[Politics] Bill for "possession of violent and extreme pornography" to become law next week.

[Hammer]

Thinking about it, I suppose this bill does actually set precedent for the blanket banning of violent video games should there be a crime which is similarly linked to video games in the near future.

Let's hope that nutjob Labour MP that wants to be Jack Thompson doesn't realise this.

[Mwezzi]

Originally Posted by metallideth

Would this bill allow for the prosecution of directors/producers who make films that explore the realities of violent sexual behaviour, or use violent sexual behaviour as metaphor? Titilation is not the primary interest here, if it even is one at all. However, in light of previous tabloid-fuelled hysteria (Brass Eye, 'Video Nasties' etc) I could imagine many a censorship campaign riding on it's back, all facilitated by the bill seeming to suggest that the possible effects any work can have are as important as the verifiable ones.

The bill is specifically banning pornography, not documentaries. I suppose context would have a big part to play, the people filming would have to think about how they are presenting such imagery.

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by Mwezzi

The bill is specifically banning pornography, not documentaries. I suppose context would have a big part to play, the people filming would have to think about how they are presenting such imagery.

Yeah, it defines "pornography" as "material of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal."
So documentaries, movies and satire would presumably be fine.

[LesMTS]

The explanatory notes are quite worrying.

1155. The material to be covered by this new offence is at the most extreme end of the spectrum of pornographic material which is likely to be thought abhorrent by most people. It is not possible at law to give consent to the type of activity covered by the offence, so it is therefore likely that a criminal offence is being committed where the activity which appears to be taking place is actually taking place. The House of Lords upheld convictions for offences of causing actual and grievous bodily harm in the case of Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 which involved a group of sado-masochists who had engaged in consensual torture. The threshold that the clauses have set is very high, so while those taking part might argue that they had consented to it, such consent is not valid at law.

1156. In the case of images of staged activity, the Government believes that banning possession is justified in order to meet the legitimate aim of protecting the individuals involved from participating in degrading activities. This is also the case with images of bestiality, which while involving harm to animals can also involve the non-consensual participation of humans who are harmed in the process of making the images.

1157. The Government considers that the new offence is a proportionate measure with the legitimate aim of breaking the demand and supply cycle of this material, which may be harmful to those who view it. Irrespective of how these images were made, banning their possession can be justified as sending a signal that such behaviour is not considered acceptable. Viewing such images voluntarily can desensitise the viewer to such degrading acts, and can reinforce the message that such behaviour is acceptable.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something here, the first part indicates that even if you consent to being, for example, tortured, then, if the torture is sufficiently severe, a judge can decide that your consent was legally invalid.
That's mental.

[The Continental]

I cant be bothered reading the whole thread. Basically all I wanna know is: can I still watch Belladonna stick a baseball bat up her own arse without fear of the po po?

[Mwezzi]

Originally Posted by LesMTS

The explanatory notes are quite worrying.



Unless I'm misunderstanding something here, the first part indicates that even if you consent to being, for example, tortured, then, if the torture is sufficiently severe, a judge can decide that your consent was legally invalid.
That's mental.

It also makes implications that they're trying to ban the behaviour itself, not just images of it.

[Puppy]

It is mental. It applies then (using the criteria above) to any consent given that would result in bodily harm. So add to that any violent sport, tattoos, piercings.

Fuck sake.

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by Puppy

It is mental. It applies then (using the criteria above) to any consent given that would result in bodily harm. So add to that any violent sport, tattoos, piercings.

Fuck sake.

Where does it leave "Jackass" and "Dirty Sanchez".
I mean, it implies that it is legally impossible to consent to having your scrotum stapled to a tree.

[bikuki]

I don't think it does - it says itself that the threashold for the behaviour is very high. What that means I don't know, but it does say that the behaviour must be considered abnormal by the general public. Seeing as there is an extremely large humber of pierced/tattooed people or those involved in extreme sports, I doubt these would be included.
I can kinda see where they're coming from rearding the aspect of consent (however that's not saying I agree with it) - basically they're saying that if someone consents to serious GBH being performed on them then either the consent was not informed or they were incompetent of making such consent (i.e. they did not know, or were unable to understand, the full impact of their or others actions upon them). Pretty much saying that noone in their right mind would do that to themselves (using the GBH as a diagnostic indicator of insanity). It's a very grey area, however, as it all comes down to who is able to descide if someone is unable to comprehend the information. It is a topic often covered in medicine and I can almost guarantee it will come up as an ethics question in my finals, but it doesn't mean I (or anyone else) can answer it/

[Mwezzi]

I suppose it's a bit like the legalities surrounding sex with minors - i.e. 14 year olds, not 5 year olds. They cannot legally give consent even if they say they felt they were ready, felt mature enough, had all the information and then gave consent, as by law they aren't mature enough to do so. I guess another reasoning behind the law is that, as GBH and normal torture is illegal you cannot actually consent to having a crime performed upon you, or something.

[bikuki]

Funny thing about consenting minors is that under 16s are perfectly able to consent for invasive medical procedures or treatment, as long as they can demonstrate a mature understanding of the risks and benefits.

[Stew]

Sex shops have never been able to sell this kind of material. Licensed sex shops still have a fairly narrow range of what they can sell. If you remember, hardcore pornography was pretty much illegal until very recently. The internet changed the basis for that, however. Which is why there's this move away from solely placing the burden on the publisher of material. I'm not sure I particularly agree with it, but it's certainly not restricting the sale of anything you could buy in a shop.

I don't believe that there's any real need for a law banning possession of pornography featuring bestiality, necrophilia, torture or murder, but neither is it going to result in mass jailing for possession of "Bloodied Sphincters Vol. 8". It's a shitty law, but that's about it.

[LesMTS]

At the risk of ENRAGING Zooropa, 4chan users are worried this will see the IWF blocking access to the site from the UK.
Possibly legitimately.

[Draven]

No loss there then Les.

[LesMTS]

The 2% utter genius to 98% garbage makes it worth visiting.