Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Possession of Violent Pornography Outlawed in UK 779

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the grief-not-conducive-to-clear-thinking dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC is reporting that possession of violent pornography is now punishable by three years in prison. This decision was handed down in response to a campaign waged by a grieving mother who lost her daughter to someone obsessed with violent pornography." From the article: "Shaun Gabb, director of the anti-censorship organization the Libertarian Alliance, said: 'If you are criminalizing possession then you are giving police inquisitorial powers to come into your house and see what you've got, now we didn't have this in the past.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Possession of Violent Pornography Outlawed in UK

Comments Filter:
  • Steganography... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pig Hogger (10379) <pig DOT hogger AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:13PM (#16010212) Journal
    Steganography is getting more and more attractive every day...
    • by RealSurreal (620564) * on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:15PM (#16010229)
      Whatever turns you on I suppose.
      • by Jugalator (259273) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:56PM (#16010641) Journal
        Damn steganophilias has come to Slashdot as well. :-(

        Not only are their practices wildly unethical in their sexual attraction in covering things up, there are clear links to terrorism in the practice too! You can hide a Michael Jackson nose close up in a Natalie Portman portrait, and if that's not an act of terror to the digital information representing the image, I don't know what is!

        I demand a WOWUSA Act (War On Wildly Unethical Stenography Applications) to be written and sneaked into approval thanks to a tasty acronym that the American public can associate to positive feelings. Someone seem to have to think of the children here!
        • by inKubus (199753) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @08:29PM (#16012157) Homepage Journal
          Personally, I don't know if freer access to porn has anything to do with lower rape rates. Personally, I think it has to do with the increasing importance of women in society, access to civil and criminal systems to prosecute people, sex education in schools, etc. etc. Although people who have just whacked off are probably about the least likely segment of society to rape someone--I do give you that. Maybe it's just removing the taboo of sex from the public means that more people are going to want to have sex, women and men both, and are going to want to do it the right way and not the wrong way. Once we stop looking at it as a gross animal thing to do, it becomes a beautiful human thing and it's less stressful for all involved.

          • by jandersen (462034) on Thursday August 31, 2006 @05:55AM (#16014281)
            Very true, but pornography isn't really delivering to goods. The problem is that pornography is a fairly sterile and sexless thing that wouldn't excite people if they didn't feel that it somehow was a transgression - it has to feel 'naughty'. IOW, porn depends on society being prudish. Once we stop looking at sexual activity as something wrong or dirty, pornography becomes less interesting.

            That is not to say that it not pleasing to look at naked bodies; but I wouldn't call nudity 'pornography' - perhaps a better term is 'eroticism'?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:19PM (#16010266)
      Steganography is getting more and more attractive every day...

      Just you wait- soon, they're going to come after your dinosaur porn!

    • by k4_pacific (736911) <k4_pacific AT yahoo DOT com> on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:28PM (#16010370) Homepage Journal
      Why good would that do? Violent porn images with hidden data in them are still illegal.
  • by ezdude (885983) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:14PM (#16010224) Journal
    Talk about your slippery slopes!
  • Disgusting (Score:3, Insightful)

    by OrangeTide (124937) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:15PM (#16010225) Homepage Journal
    Pictures don't cause people to commit crimes. Might as well blame crime on convenience stores. Or blame poverty on lotto tickets. It's all a bunch of political bullshit meant to make the middle class feel "safe" while wasting resources investingating pseudo-crimes.
    • Revenge (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert42@gmail.com> on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:20PM (#16010275) Homepage Journal
      Rarely results in the solution we want, only the solution we can describe. This mother's witch hunt to blame her daughter's death on the internet instead of on the idiot who strangled her is creating far more than she hoped for.
    • Re:Disgusting (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mordors9 (665662) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:23PM (#16010309)
      This is a very difficult area with no clear answers. We do know that many violent sex fiends started with looking at violent pornography. We also know that millions of people the world over, have enjoyed viewing it and did not go on to be a pervert. I heard one shrink that made the argument that if you have someone that is predisposed to being a sick fiend then viewing this material can push him over that line. Should we limit everyone's ability to view it to avoid the few people who are on the border from going across the line and becoming a violent felon is the question. Obviously someone who has had a family member effected, they will feel one way. Civil Libertarians will obviously take the opposite position. One other problem is in defining it. Many women's groups in the US argue that any pornography is violent and demeaning to women by its very nature.
      • Cause-and-Effect (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Garrett Fox (970174) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:33PM (#16010414) Homepage
        First, this law would simply be unconstitutional here in the US. Second, I keep hearing arguments that people who end up being violent criminals were into pornography/violent video games/heavy metal/etc. first -- and all such arguments are logically flawed. Could it simply be that people who enjoy real murder also enjoy simulated murder? Let's see a cause-and-effect relationship proved before we even consider knocking holes in civil rights.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by aztektum (170569)
        My guess is, if you go back far enough, before they even got to the violent porn they were probably raised by shitty parents or they have a real mental defect. This ends up being merely and outlet for their fucked up behavior.

        I however am not a head doctor. This has just been my experience in the world at large with people I've met. YMMV
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by cgenman (325138)
        We do know that many violent burglars started with looking at violent movies.... I heard one shrink that made the argument that if you have someone that is predisposed to being a burglar then viewing this material can push him over that line.

        We do know that many terrorists started with writing anti-US material.... I heard one shrink that made the argument that if you have someone that is predisposed to being a terrorist then writing this material can push him over that line.

        We do know that many grotesquely
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      The thing is that they -do-. In the online and offline communities where these pictures are created, it becomes acceptable for the creators and users of these pictures to think favorably about violence/pedophilia/etc. These communities become the primary outlet for the members of these communities and engulf their entire thought process, and soon their allegience is more to the community than to the rule of law, and they feel no remorse about perpetrating these acts in real life.
      • Re:Disgusting (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Overzeetop (214511) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:30PM (#16010378) Journal
        But where do you stop?

        Violent naughty pictures?
        Naughty pictures?
        Violent pictures?
        Violent pames?
        Violent movies? (Everybody liked Saw, right?)
        Violent sports (UFC, WWF)?
        All contact sports?

        How about in the non-content arena?
        Alcohol?
        Caffeine?
        Cars with HP to exceed 75MPH or torque to better than 0-60/8sec?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          You forgot a category:

          Pictures critical of the government

          That will end up getting slipped into the list somewhere...

        • by cgenman (325138) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:57PM (#16010655) Homepage
          If we're going to ban dangerous forms of sexual imagery, can we please get rid of the starving anorexics in clothing advertisements inside of women's magazines? Your child is almost definitely not going to get killed from internet pornography, but they have a surprisingly high chance of developing an eating disorder thanks to this crap.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by a_n_d_e_r_s (136412)
          Everyone should of course always go clad in burka and all images or description or films of people clad with less than that should be forbidden! It should even be forbidden to talk about naked people.
      • Re:Disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)

        by voice_of_all_reason (926702) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:43PM (#16010505)
        it becomes acceptable for the creators and users of these pictures to think favorably about violence/pedophilia/etc.

        not Wrong

        These communities become the primary outlet for the members of these communities and engulf their entire thought process

        not Wrong

        and soon their allegience is more to the community than to the rule of law

        not Wrong

        and they feel no remorse about perpetrating these acts in real life.

        still not Wrong

        Nothing you have stated is a Wrong act. No one is harmed by those actions, except arguably the person committing them. You'll be delighted to know that if this person performs the act of murder, there are already a number of UK laws designed for just that scenario. Quite convenient.
  • by CrazyJim1 (809850) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:16PM (#16010240) Journal
    Fetch the Comfy Chair. Now we must browse your pornography to make sure its all in good order.
  • hahaha.. (Score:4, Funny)

    by AntiTuX (202333) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:16PM (#16010243) Homepage
    You might call it violent porn, but I call it HOT!!
  • Here we go. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:16PM (#16010245) Homepage Journal
    I'm obsessed with pie, synthpop, Marx Brothers films, payphones, subways, Tex Avery cartoons, steak, cat-shaped badges, and lime green. If I go out and murder someone, hide all of the above you've got!
  • by CyberLord Seven (525173) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:17PM (#16010249)
    I grieve for the mother and the surviving daughter. I wish them well, but I don't know that this will accomplish ANYTHING.

    There have been plenty of sick creatures such as the Boston Strangler and too many others I've read about and forgotten and who were active BEFORE the internet.

    This is a waste.

  • Total Crap (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Luscious868 (679143) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:17PM (#16010250)
    People obessed with Grand Theft Auto have gone on killing sprees. Should violent video games be outlawed as well? What about violent movies? There will always be sick individuals out there, does that mean we have to ban everything that may have inspired their acts? Get real. Violent pornography isn't my thing, but when it comes to goverment censorship or banning of any content, there ought to be a damn good reason behind it and the death of one girl who's killer might have been inspired by a certain type of movie doesn't cut it in my book.
  • by poor_boi (548340) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:17PM (#16010253)
    'If you are criminalizing possession then you are giving police inquisitorial powers to come into your house and see what you've got, now we didn't have this in the past.'

    There are already things that are illegal to possess. I don't see how adding another thing to that list somehow now grants law enforcement scary inquisitorial powers. As far as I can tell, the only thing that grants law enforcement inquisitorial powers is actually granting law enforcement inquisitorial powers.
  • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:20PM (#16010279) Journal
    If you are criminalizing possession then you are giving police inquisitorial powers to come into your house and see what you've got, now we didn't have this in the past.

    Does this person not realise that possession of an unlicensed firearm and possession of certain psycho-active chemicals are already illegal? The police can't enter your house and search it without a warrant to search for these, why should violent pornography be any different?

    The problem I have with laws like this is that we are treating symptoms of psychoses as crimes. Possession of violent pornography is not, in itself, a bad thing. It can, however, be a symptom of a serious mental imbalance, as was almost certainly the case with the murderer in the article. Now we are making it even harder for people with problems like this to get professional help. We are driving them even further underground, where they are forced to become even more repressed, and even more likely to snap and kill someone.

    I would much rather see mentally ill individuals treated before they harm someone than imprisoned afterwards.

    • by epiphani (254981) <epiphani@TIGERdal.net minus cat> on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:42PM (#16010497)
      Possession of violent pornography is not, in itself, a bad thing. It can, however, be a symptom of a serious mental imbalance, as was almost certainly the case with the murderer in the article.

      Or it could be a symptom of nothing at all. Maybe I like rollplaying. Maybe my girlfriend likes being tied up. Maybe she likes rough sex. Maybe I share her enjoyment. Maybe we both like watching other people play out those same roles. Gives us ideas.

      Who the fuck does the government think they are deciding that its immoral, and where is the line between rough sex and violent sex?

      I think this law blows, and if I were part of the country, I'd be investigating it more, and kicking up more noise about it.
  • by KDN (3283) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:24PM (#16010312)
    Gee, I think this would eliminate an entire class of movies, the teenage sex and slasher movies. Not that that would be any great loss, except to the producers. But I really don't understand the menality. Posessing a hammer should not be against the law. Bashing a head in with the same hammer should be. Having a tool like nmap should not be against the law, but breaking into a place you have no authorization should be. Having violent porn should not be illegal. Murder with or without violent porn should be.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by QuantumFTL (197300) *
      Posessing a hammer should not be against the law. Bashing a head in with the same hammer should be.

      To be horribly trite: do you feel that nothing should be illegal to possess? If I happen to have a nuclear weapon lying around, is that OK as long as I don't feel like using it? Or maybe having a giant death pit in my yard that kids can jump into (Hey, it was clearly marked!)

      Some things are dangerous. While I doubt this particular thing is, I do believe it's possible (IANAP) that it is, in fact, a con
  • by SuperMario666 (588666) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:24PM (#16010313)
    Isn't it better for these weirdos to have safe outlet for these destructive fetishes? These simulated images do not create the fetish, they only provide an outlet for it. As a parent, I would rather these guys wanking in front of a PC in their parents' basements than strangling my daughter in some alley.

    Admittedly, simulated images weren't enough for this guy, but he would have been killing much sooner if the internet hadn't sated his needs.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Don_dumb (927108)
      Sorry, I have to point out that this defence could also be used for child pornography.
      Yes kiddy porn gives them gratification without them actually kidnapping a child themself, but for the film to be made some child would have to have been violated. The viewer is just (financially) encouraging the makers to violate children.
      IIf I am honest cant see how this law is a that bad a thing. People often ask "Where do you draw the line", IMHO any film that is intended for one's gratification should have the line dr
  • by also-rr (980579) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:25PM (#16010324) Homepage
    He doubtless would have been a fine, upstanding member of society without the capacity to hurt a single hair on anyone's heads.

    Criminal law should not be a knee jerk response to any one event but rather a disspassionate evaluation of deterrent, punishment, rehabilitation and public safety (based on logic and evidence!) made in order to maximise the net gain to society. That is how just laws are written and the biggest benefit is gathered.
  • System of a Down? (Score:4, Informative)

    by DesireCampbell (923687) <desire.c@gmail.com> on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:25PM (#16010331) Homepage
    Violent Pornography [wikipedia.org]?
  • by MarkusQ (450076) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:26PM (#16010342) Journal

    The really sneaky thing about this sort of law is that it's so subjective. Drugs, you can send to a lab, and radar guns are pretty darned accurate most of the time, but this sort of thing? Who decides?

    For example, suppose you have a video tape with graphic killing, violence, blowing up buildings and stuff as well as sex scenes. Is it violent porn? What if you accidentally taped a few minutes of the playboy channel over a bunch of network news? Or a Hollywood blockbuster? If you say the people have to actually doing the violence while having sex there would be almost nothing that fits the definition. On the other hand, if you say that anything that contains both elements counts, than almost anything could be called "violent porn" with enough twisting.

    And even if you could get the definition down, do you suppose they'll actually release the images in question when someone is publicly accused under this law, or just say "Trust us, it was violent porn."

    Of course, laws like that never get abused, so this is really all just theoretical.

    --MarkusQ

  • Not so fast... (Score:5, Informative)

    by psmears (629712) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:29PM (#16010373)
    “possession of violent pornography is now punishable by three years in prison”

    Umm... no it isn’t. FTFA:

    The government has announced plans to make the possession of violent porn punishable by three years in jail.

    The government have announced plans to make it illegal. So it may happen. But also, the civil liberties types have plenty of time to raise objections, get the sentence changed, get exemptions added etc... which has got to be a good thing.

  • by Kenja (541830) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:30PM (#16010382)
    What a man and a woman... and two dwarves, a donky and a chicken. Do in the privacy of their own home, using thousand island dressing at times, is their own, and the people who pay to watch, buisness.
  • by maynard (3337) <j@maynard@gelinas.gmail@com> on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:33PM (#16010413) Journal
    Well, if the study Porn Up, Rape Down [ssrn.com] is correct... then no. The author shows a strong correlation between increased access to pornography and a statistical reduction in reported rapes. Further, the author showed geographical correlations within the US whereby locally reduced access to pornography occurred in the same locations as areas with high rape rates.

    Things that make you go Hmmmm....
  • Thought Police (Score:3, Insightful)

    by drDugan (219551) * on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:37PM (#16010449) Homepage
    Repeat after me:

    There are no bad ideas, only bad actions.
    There are no bad ideas, only bad actions.
    There are no bad ideas, only bad actions.

    Preventing people from having certain information for moral reasons (assertions that the information is "bad") not only fails, it is harmful to the ideas of an open, accepting society that promotes health.

    Ideas are just information, and all information has positive value. Once governments get into the business of dictating what people think, totalitarianism becomes possible.

  • Yeesh (Score:5, Funny)

    by trevdak (797540) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @04:48PM (#16010561) Homepage
    Whoever thinks that violent pornography has an effect on people has been a naughty boy and needs a spanking.
  • i never understood why people get hung up on this issue. it is utterly academic to me at this point: if i watched 10 days straight of ultraviolent movies straight, then went out and punched someone, it would be my fault. if wacked off for 10 days straight to hardcore rape porn then went out and raped a woman, it would be my fault. if i played 10 days straight of ultraviolent videogames, then went out and shot someone, it would be my fault. 100% no grey area whatsoever. why?

    the principle of personal accountability... isn't this a concept social conservatives should be familiar with? if it comes out of my mouth, or my hand, it is MY responsibility. "the devil made me do it" is a blame game, an attempt to avoid guilt, and it is a mode of defense as old as rape and murder (which never needed porn, videogames, or movies to happen going back to he dawn of time)

    if you play GTA, and then kill a cop in the EXACT same scenario as GTA, GTA BEARS NO RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER. because YOU were the fucked up person to do that, not GTA. if you never played GTA, some other stupid pursuit would give an idea to do something incredibly retarded, get it? YOU ARE THE GUILTY PARTY, AND YOU ALONE. media cannot enable the well-balanced to commit crimes, media can only enable the previously fucked up to commit crimes, and even then, putting retstraints on media means nothing: the previously fucked up will be set off by some other factor you have no control over!

    so the point is you lay blame where blame is 100% due: THE FUCKED UP ASSHOLE WHO COMMITTED THE CRIME. if i am psychologically well-balanced, NONE OF THIS MEDIA WILL SO MUCH BREACH THE TINIEST BIT OF MY SENSE OF RIGHT AND WRONG. in fact, in the mid-1990s, when i was quite young, i might add, i must have played hours and hours of doom for weeks on end. and i'm a rabid anti-gun nut

    how's that work? it works just fine! in me and 99.99999% of the rest of the well-adjusted population on questions of simple right and wrong... dylan klebold is the fucked up asshole, NOT DOOM!

    now, the most amazing thing to me is how the people pushing for controls on videogames, porn, movies: these are the same social conservatives who talk so highly, with such vigor and passion, about the concept of personal responsibility. and yet they defile it with their censorship attempts. THEY DON'T FUCKING GET IT

    in fact, i propose we have MORE access to porn, violent movies, and violent videogames. i'm dead serious! the principle of catharsis, the theory of the safety release valve: violence we are complicit to on a video screen is violence we would not have committed in real life. in fact i would wager, if such a study would ever done, that rape and violence is static across all time and history... to think that it is increasing over time is hystorically myopic of you. really

    in fact, i might wager violence has gone DOWN slightly over the course of recent history as our access to more realistic media, and would go down even MORE, if people were exposed to more violent and sexual media, and would go down even MORE if our media gets MORE violent and MORE VR full immersion realistic. i really believe that 100%!

    do you want people to be more peaceful? well people are inherently violent and sexual, so beam all of those pressures up on a screen in front of them, and voila: release. have you ever looked at your average 3 year old toddler? people are NOT born vessels of purity that are corrupted by exposure to bad things. people are born little demons with no impulse control and a lot of selfishness and are taught to channel those impulses into proper channels

    not that i'm going all clockwork orange on y'all and tying people down and prying their eyes open and force them to watch violence and sex, but at least stop trying to PREVENT people from pursing violent and sexual media as a natural instinctual desire to release that which if did not get released harmlessly on videoscreen, would build up and be released in real life. in other words, it all depends upon how
  • Follow-up? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Grendel Drago (41496) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @05:03PM (#16010715) Homepage
    Can we at least have a follow-up to this after three months, six months, a year, to see if levels of violent crime are affected by the ban? If these people are so attached to the idea that outlawing violent porn will reduce violent crime, we should at least be able to test the hypothesis now, right?
  • by mapkinase (958129) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @05:11PM (#16010797) Homepage Journal
    would be to outlaw all pornography all together.
  • by Unlikely_Hero (900172) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @05:26PM (#16010928)
    Everyone declaring so much of this "sick" "disgusting" etc etc.
    Please stfu.
    Are people being harmed against their will in such images/videos? Any reputable studio has documentation on file showing this not to be the case.
    The performers are doing these things without being coerced (a lot are even into it! imagine that).
    How long ago was it that people would refer to homosexuality as "sick, disgusting" et al? If I was to start saying those sorts of things I would get modded into oblivion so fast my head would spin. There is an extremely broad range of what people refer to as "violent pornography"
    Is violent pornography rough sex?
    bdsm related things?
    simulated forced?
    no one can answer can they? Why? Because it's all so incredibly vague, and it's intended to be that way. The more vague the description is the more the folks enforcing it can cite things like snuff films (without noting of course that posession of snuff porn and the sites serving it are ALREADY illegal because they involve an actual MURDER) whilst shutting down sites that people who happen to be a little kinked like, sites that are harming no one.
    This is pure idiocy, and a move by the morality gestapo to push, more and more, "deviants" out to the edge.
    Isn't anyone the least bit bothered that this is basically another "mothers against $HORRIBLEVILTHINGTHATWILLSURELYDESTROYSOCIETY" group?
    It gets to where I think the US and UK are in a race to see who can come up with the most rediculous legislation the quickest.
  • by link_mmc (880707) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @05:31PM (#16010964)
    I know that System of a Down doesn't agree with some people, but isn't this a bit harsh?
  • by sharopolis (819353) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @06:09PM (#16011271)
    Heres a link to the PDF of the paper [homeoffice.gov.uk] this article arises from. It's very vaugue as to how the law will be applied and surprisingly actually shows that the majority of respondents were against the proposal. This is not law yet, no by a long way, the govenment is leaving itself plenty of wiggle room to drop this if it becomes unpopular or difficult.
  • by speculatrix (678524) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @06:23PM (#16011401)
    RTFA: "The government has announced plans to make the possession of violent porn punishable by three years in jail."

    The labour gov't in the UK usually make knee-jerk responses promising to do something, and actually take action quite a while later. If the action benefits the people, it's usually postponed many times, if it benefits those in power or the machinery of gov't, it happens more quickly.

    I expect this to be argued into the ground, stalled, and then some replacement and probably useless unenforceable idiotic law to replace it, under the guise of protection of children/vulnerable people with the effect of taking away more liberty and achieving NOTHING except incurring big costs for the taxpayer.

  • by TractorBarry (788340) on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @07:33PM (#16011850) Homepage
    I'm not sure where I got this quote from (possibly even a /. post !) but it sums this up quite nicely:

    "New Labour see a problem and a headline - then address the headline".

    This is such a bad bill it's hardly worth discussing. They might as well make it illegal to own war films (very, very violent and displaying a definite lust for death - You could make a very good case for labelling then as violent pornography)

    As in every instance where a twisted individual has forcibly projected their inner sickness onto an innocent third party I have every sympathy for the victim and their family. But this sort of knee jerk legislation will achieve nothing. It will not make anyone safer and it will not prevent further such murders.

    So the obvious question is exactly how will "violent pornography" be defined ? From my (very, very) limited watching of current UK TV I suspect that you could class quite a bit of the current output as violent pornography - especially the utter crap put out under the moniker of "soap operas" which seem to feature nothing but fucking and fighting.

    Oh well, maybe I suppose I'd best get up early tomorrow so I can take my DVD copy of "Faster Pussycat, Kill! Kill!" [imdb.com] down to the local cop shop to check up on its legal status... :)
  • by Matterball (935626) on Thursday August 31, 2006 @04:39AM (#16014095)
    If you happen to have violent, spanky, whips and chains sex and you happen to leave a bruise or a cut or anything more than "transient and trifling" you can't say that you consented to it. So if you need to go to the doctor after a heavy session, he may call the police and your partner in the act can be jailed for actual bodily harm. The fact that you consented to get beaten up is no defence. And now they want to make it illegal to even watch two people beating each other up for their own gratification. This, in a country that has a long history of caning and other such fetishy acts - do a search for "English punishment" and see what comes up. Tabloid media, and idiots. Same as usual. Are they now going to ban sales of canes and whips and other toys designed to inflict pain on people for sexual gratification? Sooner or later, someone's going to commit a crime and they'll find a pair of fluffy handcuffs and outlaw those as well. Arrrgh!
  • by tygerstripes (832644) on Thursday August 31, 2006 @05:57AM (#16014286)
    Too late for my opinion to be heard, but there's a serious omission in this discussion (I think).

    Everyone - from the victim's family to the posters in /. - seems to be focusing on the murderer and how there was something wrong with him, I would never do that, yada yada yada.

    What about the girl? She wasn't some random rape victim, she was his girlfriend. That would suggest to me (though it's not certain) that this violent-sex tendency was something she already knew about at the least, and probably willingly participated in to some degree. Who here, having such tendencies, would deliberately murder their partner in consensual violent sex? Isn't it more likely that this was an accident of recreation, rather than an act evil?

    Please understand, I have every sympathy for the girl's family, and I can certainly see why they would want to pursue this course. However, I think the fact that this crime involved sex, and association with internet pornography, has hit some big buttons in those of a reactionary nature. I couldn't say for certain, but isn't it a reasonable possibility that this man's tendencies were also hers?

    On a personal note, I have enjoyed, and occasionally still do, similar practices with my consenting partner. Is it dangerous? Well, it can be painful, even dangerous - as can bouldering, white-water rafting (these aren't sexual terms, as far as I'm aware!) and various other recreational activities. When I go climbing, I and my partner are aware of and accept the risks and, most importantly, trust one another enough to not seriously endanger each other deliberately or carelessly. We may die, it's true, but we're prepared for that and we take safety precautions where possible.

    People are talking about this case as though this was an act inflicted upon an unwilling victim - and by association it is implied that all such acts have a similar element. I don't know if that's true or not in this particular case, but to make a sweeping, generalised law that restricts the actions of (I can't stress this enough) responsible, consenting adults in their pursuit of what they enjoy is legal folly at its worst.

    I, for one, will continue to enjoy all manner of kinkiness. I will enjoy watching the occasional film clip of such acts, if I come across them, and if that means evading the law with simple steganography then so be it. I know that I'm responsible (and experienced) enough not to seriously endanger another's life in this activity, and certainly not against someone's will!

    If (as it may be) the girl was not a willing participant, and (as it certainly seems) the guy was not responsible enough to treat her rights and wishes with care and respect, then socially and psychologically speaking he is a dangerous individual. This has nothing to do with his sexual preferences, however. I enjoy kinky sex, rock-climbing, riding fast on my bicycle without a helmet and so on. If I ever think I'm seriously endangering someone else's rights or liberties (or indeed my own) with my actions, I will stop - whatever it is I'm doing. He didn't. That's his problem - nothing to do with sex - and as such he should be treated as an amoral murderer or a deeply irresponsible manslaughterer (Murder 2, for you Americans), not a sex fiend who is a product of the evil interweb tubes.

    In any case, I hardly think it is for parliament to decide to restrict everybody's right to enjoy themselves because one or two socially undeveloped individuals are unable to do so responsibly. They should be watched and guarded where possible, but anything else smacks of suspected-guilty-until-proven-otherwise. Aside from anything else, people who disregard the rigths and safety of another in spite of the law will continue to do so, whatever their fancy, even with this law in place.

    As another poster said: Treat the causes, not the symptoms. It's our society that's churning out irresponsible people, not our laws.

Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature. -- Rich Kulawiec

Working...