This thread is a continuation of "Tamworth pigs have no proper crimes to solve"
This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.
| 28 May 11, 11:22 PM Silent_Storm UK(M), 6 yrs     |
You can stage pics as being realistic when they are not, throw some fake blood over the rings take a few pics and it would not look too good.
*Choose Freedom* Sign up to http://www.caan.org.uk | ||||
| 31 May 11, 5:35 AM emark UK, 9 yrs |
Indeed, it's a problem - but this is exactly what they want. The photos can never be shown, the details revealed are only what the police, judge and/or tabloids tell us. The issue of consent is irrelevant in the law, and they'll never tell us if it's consensual. So we have something that people can demonise by conflating it with non-consensual material, and no one dares defend it because of a one in a million chance that it might be a genuine snuff film... (The only exception is when the defendant gets in contact with Backlash/CAAN etc, and pleads Not Guilty - such cases are rare. It's also worth noting that when the details have come out, the so-called "realistic" images have apparently turned out to be far from that.) If this really is a world first example of an adult snuff film, then why isn't there a global manhunt to track down the source and production of the images, to rescue those involved; rather than simply hunting one guy who downloaded them? I would say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If someone wants to suggest that something is non-consensual, then show us the evidence. But the problem is that the police, courts and tabloids reporting don't care about consent - they're making a judgement about the images of certain acts themselves, on a law that we know covers consensual images. And that's something I can criticise. Are any of the people supporting the law, demonising such people and so on, asking themselves, "But what if these images are consensual, or weren't real?"
This also assumes there's a need to criminalse images at all. We don't criminalise images of violence in general, not to mention most crimes. The argument for child porn is that (a) there is evidence that demand for images fuels abuse; (b) there is evidence that real child porn actually exists, in reasonably significant quantities. Neither applies to adult porn. Hell, there's more argument for criminalising images of animal cruelty, images of terrorist attacks, or images of "happy slapping" (in that we know such images of real non-consensual acts actually exist, and in significant quantities), but I don't think many people would argue that these things should be illegal. But we can still frame a law in terms of consent. If we can't tell if a particular image was consensual or not, we apply innocent until proven guilty. And if the police expended the resources of tracing the source of alleged snuff films, instead of going after people for downloading, we might be able to find out if the images were consensual - as well as actually save anyone who might hypothetically be tortured against their will.
I had likely never looked at the images. I had completely forgotten about the mailing list, which I had joined for discussion rather than looking at images, anyway. And the existence of those images isn't obvious by running my email program, only by looking at the hard disk folder through Windows Explorer. But whilst there are defences for accidental downloading - it's one thing if someone accidently stumbles on a website or is sent an unsolicited email; another thing when they'd say I intentionally joined the mailing list, and they'd find plenty of other evidence that I was clearly into BDSM.
Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement Edited 31 May 11, 5:55 AM by emark | ||||
| 31 May 11, 6:31 AM Beau_Tox UK(CB), 7 yrs  |
If I thought that some pics or a movie I'd downloaded were relatively tame on the grand scheme of things and just fell foul of the law, I'd take my chances with hoping for a lenient judge and jury. Not go on the run to another country. . | ||||
| 31 May 11, 7:27 AM SteveBloomer UK(M), 13 mths |
I know nothing about this case but, obviously, the glaring concern is exactly what the images contained and whether there was any consensuality. I'd pause rather than simply jump on any wagon which states that the State should grant unlimited freedoms in a case which might contain elements of coercion. That someone does a runner and incurs the wrath of a Judge certainly raises concern that the images contained within the material under investigation may well have been more than an edited version of a Red Stripe video. My principle concern really is that a criminal judge really does process quite a lot of illegal images as a matter of course within their work and that (i.e. his conclusive remarks in relation to the nature of the images), and balancing the provisions of whatever criminal code is being adhered to makes me wonder just what those images contain. By all means challenge the right of the State to dictate what people are permitted to view, purchase and participate in but I, for one, appreciate that there's already a balancing act conducted by the political and legal process and, by and large, it doesn't do a bad job of it in this country. | ||||
| 31 May 11, 8:01 AM violet_haze UK(TN), 2 yrs |
does it matter? as far as we are concerned, we'd rather have a world with no porn, than see one poor person being genuinely abused. | ||||
| 31 May 11, 12:33 PM keithunder UK(M), 10 yrs |
This is a ridiculous thing to say! So far as I am concerned putting people in prison for viewing consensual adults is an appalling act of abuse. Losing their jobs possibly their homes and whatever might happen to them as a sex offender in our nasty prisons! All this because some third rate politicians wanted to look good to the red tops (and failing), and some crappy tick box cops wanted a result rather than doing their jobs properly. [waits for the over sensitive to get all upset] I suppose you could say "Better no cars or trains, rather than see some poor person hurt." | ||||
| 31 May 11, 12:53 PM Mistress_sultrybelle UK(G), 2 yrs £ |
@flibbertigibbety Well said, the laws are confusing for people.
http://www.mistresssultrybelle.com/ http://www.glasgow-mistress.co.uk/ http://www.glasgowdominatrix.co.uk/ | ||||
| 31 May 11, 3:04 PM Ropework UK(OX), 3 yrs |
No, no, no, with all due respect, Lady Anna, this statement reflects the proverbial road to hell that is paved with good intentions! To legislate against torture, all we have to do is legislate against torture. That is: legislate against the violation of a person, where "violation" are non-consensual acts. Why on earth do you suggest that the difference must be obvious? What do you think about all the egregious violence in most action movies: people being shot, innocent bystanders getting involved in horrendous car crashes, and seemingly uncontrolled explosions that are sure to endanger lives? Besides, would you want to extend your ban to literature as well? Where does that leave free speech, freedom of thought, and art? Don't tell me literature is different because there are no actual people involved, because then you would have to explain why the involvement of consenting actors in front of a camera is any different. In a word: legislate against harmful acts, not the fantasy depiction or description of acts that would be illegal if they were real. Otherwise one might just as well shut down the movie industry and put most authors in jail. Anyone who has ever described in writing or on screen the taking of drugs, killing or maiming of people, theft, robbery, violence, or many other acts that are a staple of literature and film, would have to be investigated. :-:-: Ropework :-:-: | ||||
| 31 May 11, 5:08 PM redcat 9 yrs |
good luck. This link is to a story about someone who got in touch with CAAN for support. We asked if he needed legal representation and he said no, he had a local lawyer...he just wanted support and also the chance to talk to someone who understood the law and we also put him in touch with Jane Fae who has written widely on this law. (hence the story in the link) He was confident that he'd get off....it was only two images one of Tony the talking tiger fucking a woman (a cgi image) and one short clip of person to person extreme porn (that he'd never watched in full as it was sent to him a s ajoke). He was very confident. He came out of his first court hearing with the talking tiger charge dropped and with the person to person porn intact....in fact split into several charges. He had also been told by the judge to go home and pack for a jail sentence. He rang CAAN back...understandably shaken, his life was already upside down...he'd lost access to his daughter and we persuaded him he HAD to take alternative legal advice and put him in touch with Myles Jackman (who is also Backlash's legal advisor). The legal tale ends happily with retraction of his original guilty plea and eventually the CPS not providing evidence. He walked away a free man. But the tale also ends unhappily...it took a year or so for this to grind through the courts... Mr Holland the accused had his name published....he had to move town....he lost his family. I'd say no-one should blithley skip into court becuase they think they may get away with a few dodgy images... thats what Mr Holland thought! edited to add.... not for one instant do i think fleeing the country was a wise move. I hate to think this guy MAY actually have had a valid defence if he'd talked to the right person. Buy a copy of Beyond the Circle CAAN statement of principle. Edited 31 May 11, 5:11 PM by redcat | ||||
| 31 May 11, 5:19 PM Sissy_girl UK(M), 4 yrs    |
I've just read the above & the link . Then I had a thought & a frightening thought at that , too . I am forever receiving junk/spam mail , often with a video/site link & a dubious title to boot . God only knows what's on these as I never opened them . & that's the thought , at any given time , these things are on my computor. Sissy by name & sissy by nature |
