Join the most popular community of UK swingers now

porn / violence laws

last reply

93 replies

4.3k views

5 watchers

0 likes

13 Sep 2005

What does people here think about the new porn / violence laws that are to be introduced?
How will it effect people, like me and hubby, and many others into BDSM.
Are we classed as 'violent' if we whip a poor little subbie...lol. lol

lol

What about all the bdsm/fetish sites on the net?
What about all the varoius groups ( /smartgroups/etc)?
Thet all have pictures on (like us) showing lots of different activities which could be classed as violent, even though it done with a consenting adult.
confused

confused

Christina

wink

13 Sep 2005

Dunno about new laws, but has it not always been the case that BDSM activities could possibly be considered criminal assault? There was a case a few years about where a bunch of guys got prosecuted cos they had filmed themselves engaging in BDSM, which the police found after a raid for something else. I don't recall the details but I know they appealed and went to Europe about it ---- don't think they had their convictions quashed though confused

confused

However, I do believe that consenting mild activities are not considered worthy of prosecution, so unless you are into hanging people up by the toenails and kicking their heads right in, you're probably quite safe.

13 Sep 2005

sticks and stones may break your bones
but
whips and chains exite me
the law is a complete and total arse
if your all freely consenting adults and your doing what you do in the privacy of your own home or members club
it should be NO body elses business but your own

13 Sep 2005

Quote by SXBOY
sticks and stones may break your bones
but
whips and chains exite me
the law is a complete and total arse
if your all freely consenting adults and your doing what you do in the privacy of your own home or members club
it should be NO body elses business but your own

I've never understood the excitement of beating someone up or being beaten up for sexual pleasure, but I hv to agree with you Sxboy, what consenting adults do behind closed doors should be their own business, imho.
This is one of those strange laws (like many indecency laws), where someone raises an objection and the state feels it has to respond positively to it or be seen as condoning it.
It has to be said that in years gone by, morality was moderated by the Church, which motivated us to behave in a certain way by mortal fear. Rightly or wrongly, this influence has declined and the state has taken it upon itself to be the arbiter of general morality and permissiveness...they should be careful though, too many ministers have been caught with their pants (& panties) down and eating forbidden fruit (usually satsumas)!

13 Sep 2005

This'll be like all the other laws. They won't be able to catch the really nasty people, so they'll nick the naughty ones.
I don't mean the cops will be raiding private dungeons.
But I bet you ISPs will stop hosting even the mildest bondage images; and a few nice harmless people will be very publicly nicked for being in possession of obscene material.
Prepare to saw up those hard drives. It's a sad, mad world. I'm not into BDSM, but I shiver for those who are.

13 Sep 2005

What new law are we talking about exactly anyway? Does anyone have a link?
Yeah, yeah, google is my friend lol

lol

:lol: :lol: :lol:

13 Sep 2005

Quote by bluexxx
What new law are we talking about exactly anyway? Does anyone have a link?
Yeah, yeah, google is my friend :lol: :lol: :lol:

..have a look here Blue:

13 Sep 2005

Blue, a quick google found this one:

13 Sep 2005

I agree that MOST forms of sexual behaviour and pornography is the individuals choice. What happens behind closed doors is nobody's business apart from the people concerned.
As has been stated here the only people that are going to get caught are those who have 'naughty' fun with willing partners, not the nasty perverted extremists that use force and violence on those that don't want to participate.
I can understand where the authorities are coming from thou', a lot of sites on the net fall, (and there are places that this happens in local towns and cities) into the second catergory and it is those that they should be trying to stop not A, B and C who go to their local fetish club to enjoy themselves or have a house party with like minded individuals.
Where is the line drawn thou', there was a case in europe not so long ago where canabolism occured (to the death), both parties agreed and signed statements to that effect. dunno

dunno

13 Sep 2005

After years of research there is still no firm evidence to suggest that violence in the Cinema or on the television or on the internet encourages people to behave in a violent way.... you see the irony is you can have a film portraying someone going berserk with a machine gun or chopping people's fingers off as in ''men on fire'' and it is perfectly all right for people to watch such violent and sum of these films you do not even need to 18
But the minute you introduce the word sex... it all becomes a different ball game
you see it is always this double standard... be as violent as you like... machine gun thousands of people... use a samurai swords to slowly cut up your victims and while they are still alive of course.. no problem... the kids love it ...But the minute you mention sex or enjoying yourself through some perverse practice that could be labelled as sex
you'll have every religious group in the country trying to ban it.......
and remember you can sell anything using sex as long as it's not ''SEX''... sad

sad

:( :(

13 Sep 2005

poliltitians and do good ers
there are too many missionary position ,,once a month prudes out there
get a life ,,get in touch with your sexuality and needs and give it a go
then maybe you will understand others needs

13 Sep 2005

There are some religious sects..... one is attached to the Catholic Church...... that condone self-flagellation..... but if this came up under scrutiny under the new laws... then the Human Rights Act would be invoked.... under... its my religion so i should be allowed to do this......
Strange world we live in..... not only one rule for the rich and one for the poor.... but also one for those living a certain lifestyle... surely Human Rights becomes an issue in this case also?????
equi-princess xxx

13 Sep 2005

Quote by SXBOY
poliltitians and do good ers
there are too many missionary position ,,once a month prudes out there
get a life ,,get in touch with your sexuality and needs and give it a go
then maybe you will understand others needs

..are your comments directed at anyone in particular Sxboy? Telling people what they should be doing is just as bad as telling them what they shouldn't :shock:

13 Sep 2005

Heres a question tho, if a video is found and the person it tied up and gagged how do you know they are willing and are not being abused?
Plus i have always wondered how far some people will take it, ok i know that in the DBSM scene most people are willing both ways but some people will take it a step further in order to feel the power it gives them, so as police where do u draw the line? Plus i have seen some vids where the people are having some right nasty things done to them, i saw one once where a woman was having big hat pins thro her boobs and a guy having his nuts nailed to a table...come on i'm sorry but these people need protecting from themselves

13 Sep 2005

Quote by naughtynymphos1
Heres a question tho, if a video is found and the person it tied up and gagged how do you know they are willing and are not being abused?
Plus i have always wondered how far some people will take it, ok i know that in the DBSM scene most people are willing both ways but some people will take it a step further in order to feel the power it gives them, so as police where do u draw the line? Plus i have seen some vids where the people are having some right nasty things done to them, i saw one once where a woman was having big hat pins thro her boobs and a guy having his nuts nailed to a table...come on i'm sorry but these people need protecting from themselves

Hmm I think the case that blue referred to above was a gay guy BDSM group some members of whom got off on (amongst other things) having their scrotums nailed to planks of wood. Ultimately I believe that the law really has no place creating victimless crimes and that it is not the role of government to force morality upon the general populace. I was also under the impression that the EU Court of Human Rights ultimately reached the same decision in this case (but I might be mistaken here).
I suspect that many contributors to this forum will however have their own views of what constitutes disgusting and disgraceful behaviour which "must be stopped!", all that differs between individuals will be where the "line" is actually drawn. The reality in banning any material should be as follows IMHO :-
Is there compelling evidence that watching any material increases the rate of assault or other crimes directly related to the material?
If the answer to this question is no, then government of any persuasion has no right to restrict individual freedom. The really oppressive part of this and other similar legislation though is that it is an offence to simulate something whcih could be abusive (e.g. simulated scenes, which are a common fantasy for males and females alike, according to research), are just as criminal as filming an actual assault. This is crazy in my opinion and designed only to simplify enforcement as far as I can see. If we take this approach to its logical conclusion there would be very few films availabe for viewing in the UK since any featuring (i.e. simulating) any crime from robbery to physical assault (i.e fight scenes, punching etc) would be banned.
Governments of all persuasions have been remarkably swift to "take action" on issues affecting individual liberties in the sexual arena, because they know only too well that very few will publicly oppose them. It might be a start if we could all support the rights of anyone to view anything not actually proven to cause direct harm to the wider populace.
The idea that people need "protecting from themselves" is exactly the sort of nonsense the so called "moral majority" use to justify any restriction of individual freedom for the "greater good". Again take this to it's logical conclusion and we are all seriously in danger of being corrupted by our membership of this very forum. Would the last person to leave then please turn out the lights :P
Adults in a civilised society deserve the right to be treated as adults and to make decisions on an adult basis even if that has potentially harmful consequences for them. Or is parachute jumping, deep sea diving, rock climbing etc. also to be banned to protect the participants "from themselves".
For what its worth I find some of the practices to be included in this new legislation both offensive and repugnant, but I truly believe in freedom of expression and the right for individuals to express themselves and engage in practices I find offensive, because the idea of a nanny state controlling aspects of its citizens lives that is absolutely none of its business, is even more offensive.

13 Sep 2005

Quote by bucksfuncpl
Heres a question tho, if a video is found and the person it tied up and gagged how do you know they are willing and are not being abused?
Plus i have always wondered how far some people will take it, ok i know that in the DBSM scene most people are willing both ways but some people will take it a step further in order to feel the power it gives them, so as police where do u draw the line? Plus i have seen some vids where the people are having some right nasty things done to them, i saw one once where a woman was having big hat pins thro her boobs and a guy having his nuts nailed to a table...come on i'm sorry but these people need protecting from themselves

Hmm I think the case that blue referred to above was a gay guy BDSM group some members of whom got off on (amongst other things) having their scrotums nailed to planks of wood. Ultimately I believe that the law really has no place creating victimless crimes and that it is not the role of government to force morality upon the general populace. I was also under the impression that the EU Court of Human Rights ultimately reached the same decision in this case (but I might be mistaken here).
I suspect that many contributors to this forum will however have their own views of what constitutes disgusting and disgraceful behaviour which "must be stopped!", all that differs between individuals will be where the "line" is actually drawn. The reality in banning any material should be as follows IMHO :-
Is there compelling evidence that watching any material increases the rate of assault or other crimes directly related to the material?
If the answer to this question is no, then government of any persuasion has no right to restrict individual freedom. The really oppressive part of this and other similar legislation though is that it is an offence to simulate something whcih could be abusive (e.g. simulated scenes, which are a common fantasy for males and females alike, according to research), are just as criminal as filming an actual assault. This is crazy in my opinion and designed only to simplify enforcement as far as I can see. If we take this approach to its logical conclusion there would be very few films availabe for viewing in the UK since any featuring (i.e. simulating) any crime from robbery to physical assault (i.e fight scenes, punching etc) would be banned.
Governments of all persuasions have been remarkably swift to "take action" on issues affecting individual liberties in the sexual arena, because they know only too well that very few will publicly oppose them. It might be a start if we could all support the rights of anyone to view anything not actually proven to cause direct harm to the wider populace.
The idea that people need "protecting from themselves" is exactly the sort of nonsense the so called "moral majority" use to justify any restriction of individual freedom for the "greater good". Again take this to it's logical conclusion and we are all seriously in danger of being corrupted by our membership of this very forum. Would the last person to leave then please turn out the lights :P
Adults in a civilised society deserve the right to be treated as adults and to make decisions on an adult basis even if that has potentially harmful consequences for them. Or is parachute jumping, deep sea diving, rock climbing etc. also to be banned to protect the participants "from themselves".
For what its worth I find some of the practices to be included in this new legislation both offensive and repugnant, but I truly believe in freedom of expression and the right for individuals to express themselves and engage in practices I find offensive, because the idea of a nanny state controlling aspects of its citizens lives that is absolutely none of its business, is even more offensive.
what they said :thumbup:

13 Sep 2005

Well said, Bucksfun.
This has bugger-all to do with protecting vulnerable people, and everything to do with dried-up right-on political wimmin who find all pornography demeaning. Backed up of course by the usual press sensationalists: "Does YOUR child have a perve in her puter?"
And all the time, of course, doing bugger-all to actually "protect" anyone.
But this is the sort of government we've got. More like the Soviet Union every day.

13 Sep 2005

alspals
not directed at anyone in particular
however you should be able to tell that its aimed fairly and squarely at the puritans outside of communities like ours who love to interfere with others freedoms

13 Sep 2005

Has anyone else here read the consultation document ?
The law doesn't look too bad to be honest. It addresses:
-Necrophilia
-
-And "serious sexual violence", which is defined as violence occasioning Grevious Bodily Harm
Bondage, and the vast majority of S& M activities would not be caught by these rules - even a severe whipping which leaves marks would only be Actual Bodily Harm or Wounding.
GBH generally means broken bones, internal injuries or psychiatric damage - stuff that certainly should NOT be depicted. "Naughty" photos (or even pretty hardcore stuff showing needleplay etc) should not be affected if I read it correctly. Whether this will deter bored vice squad coppers from causing trouble is another concern.
Of course, there is still plenty of scope to for them to screw this up in the implementation, so if you really care about the dangers of this, it might be a good idea to send your views to:
Consultation on Possession of Extreme Pornography
Criminal Law Policy Unit
2nd Floor, Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
Tel:
Fax:
Email:

13 Sep 2005

Quote by ChairmanMiaow
Has anyone else here read the consultation document ?
The law doesn't look too bad to be honest. It addresses:
-Necrophilia
-
-And "serious sexual violence", which is defined as violence occasioning Grevious Bodily Harm
Bondage, and the vast majority of S& M activities would not be caught by these rules - even a severe whipping which leaves marks would only be Actual Bodily Harm or Wounding.
GBH generally means broken bones, internal injuries or psychiatric damage - stuff that certainly should NOT be depicted. "Naughty" photos (or even pretty hardcore stuff showing needleplay etc) should not be affected if I read it correctly. Whether this will deter bored vice squad coppers from causing trouble is another concern.
Of course, there is still plenty of scope to for them to screw this up in the implementation, so if you really care about the dangers of this, it might be a good idea to send your views to:
Consultation on Possession of Extreme Pornography
Criminal Law Policy Unit
2nd Floor, Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
Tel:
Fax:
Email:

which would still be a criminal record..great sexual violence on your cv !!!!!!

13 Sep 2005

Quote by Kniphofia
Well said, Bucksfun.
This has bugger-all to do with protecting vulnerable people, and everything to do with dried-up right-on political wimmin who find all pornography demeaning. Backed up of course by the usual press sensationalists: "Does YOUR child have a perve in her puter?"
And all the time, of course, doing bugger-all to actually "protect" anyone.
But this is the sort of government we've got. More like the Soviet Union every day.

..I know some very nice, sexually liberated 'dried up, right on political wimmin'! redface

redface

Let's get serious now....I firmly believe that consenting adults should be left to do what they want to do, without state interference, the proposals about violent sexual images and their possession are only being discussed following a consultation document prepared by the Scottish Executive, following concern amongst other things about the free access to the Internet and as such violent sexual images, by children.
This is a real minefield-freedom of information/speech and self determination versus the protection of minors from viewing extreme images.
When we were growing up (us post 40 oldies), we only had the opportunity of a quick peek at our parents summer edition of Health & Efficiency (I still go goose-pimpledly thinking about all those naked ping-pong playing ladies!). Times have changed and whilst all responsible parents ensure that they monitor their kids internet acitivity, there are plenty who don't and need protection..crikey, reading that back it sounds like I'm for the new proposals...see how easy it is to sympathise with the banning perspective??

13 Sep 2005

Quote by alspals
Well said, Bucksfun.
This has bugger-all to do with protecting vulnerable people, and everything to do with dried-up right-on political wimmin who find all pornography demeaning. Backed up of course by the usual press sensationalists: "Does YOUR child have a perve in her puter?"
And all the time, of course, doing bugger-all to actually "protect" anyone.
But this is the sort of government we've got. More like the Soviet Union every day.

..I know some very nice, sexually liberated 'dried up, right on political wimmin'! redface

redface

Let's get serious now....I firmly believe that consenting adults should be left to do what they want to do, without state interference, the proposals about violent sexual images and their possession are only being discussed following a consultation document prepared by the Scottish Executive, following concern amongst other things about the free access to the Internet and as such violent sexual images, by children.
This is a real minefield-freedom of information/speech and self determination versus the protection of minors from viewing extreme images.
When we were growing up (us post 40 oldies), we only had the opportunity of a quick peek at our parents summer edition of Health & Efficiency (I still go goose-pimpledly thinking about all those naked ping-pong playing ladies!). Times have changed and whilst all responsible parents ensure that they monitor their kids internet acitivity, there are plenty who don't and need protection..crikey, reading that back it sounds like I'm for the new proposals...see how easy it is to sympathise with the banning perspective??
My understanding is that the proposals are a response to a reasonably high profile case where some pervert actually killed a girl and as part of his defence he trotted out the usual sad old chestnut about how none of it was his fault he had been corrupted by evil images and footage from the internet/films/tv/conjured up by god (delete as appropriate). I find it quite extraordinary that in the years of trying there has been no substantiated and conclusive evidence to suggest that violence on TV leads to violence in society, let alone any evidence to suggest that viiolent pornography increases the incidence of violent sexual behaviour. There is a known connection between tobacco smoking and harm to health of smokers and those around them (including children) yet is smoking banned? Am I the only person who finds it quite extraordinary that a government can conceive of restricting peoples liberty like this WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE WILL BE ANY EFFECT WHATSOEVER.
As an adult without (as yet) children, I vehemently oppose my civil liberties being trampled on the somewhat spurious grounds of "protecting children".

13 Sep 2005

Quote by bucksfuncpl
My understanding is that the proposals are a response to a reasonably high profile case where some pervert actually killed a girl and as part of his defence he trotted out the usual sad old chestnut about how none of it was his fault he had been corrupted by evil images and footage from the internet/films/tv/conjured up by god (delete as appropriate). I find it quite extraordinary that in the years of trying there has been no substantiated and conclusive evidence to suggest that violence on TV leads to violence in society, let alone any evidence to suggest that viiolent pornography increases the incidence of violent sexual behaviour. There is a known connection between tobacco smoking and harm to health of smokers and those around them (including children) yet is smoking banned? Am I the only person who finds it quite extraordinary that a government can conceive of restricting peoples liberty like this WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE WILL BE ANY EFFECT WHATSOEVER.
As an adult without (as yet) children, I vehemently oppose my civil liberties being trampled on the somewhat spurious grounds of "protecting children".

Bucksfuncpl..I supported your original post and I am in not defending these proposals per se. However I dont think your (or my) civil liberties are more important than the 'spurious protection of children', I for one would not want my children having free access to violent sexual images and the way the law stands now, that is the case. Issues like these need sensible discussion in an open forum and the freedom of the individual considered against the protection of minors. Incidentally, I see this as the only valid reason for such legislation smile

smile

13 Sep 2005

Quote by alspals

My understanding is that the proposals are a response to a reasonably high profile case where some pervert actually killed a girl and as part of his defence he trotted out the usual sad old chestnut about how none of it was his fault he had been corrupted by evil images and footage from the internet/films/tv/conjured up by god (delete as appropriate). I find it quite extraordinary that in the years of trying there has been no substantiated and conclusive evidence to suggest that violence on TV leads to violence in society, let alone any evidence to suggest that viiolent pornography increases the incidence of violent sexual behaviour. There is a known connection between tobacco smoking and harm to health of smokers and those around them (including children) yet is smoking banned? Am I the only person who finds it quite extraordinary that a government can conceive of restricting peoples liberty like this WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE WILL BE ANY EFFECT WHATSOEVER.
As an adult without (as yet) children, I vehemently oppose my civil liberties being trampled on the somewhat spurious grounds of "protecting children".

Bucksfuncpl..I supported your original post and I am in not defending these proposals per se. However I dont think your (or my) civil liberties are more important than the 'spurious protection of children', I for one would not want my children having free access to violent sexual images and the way the law stands now, that is the case. Issues like these need sensible discussion in an open forum and the freedom of the individual considered against the protection of minors. Incidentally, I see this as the only valid reason for such legislation smile

smile

Alspals
I respect your opinion but I fundamentally disagree. The responsibility to protect children from unsavoury aspects of life lies primarily with the parents and not the legal system. These proposals will do nothing to restrict the availability of this material in the UK (except from a limited number of UK based sites). Thus I fail to see how it could possibly be seen as primarily a piece of child protection legislation. Rather it will criminalise those who "enjoy" this material and/or keep this material on their pc's (presumably parents would be more sensible than to retain such material on their family PC).
This is pioneering legislation in the "free" world. No other major democratic country has attempted to impose such restrictions on internet use and viewing. The idea that this is being done for child protection purposes is I believe a fallacy and to say that protection of minors is always a fundamentally better option than the protection of adult liberties helps to lubricate a very slippery slope indeed.
You do indeed have a right to your opinion, and it may well be the majority opinion, I just believe you are totally wrong albeit for sincere and understandable reasons.

13 Sep 2005

In answer to a few above comments, i agree that what we decide to do with our bodies is our choice however i was commenting on a post where someone had commented on a recording of a BDSM session and the point i was trying to make is if its a recording how do the police know the person tied up and gagged is there of their own free will or not? its hard to decide whats ok and whats not, if someone choses to be abused in such a way and it gets out of hand and that person dies (which has happened on many occasions) should the person being the dom be prosicuted or does the law say...oh well it was their choice to be abused such is life?......the point i was trying to make is sometimes people need protecting from themselves, and i don't mean light bondage or flogging, and nor does the law i wouldn't imagine, i mean people who are into serious pain, tho i have to admit it is a difficult one cause theres a fine line between protecting people and taking away their freedom

13 Sep 2005

Quote by alspals

My understanding is that the proposals are a response to a reasonably high profile case where some pervert actually killed a girl and as part of his defence he trotted out the usual sad old chestnut about how none of it was his fault he had been corrupted by evil images and footage from the internet/films/tv/conjured up by god (delete as appropriate). I find it quite extraordinary that in the years of trying there has been no substantiated and conclusive evidence to suggest that violence on TV leads to violence in society, let alone any evidence to suggest that viiolent pornography increases the incidence of violent sexual behaviour. There is a known connection between tobacco smoking and harm to health of smokers and those around them (including children) yet is smoking banned? Am I the only person who finds it quite extraordinary that a government can conceive of restricting peoples liberty like this WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE WILL BE ANY EFFECT WHATSOEVER.
As an adult without (as yet) children, I vehemently oppose my civil liberties being trampled on the somewhat spurious grounds of "protecting children".

Bucksfuncpl..I supported your original post and I am in not defending these proposals per se. However I dont think your (or my) civil liberties are more important than the 'spurious protection of children', I for one would not want my children having free access to violent sexual images and the way the law stands now, that is the case. Issues like these need sensible discussion in an open forum and the freedom of the individual considered against the protection of minors. Incidentally, I see this as the only valid reason for such legislation smile

smile

The new law does not stop or prevent access to such images, what it does do is make having that type of content on your HD a criminal offence.... so in effect does nothing and is a typical knee jerk reaction law that potentially criminalises people (your children included) for "downloading/viewing" said images.
Like many quick fix laws this covernment introduces it is baised on a few vocal people trying to make a name and has very little to do with actually creating laws that protect the vunerable.
The fact is that the man who killed the woman was a violent psycopath whos lawers trotted out the old clique of "it was not me it was x/y/z that made me do it guvnor." The fact is there is more evidence that people who watch porn and even violent porn (and/or BDSM) are more likely to get their jollies and reach sexual satisfaction which slates the thirst and actually prevents them going and commiting acts of sexual violence towards people. Someone who has wanked off over a porn vid is far less likely to then go and someone than someone who is sexualy frustrated and socially inadiquate.
There are people who are pre-disposed towards , violence, murder, pediophillia, etc... but that is down to them and their mentality and has nothing to do with watching vidieos, viewing photographs etc.... Where there is a problem is in the creation of the material that they want to view, especially child porn, as sometimes the creation involves real abuse; sadly the creators of real acts of abuse are rarely the ones caught.
In the case of BDSM and fantisy etc... it is often "performed" by concenting adults and anyone with half a brain realises that it is a fantisy creation and knows that it is something they would not do "for real." Even the creation of BDSM material that is "real" such as kneedle play or wax or hard flogging/caning etc is still done within defined limits of the people involved.
While I could never " " someone for real, tying a consenting but struggling partner up and just fucking them is extreemly stimulating, as is verbalising by saying things such as "get on your knees you dirty bitch and suck my cock" if you've ever done that or done something such as spank your partners arse while fucking them or while out just pushed them down an allyway and up against a wall and just fucked them "forceably" then you've engaged in the milder side of BDSM play.
(sorry got sidetracked)
The problem with this law is that it will be ill defined and to open ended and will do nothing to actually prevent real acts of violence and ... in the case of necrophillia what about all the "suicide girl" shots of goths in baths with slashed wrists etc. Zombie girls/guys photos that are more to do with titilation than necrophillia, with the law looking as though it is going to be so loosely defined such photographs could protentially criminalise anyone who is interested in such material.
I myself did a "ritual suicide" shoot with a good friend of mine (we didnt use them in the end as the "blood" didnt look real enough) that style of photograph could potentially land me, and some very well known photographers, and anyone who views them in court.
Lets not forget that this covernment also managed to turn anyone who has any photographs of samantha fox and a host of other page 3 girls between the ages of 16 and 18 into a in the eyes of the law thanks to the CJA and some very badly and loosly worded parts of the act.

13 Sep 2005

Quote by bucksfuncpl

Bucksfuncpl..I supported your original post and I am in not defending these proposals per se. However I dont think your (or my) civil liberties are more important than the 'spurious protection of children', I for one would not want my children having free access to violent sexual images and the way the law stands now, that is the case. Issues like these need sensible discussion in an open forum and the freedom of the individual considered against the protection of minors. Incidentally, I see this as the only valid reason for such legislation

Alspals
I respect your opinion but I fundamentally disagree. The responsibility to protect children from unsavoury aspects of life lies primarily with the parents and not the legal system. These proposals will do nothing to restrict the availability of this material in the UK (except from a limited number of UK based sites). Thus I fail to see how it could possibly be seen as primarily a piece of child protection legislation. Rather it will criminalise those who "enjoy" this material and/or keep this material on their pc's (presumably parents would be more sensible than to retain such material on their family PC).
This is pioneering legislation in the "free" world. No other major democratic country has attempted to impose such restrictions on internet use and viewing. The idea that this is being done for child protection purposes is I believe a fallacy and to say that protection of minors is always a fundamentally better option than the protection of adult liberties helps to lubricate a very slippery slope indeed.
You do indeed have a right to your opinion, and it may well be the majority opinion, I just believe you are totally wrong albeit for sincere and understandable reasons.
...Bucks...I am not supporting or decrying any proposals..I just said that the consultation paper opens up legitimate debate.
The arrival and advances in the internet means that technology moves faster than our thought processes do. Five years ago my 14yo had limited internet access because it was a dial up connection and I was always policing his activity mainly because it was costsing me money! Now kids can get in from school, sit at a pc and surf to their hearts content on a broadband enabled machine in their bedrooms. I agree with what you say about child protection being an issue for the parents (I said the same in an earlier post on this thread), but it isthe state's responsibility to protect the children of irresponsible parents.
Who's to say what effect violent sexual images have on minors? It may have no negative effect at all, or no more so than any type of violent image, but it should still be open to discussion and debate. Hope that clarifies my position. biggrin

biggrin

Ps..you also mention that no other democracy has sought to legislate on this issue....this link will make your eyes water

13 Sep 2005

Alpsals
I have stopped quoting because I tend to find too many nested quotes irritating and hard to read. The CDA in the US is not that different from existing obscene publications legislation in the UK. It s essentially a prohibition on the publication of material. This is easy to circumvent in practice by moving the hosting "offshore".
The UK proposals are unique as piercedJon remarked, that they essentially criminalise the viewing of material. The offence becomes one of "looking" at something that is deemed unacceptable (since in practice images are stored on harddrives involuntarily due to the way in which browser software and windows operating systems work). Only in more repressive regimes such as China has there been similar attempts to criminalise the viewing of material other than child pornography.
Once essential freedom is eroded in this way, where does it end? Those willing to give up the freedom they enjoy for a greater good might consider the amount of freedom they might ultimately be surrendering.

13 Sep 2005

Quote by SXBOY
Has anyone else here read the consultation document ?
The law doesn't look too bad to be honest. It addresses:
-Necrophilia
-
-And "serious sexual violence", which is defined as violence occasioning Grevious Bodily Harm
Bondage, and the vast majority of S& M activities would not be caught by these rules - even a severe whipping which leaves marks would only be Actual Bodily Harm or Wounding.
GBH generally means broken bones, internal injuries or psychiatric damage - stuff that certainly should NOT be depicted. "Naughty" photos (or even pretty hardcore stuff showing needleplay etc) should not be affected if I read it correctly. Whether this will deter bored vice squad coppers from causing trouble is another concern.
Of course, there is still plenty of scope to for them to screw this up in the implementation, so if you really care about the dangers of this, it might be a good idea to send your views to:
Consultation on Possession of Extreme Pornography
Criminal Law Policy Unit
2nd Floor, Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
Tel:
Fax:
Email:

which would still be a criminal record..great sexual violence on your cv !!!!!!
what on earth are you talking about - did you even bother reading the post properly?
whipping someone is currently assault/ABH/wounding - as unfortunate men in the Spanner case found out, you cannot consent to be consulted (don't know if any case law has changed things since then).
The proposed laws won't actually change any of that....
I see that some people on this board prefer to do their best chicken little impersonation and complain bitterly about civil liberties rather than equip themselves with the facts.
I reiterate my question - has anyone on this thread actually read the consultation document, or are you all relying on the media reports?
And if you all feel so strongly, does this mean you will all be emailing the home office at the above address/faxing your MP with your views?

13 Sep 2005

Quote by bucksfuncpl
Alpsals
I have stopped quoting because I tend to find too many nested quotes irritating and hard to read. The CDA in the US is not that different from existing obscene publications legislation in the UK. It s essentially a prohibition on the publication of material. This is easy to circumvent in practice by moving the hosting "offshore".
The UK proposals are unique as piercedJon remarked, that they essentially criminalise the viewing of material. The offence becomes one of "looking" at something that is deemed unacceptable (since in practice images are stored on harddrives involuntarily due to the way in which browser software and windows operating systems work). Only in more repressive regimes such as China has there been similar attempts to criminalise the viewing of material other than child pornography.
Once essential freedom is eroded in this way, where does it end? Those willing to give up the freedom they enjoy for a greater good might consider the amount of freedom they might ultimately be surrendering.

..I'm not arguing for a ban..only sensible debate.