Posted by Smartarse
on Sat 29 Oct 05, 11:59 AM to Smartarse's blog.
Sorry, this is one of those boring serious ones.
I can't make my mind up about the government initiative to criminalise possession of 'violent' pornography. I've read a tiny bit around the issues. I quickly came to the conclusion that it's very difficult to say, before it becomes law, how much impact the legislation will have. This is because it comes down to enforcement and to defining what isn't acceptable image by image. I do know I want to say something about it, but I'm fearful that I will make myself the focus of some police campaign. Perhaps that's just paranoia. But I do not trust the authorities in this country to play fair. And that's why I have so far avoided getting involved with any activism.
I have concerns about this intiative to tighten controls on pornography.
First, it is based on a single murder case commited by one individual. And the object of the legislation is to prevent that kind of murder happening again. I think it's tragic that the murder occurred, but blaming it on the accessibility of pornography is plain stupid. Drawing a direct link between looking at violent pornography and commiting violent acts implies that anyone who views the images is likely to commit similar acts. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows things are just not that simple. And to point the finger in one direction only, ignores the other contributing factors to the tragedy.
I do not believe that viewing pornography makes any difference to a persons development. It may help feed an obsession but even if pornography isn't available, that obsession will be fed. Pornography does not make so called aberant sexual behaviour. It is upbringing that makes perverts. My own interest in BDSM was present from the age of three. I first saw vanilla pornography at the age of about 12 and very educational it was too. If I saw something at that age that didn't interest me, I would just pass over it. The rare images of bondage I found were of interest. But not only images but written descriptions too. And very often it would be from lurid newspaper reports of serial killers or white slave traffickers. Just the sort of thing there will be more of if people start getting prosecuted for possession of images. If someone is obsessed with climbing Everest you will not prevent them from climbing Everest by restricting access to pictures of mountains.
I believe there is a strong link between a sexually repressed upbringing and an interest in BDSM. Certainly a much stronger link than there is between pornography and behaviour. Clamping down on BDSM porn - sending a clear message that this behaviour will not be tolerated in our society - to paraphrase the govt, is likely to lead to more people being brought up in a sexually repressed atmosphere, thus leading to more people in our society with these leanings. More unhappy, sexually unfulfilled, thrill seeking people. There's a reason why one of the porn sites is called Catholic Guilt.
Having made my case against control, I'm concerned that there is stuff out there that needs to be banned. If the authorities are powerless to prosecute vendors based oversees, and can't stop it being downloaded, I can see that they would want to redress the balance by prosecuting the end user. That puts the responsibility for deciding what is okay to download on the end user. The problem is educating the end user. I can't see how that can be done without providing examples and I fear that the simple solution is to blanket ban everything.
| 29 Oct 05, 1:32 PM erostratus UK, 7 yrs |
This is a case where the desire to legislate the risks out of life is deemed to take precedence over the rights of the individual. It is merely an extension of political correctness to ones most personal life. My position on that is well known; I find such attitudes completely reprehensible and unworthy of contempt, let alone opposition. But we are threatened and thus one must oppose, however tiresome the need to do so..
Why is there such a need? For in the process of preventing the few provable abuses caused by individuals particularly susceptible to acting out their fantasies (and they do exist), we are required to surrender our individuality. As I've suggested before, life is about the pursuit of happiness, both spiritual and material. Not about mindless adherence to a phiiosophy of "safety at all costs". Life is a risk; you could suffer any form of death tomorrow morning. We do not prohibit religion, even though the odd religious fanatic has killed far more people in this country this year than the odd few delusional psycopaths with an interest in BDSM ever did. Most crimes of sexual violence are motivated by interests other than BDSM. With regard to paedophiles, we already have powers enough to deal with those; plod has a pretty good record in that regard.
Which puts us back in the fifties. In fact we'll probably going to need another case along the lines of "Lady Chatterly's Lover" to regain what we'll lose here. And just at a time when Bliar is thinking about a Ministry of Justice. Now, funnily enough, I've never come across one of those that wasn't in the pocket of that states government. For all the faults of our justice system, even the sometimes ludicrous decisions and sentences handed down by our judiciary, at this time we should strive just as strongly to preserve their independence, for without it we will be truly lost.
If life is so good, why do people die? Edited 29 Oct 05, 1:58 PM by erostratus | |||
| 29 Oct 05, 2:03 PM English_Hellfire UK(LA), 6 yrs |
hmmm surely this new legislation is just closing a gap between the computer world and the real world? the censorship is in place already with regard to sex shops, tv, radio broadcasts etc.... the problem is a simple one the internet lets people avoid all the censorship allready present in society generally. The legislation when it comes will be the same style of censorship as seen in sex shops etc... the main thing that burns people is that suddenly a loophole in censorship we have all enjoyed is apparently about to be closed....yes there are arguments about "minority groups" the "nanny state" "freedom of expression" etc but unless we can make society generally a censorship free zone laws regarding downloading must have the same basis as those regarding broadcast and possesion.... It wasnt that long ago that their was little or no legislation to combat child porn on the net, thankfully now their is. So some censorship is good. However when it directly affects us we dont like it... my question is simply do we have a free for all anarchy, or a society based on law and censorship... handgun possesion was banned after Dunblain... i wonder how many people who are screaming freedom of expression/lifestyle where pro handgun ban... or foxhunting...or cock fighting... restrictions on lifestyle/ interests etc are a fact of life I fully support an equallity between the internet and real life... I think people are mixing up a loophole in legislation on the net with "the real world"... surely the aim must therefore be to change the standards of cesorship in society and not just defending a loophole? I seriously doubt wether pictures taken between partners would be afffected by this legislation unless A) already illegal under the spanner ruling(then they would form evidence for a court case anyway...so a no brianer) B) where being traded on the net. Fighting the argument as a mainstream 1)rigth to lifestyle and 2)censorship issue is the only way to persue this....sadly the deck is stacked, the outcome of Spanner has allready decided what we are out to deffend is imagery of activities that to a degree are already perceived to be illegal... so if Spanner stands then this is going to be a short vehement fight with only one outcome. Stand before you god, bow before your King and kneel before your man. 29 Oct 05, 2:03 PM | |||
| 29 Oct 05, 2:21 PM Whipcracker UK(WV), 11 yrs  |
I think a great many people feel the same way that you do but if there were a blanket ban on everything (which would be unworkable) it would class everyone the same as the worst cases. If nothing else the campaign might mean the line in the sand is drawn closer to the images they are supposed to be trying to criminalise rather than to herd us all together with necrophiliacs and paedophiles.
The government say in the consultation document that they have no proof of a direct link between viewing violent porn and violent sexual crimes so they ask us for our views. Reverse the argument and ask them how they expect us to make a judgement when we have even fewer facts at our disposal than the government has.
I sympathise with the family of the victim in the murder case but the murderer was involved in neck fetish and asphyxiation many years before he had a computer. I see no reason to assume that everyone else with a computer will suddenly develop a similar fetish and start murdering people willy-nilly.
I would have thought that most people would want to enjoy their fetish time and again and would perform it in as Safe, Sane and Consensual manner as possible. It rather defeats the object if you make the mistake of killing the other participant at the first attempt.
There are people who drive like lunatics but very few who deliberately try to kill while driving, those that do deseve to be jailed as murderers but that doesn't mean we need a law to ban driving for all of us. Mick_H
| |||
| 29 Oct 05, 2:22 PM estarriol UK(S), 7 yrs |
The 2 biggest issues with the current consultation document, and the 2 points that cause the highest level of concern is that: i) There is not to be a legal set of rules on what does or does not come under parts iii and iv of the images at risk. Much play is made of applying the same definitions as used by the bbfc, and that what is or is not acceptable will be up to a jury. In theory this is fine, in practice it means that someone charged under the act would have to wait for the 9 months or more until it comes to trial, and as you are charged with an offence that warrents an entry in the sex offenders register, this could have serious repurcussions for anyone in an employment sense whether they are found guilty or not. ii) The fact that the consultations preffered outcome would make viewing such images illegal, not just possession or distributing, but the act of looking at them would become an offence as well, this particular aspect far exceeds the Obscene Publications Act of which much play is made of bringing internet images into line with. This consultation has the potential to not only ciminalise images now, but to be tightened in more morally upright times (for want of a better term) in the future. It is like a lot of knee jerk legislation, badly thought out and a sledgehammer to crack a nut, welcome to the consultation to the dangerous dogs (internet images) act. And before any comments of it doesn't affect me or concern me, please add the word 'now' to the end of the sentance and see where that thought leads, it does concern you, tere are pictures used here attached to profiles and displayed next to there users names that may fall foul of the act, so even viewing IC as it now stands would make you a criminal. /me passes on the soapbox to another. This was a public service announcement from the Dragons Friendly Society. |
