Poor farmers grow drugs in Colombia and Afghanistan because they pay better and travel better than vegetables. They don't care if rich Westerners want to die early from hepatitis. Here, people are being physically maltreated and the rich Westerners suffer no unpleasant consequences at all (or if they do, it's because they enjoy being whipped - it takes all sorts.)

Those who saw bits of the Mosley tape will be aware that he apparently paid money to beat (and be beaten by) prostitutes, and may wonder what compulsion the prostitutes were under to put up with this kind of treatment. How much money would it take for you to do that willingly? I just can't easily express how proud I am of the fact that, during the 1930s, my father and his Jewish friends threw bricks at Mosley's father.

Re:Lord Wallace of Tankerness (1)

kahei (466208) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238216)

Yeah, people suck. People trafficking, rape, kidnapping, forcing people to submit to bizarre physical acts against their will etc should be illegal. Actually, they already are illegal.

I really don't think that making photographs of legal, consensual activity illegal will help.

But then, I'm pretty sure it's not intended to help. It serves a variety of purposes -- increasing the general level of control, making certain politicians look like they're taking action without requiring any actual resources, and so forth.

The parent post does illustrate how easy it is to coax people into mentally welding something emotional (throwing bricks at some guy's father??) to any issue in order to get them to agree with it.

Re:Lord Wallace of Tankerness (1)

lisaparratt (752068) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238272)

How much money would it take for you to do that willingly?

None whatsoever, for the right person. Different strokes for different folks.

Re:Lord Wallace of Tankerness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23238288)

Those who saw bits of the Mosley tape will be aware that he apparently paid money to beat (and be beaten by) prostitutes, and may wonder what compulsion the prostitutes were under to put up with this kind of treatment.
Why do you believe the participents were unwilling, or couldn't simply be doing it because they enjoy it?

How much money would it take for you to do that willingly?
There are hundreds of thousands of people who will happily do it for free.

Still, thanks for your suffocating moral superiority. I'm really touched that you have enough time in your life to care so much about what other people get up to in their own lives.

Re:Lord Wallace of Tankerness (1)

ORBAT (1050226) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238336)

Shouldn't all porn be banned, since regular porn actresses could be getting exploited too? Oh, and while we're at it, we should require women to wear burqas since men might get naughty impulses just by looking at them.

Re:Lord Wallace of Tankerness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23238340)

"... how proud I am of the fact that, during the 1930s, my father and his Jewish friends threw bricks at Mosley's father..."

And, with one simple sentence, we see the similarity between communism and fascism. I just can't easily express how proud I am that my German ancestors in the 1940s were somewhat more efficient in disposing of the people they hated...

Re:Lord Wallace of Tankerness (2, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238538)

Is an idiot, and this is the reason. We have a major problem in Europe with the abuse and exoploitation of women, many effectively slaves brought in from the former Soviet Union and China

But, why don't you ban people from the Soviet Union and China? Or, women?

Seriously, this is the debate between correlation and causation that happens around video games. It's just in a different guise.

Rapists often use violent porn, but does violent porn cause rape? Much crime is committed by people under the influence of alcohol, but does alcohol cause the crime? People who have gone on shooting rampages have obsessed over violent video games, but did the games cause the violence? The list goes on -- nobody is seriously making the claim that by making these things illegal, all of these problems go away. (OK, some people are, in fact, making that claim. They're idiots.)

See, it's very difficult to selectively pick things in which there is a correlation but no evidence of causation, and start banning them. There a lot of things which could potentially end up on that list.

Yes, all of these nasty things you describe happen, and they are crimes. They should be treated as such. Nobody is saying rape, or human trafficking, or child abuse, or any of those things is a good thing and should be protected.

But, as the summary points out -- if it was a consensual act between adults of sound mind, how could having an image of it then be a crime? You end up demonizing everyone who has a different view of sexuality than yours. Some of the things they're talking about banning could be as simple as spanking. Some of it, while not to either of our tastes, is completely consensual. Heck, if you want to spend your weekend getting flogged, have at 'er. If you want to abduct someone and do it to them against their will? You're a criminal. The gap between those is huge.

That is why, to my mind, even though it may be of limited effectiveness, it is right to make possession of this material illegal.

You can't strip away the rights of people to engage in consensual acts, and photograph them if they so choose, on the basis that someone, somewhere, is having crimes committed against their person. It's completely irrational.

You're advocating a blanket ban on a behavior by everyone on the basis that some people are criminals. A lot of lawmakers in the UK are pointing out that this is a very over-broad law with no real thought put into making sure that you preserve the rights on individuals. If you remove the right to photograph it, you might as well out law the act. And then you're criminalizing the behavior of people on the basis that it might have some commonality with actual crimes.

And, let's face it, people in Britain (and everywhere else) have been spanking and doing otherwise strange things to each other for hundreds of years. It's a little late to start backing up that bus.

Cheers

reality vs fantasy (4, Interesting)

kahei (466208) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238084)

There are two parallel failures to distinguish reality from fantasy here:

1 -- The usual way. Regular grown up people know that pornography is not real life and that many things that are fun to fantasize about would be unwise, unhygienic, fatal etc. in real life.

2 -- This crackdown on everything, and this massive effort to gather data and powers, come at a time when actual street crime is very high, white-collar crime has drastically undermined the UK's 'level playing field', and policies from tax to immigration seem to be selected without any hope of actually implementing them. In other words, the real fantasy here is the fantasy that the UK government can really control the things around it -- and I'm much afraid the government has confused that pleasant fantasy with reality, and that they will only pile on more regulations and powers as actual ability to influence events at ground level slips from their grasp.

Note that this is subtly different from the US situation. In the US, there's been a scramble for new data and powers, but I never have the feeling that the Executive branch has too *little* control...

Also, thank fuck for the House of Lords. There are few elected representatives who'll speak out on an issue that's got the word 'pornography' stuck to it.

SOAD (1)

zulater (635326) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238110)

Man it's going to suck to be thrown in the slammer just for owning the System of a Down song.

Violent pornography (1)

GeorgeMonroy (784609) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238134)

It's violent pornography
chokin chicks and sodomy
the kinda shit you see on your tv

Not much different for married American 17 y-olds (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238180)

If two 17 year olds are married and they make a porn movie of themselves, they are criminals, even though as married people both are considered adults in most US states.

innaccurate information! (1)

holywarrior21c (933929) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238182)

No you horny and inncensitive clods! Rule is alot simpler: just 2 porns a day!

Conspiracy or coincidence? (1)

Sun.Jedi (1280674) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238186)

GTA4 released.

Obligatory resurrection of the 'game|porn|voices in my head|song|insert your own whackjob excuse here' horse.

Fight back the fun way (4, Funny)

Monokeros (200892) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238200)

If this manages to become law I propose that everyone in Britain find 1) a buddy and 2) a surveillance camera. Then engage in some consensual "violent" kinkiness with the first in front of the second.

The Bank Job.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23238230)

Looks like they watched the recently released movie [imdb.com]

Do I misunderstand what thought crime is? (1)

mark_jabroni (547666) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238298)

Without coming down either side of this, how is banning a type of picture a "thought crime"?

No one gives a shit about Men (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23238316)

"Obviously anything that leads to violence against women has to be taken very seriously," says Baroness Miller.

Why is it just violence against women that needs to be taken very seriously? It should read "Obviously anything that leads to violence has to be taken very seriously."

Another example of reverse sexism and societies uncaring attitudes towards men.

I love Jesus. (4, Interesting)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238348)

I love Jesus, I Love that blood dripping from his wounds, I like the way he's scantly dressed, I wank over his image so much I could become a nun.

Now that their banning this kind of imagery it looks like my Jesus wanking days are over.

Since when did the law have to make sense? (1)

pbhj (607776) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238414)

From the summary, no I didn't RTFA:

'If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence. ... Having engaged in it consensually would not be a crime, but to have a photograph of it in one's possession would be a crime. That does not seem to make sense to me.'
It's pretty much the situation already. If a child of say 15 has sex, they won't be prosecuted by the police (though it's technically a crime). Yet if they then post a video on the 'net of that act they are engaged in Child Pornography.

I've a vague recollection of a prosecution following this pattern.

I don't see how this is "thought police", no one is stopping people from doing the things, nor from thinking about it, just from possessing images which it would be illegal to produce in the UK.

I don't see the big deal, (1)

Canosoup (1153521) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238492)

after the hours spent in the rat helmet, I can truthfully say, I love Big Brother.

You don't get it. (4, Interesting)

aadvancedGIR (959466) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238534)

The law is not designed to be used against the population (but, of course, it will be), it's just an easy was to prevent paparazi to blackmail goverment members using pictures of their weekend activities.

sick and tired man~ (1)

holywarrior21c (933929) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238568)

I do dislike violence and i support movement against crimes. But I totally against having another law. European countries tendency to become communist and that scares me. I believe that only God, someone almighty, can judge one and punish one's sin. Law does not stop any crime to happen. It only serves to protect victim. People make mistakes. Everyone does. It is going back to "eye for eye" logic. it doesn't work. People were never so naive and obedient. People just started to express more open-minded and honest. People just need to realize that only solution is to seek the truth and be modest at best. I believe that this is the only solution and it is too bad that people doesn't buy that anymore.

What is simulated? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23238572)

Isn't part of this concerned with the fact that it can be hard to tell if a violent sex act is simulate, consensual or real?

I know the law regarding child pornography errs on the side of caution, outlawing photoshopped pictures even if it's just a kids head on a naked body.

Lord Wallace's point - nothing new? (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238584)

You can have sex at 16 in the UK but as far as I'm aware you can't photograph it for pornographic purposes until you're 18. I always found this equally odd.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>