Possession of Violent Pornography Outlawed in UK 779
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.'"
Steganography... (Score:5, Insightful)
Disgusting (Score:3, Insightful)
Did Jack The Ripper possess VIOLENT INTERNET PORN? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Possession Illegal != Right to Search (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Revenge (Score:5, Insightful)
What nonsense is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Disgusting (Score:4, Insightful)
should be action not posession (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Disgusting (Score:3, Insightful)
Because, without the violent porn (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
And the sneaky thing about this sort of law... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Ah brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
Last time I checked, killing someone is still illegal. Why is this law needed? It's not like it's child porn is it? The 'actors' know exactly what they're getting signing up for the job, being adults and all...
Reminds me of a quote by that evil-incarnate W. Axl Rose (Guns n Roses) in reponse to people wanting to ban some GNR songs:
"If you're going to ban something, ban the Bible. More people have been killed because of/in the name of that any of our songs"
Does pornography increase incidents of rape? (Score:5, Insightful)
Things that make you go Hmmmm....
Cause-and-Effect (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ah brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow I doubt the sincerity of these signatures. Approach someone in a public place and just start off "Excuse me, sir, do you like violent pornography?" What the hell can you say, even if that's your bag? "Why certainly, stranger. Nothing like a good snuff video while I bugger myself with a coke bottle, yessiree!"
And of course, an MP (I assume that's a politician) coming out in favor of pornography period would be political suicide. That's an even less rational standard.
Cue the fights over definition. (Score:2, Insightful)
While this may sound silly this law makes it necessary for those questions to be answered. Over time court cases will come up and, lacking any standards, the police will choose between punishing noone unless they commit some other "real" crime (like murder), or punishing anyone whom they don't like. The latter seems a more likely route. This also then raises the issue of costs. Will this bill be enforced or will it fall by the wayside? If it is enforced how will much money will be spent on that?
This is why one needs to be careful when making law, even though few politicians are. Such laws don't solve anything, they typically raise more questions then they answer and pass the actual problems off to others. It's not that I don't believe that people shpuld be protected from such preadators. They should. I'm just skeptical of this law's ability to do so on the face of it.
Re:Disgusting (Score:1, Insightful)
>a violent felon is the question. Obviously someone who has had a family member effected, they will feel one way.
Would it not be reasonable to do a study that addresses this very question to see if the ban would have any positive impact, before jumping to censorship? Given that there's been no research (at least that I've seen) that addresses this, it seems premature to take such drastic action as this, especially when there is nothing to indicate there is an imminent threat.
But, I guess this is about politics rather than the reality of the issue.
Thought Police (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No one expects the Britsh Inquisition! (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't want to be pessimistic (or optimistic, depends on which side of the fence you're at), but if a law can't be enforced, or it's not worth being enforced, then it never will.
Re:What nonsense is this? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Cause-and-Effect (Score:2, Insightful)
You make it sound like the US has never passed a law that was unconstitutional.
Re:Did Jack The Ripper possess VIOLENT INTERNET PO (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Did Jack The Ripper possess VIOLENT INTERNET PO (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You are seriously bent. (Score:3, Insightful)
By that argument, wouldn't you have to outlaw BDSM?
Re:Ah brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
This sounds like his defense lawyer's wet dream: "the porn made me do it! It was the porn!"
This makes about as much sense as if the city of New York had decided to ban dogs after the Son of Sam said his dog told him to kill people. Maybe the problem is just that people are occasionally psychopaths? Like terrorists, there's very little that you can do to stop them, and there's a very great risk that any attempted "cure" can be worse than the "disease." (E.g., an erosion of civil liberties and freedoms in the face of a very small threat.)
Re:Disgusting (Score:3, Insightful)
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 obese people started with eating birthday cake.... I heard one shrink that made the argument that if you have someone that is predisposed to obesity then eating this material can push him over that line.
We do know that many unwanted pregnancies started with having sex.... I heard one shrink that made the argument that if you have someone that is predisposed to unwanted pregnancies then having sex can push him [her] over that line.
We do know that many logical fallacies started with associations rather than causal relationships.... I heard one shrink that made the argument that if you have someone that is predisposed to logical fallacies then looking for justifications for a particular answer rather than a correct answer can push him over that line.
My girlfriend and I have violent sex. And it's really good. And we like it. Just like practicing martial arts vs beating people up, there is nothing wrong with consentual alternative sexualities, just the non-consentual kind.
Re:Disgusting (Score:3, Insightful)
Pictures critical of the government
That will end up getting slipped into the list somewhere...
Re:Ah brilliant (Score:3, Insightful)
No one could get the pro-pornography and pro-politics segment of the population to sign a petition because it would be ludicrous to stand in a supermarket, stopping people with "You aren't going to let them take away your bondage mags, are you?"
While we're at it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing to see here, move along...? (Score:2, Insightful)
The only reason anyone can have for opposing this ban is that the belief that people have the right to look at this kind of material. I don't agree, but it's an understandable position of principle. Waffling about its being impractical (like that matters with child porn) or being an unwarranted intrusion on privacy (because the police have been given *such* extended new powers) misses the point. Fundamentally, they don't see any problem with people producing, distributing or using such material. As I say, that's an understandable position of principle, but of course, it would lose anyone their hearing as soon as they tried to articulate it in public.
pure unaduterated truth about violent/sexual media (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re:Ah brilliant (Score:3, Insightful)
People often sign these petitions because they are too embarrassed to say no. If someone is stopped in the street and asked "if you don't approve of violent pornography, would you please sign our petition" and refuse, it looks as if they've just said "Nope. I love my violent porn.". And anyway, 50,000 isn't exactly a huge amount - there were over a million signatures on petitions presented to parliament in protest at the invasion of Iraq, yet the government took no notice (and in the case of fox hunting, there were over 1.5 million signatures on petitions either for or against the ban).
Evidence from criminal psychologists that can show strong evidence of otherwise normal people who have become violent criminals as a result of looking at images of violent crime (rather than vice versa), and that this is likely to be higher than the number of people who might get the urge to carry out their violent fantansies if they couldn't get their fix from looking at pictures instead, would be a good reason to defend the law. The fact that victims back the law and that 50,000 people have backed it is neither here nor there.
Re:simulated violence pornography saves lives (Score:3, Insightful)
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 drawn at what is legal. If it is legal to do, it should be legal to film and distribute.
Dont be too suprised about this law, in a democracy a law that is the pushed under the banner of "banning Violent porn films after the murder of a girl" is going to get passed, no politician is going to get in the way of that one.
Although, this does make me wonder, how many censors are serial killers, considering they get to see all of the really bad (good) stuff.
Re:Disgusting (Score:3, Insightful)
ban knives? (Score:2, Insightful)
Should we limit everyone's ability to use a knife to avoid the few people who are on the border from going across and murdering someone?
Obviously anyone who has had a family member murdered with a knife will feel one way.
Sometimes, you need to accept that bad things will happen. Now let's move on with our knives... I mean lives.
Re:Disgusting (Score:3, Insightful)
Bothered by comments almost more than story. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Yes but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ah brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
It's illegal because a child was 'hurt' in the making of the kiddie-porn in the first place.*
*Traci Lords not withstanding
Re:simulated violence pornography saves lives (Score:5, Insightful)
Child pornography is illegal due to the fact that a child cannot consent to sex. The video therefore becomes evidence of an illegal act.
Violent pornography (assume the actors are adults) displays actions of cosenting adults.
Re:Ah brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
We should ban *any* anti-abortion group because people who go to those meetings, and watch their literature might kill doctors who perform abortions.
You can't ban things based on what people do after the fact. Can 'environment' increase a 'bad' persons tendencies? sure. But I don't want my choices restricted to only the lowest common denomenator safe for everyone. We wouldn't be able to do anything.
Re:Ah brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
The actions of a few sick and twisted individuals is not typical of the standards of society. Was dear old Jack the Ripper a typical 19th century gentleman?
The problem with your line of reasoning is the incontrivertable fact that violent crime rates have been steadily progressing downwards for decades, especially in areas like youth crime. It's not that there weren't sick and dangereous criminals in decades or centuries past, it's that they weren't as high profile. The fact that we have tabloids, CNN and legions of hungry journalists out looking for the next Manson/Jack/Son of Sam only means that we hear about such individuals more often.
It isn't lack of standards in our society that's the problem, it's an overabundance of boogeymen.
Re:Ah brilliant (Score:2, Insightful)
RTFA - not illegal *yet* (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:You don't understand the logic. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ah brilliant (Score:3, Insightful)
Golly! Porn _does not_ "fead the beast", if anything it quenches it! Imagine the frustration of those million wankers and the resulting mess if not for the porn industry!
Yes, because as we all know, once you go to a porn site, you're totally satisfied and have no need to see it again. :-/
And no one advocated criminalizing all porn.
Re:Ah brilliant (Score:3, Insightful)
However.
How could you possibly illegalize simulated child porn in the form of two young-looking adults of legal age? Forget what it looks like; it's still two adults doing their thing. Maybe it fuels pedophiles, but so do food and air.
Re:should be action not posession (Score:3, Insightful)
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 contributing factor in situations such as this. Some people don't commit suicide until they see someone else do it in a "cool" way and then perform copycat actions (these people were probably just inside the edge of doing it, but still), and these copycat actions are taken very seriously by mental health professionals. I think it's fallacious to say that any particular behavior was motivated by one thing, and only one, but it is equally fallacious to think that because something typically does not cause a given response means that it never contributes to it.
That being said, I do disagree with this law, and I'm glad I live in the Land of the Free(TM). (just kidding)
Re:Ah brilliant (Score:4, Insightful)
Pit Bulls are popularly trained to fight because they're large, strong dogs, not because they're inherently vicious. Any dog of any breed can be made nice or mean. I used to own a German Shepherd Dog that could easily bite your arm off, but she thought she was a little lapdog and would roll over for a tummy-scratching if she saw you looking at her. I've also had a neighbor with a Pomeranian that would bite the crap out of your leg if it had the chance. "Man Bitten By Toy Dog" doesn't make the headlines, though, because the subheading of "Man Reacts By Punting It Into Street" takes away the dramatic impact.
Your neighbor was a scummy person who raised his dog to fight, and yet you're holding it against the breed? Honestly, that's the animal kingdom equivalent of rounding up all the African Americans because some of them commit crimes.
For what it's worth, I own two Malteses and a Boston Terrier. Your stupid proposal wouldn't affect me one bit, but you're still not going to get my support.
Re:Ah brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy, we just kill off all the flat chested women. If men see flat-chested women, they will obviously be driven to screw little girls since they're incapable of telling them apart. If you don't have a C cup by your 18th birthday, off you go to the gas chamber to save our children.
Of course, before we start selecting for early bloomers, we'll have to kill off all the girls that develop a C cup before their 16th birthday, just to make sure the men don't get any "bad ideas". Eventually we'll evolve into a species that develops all sexual characteristics right at the age of consent, and it will finally cease to be an arbitrary number. Until it gets raised again, anyways.
Re:Ah brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't buy the "feeding the beast" argument. Do you run out and buy a Budweiser everytime you see their commercial? Of course not. You have will power and a measure of self-control over your urges. You could eliminate all the child porn, real or simulated, and you would still have pedophiles. A person can feed his or her own beast through the limitless possibilities of the human imagination. There were pedophiles prior to the internet, the TV, and even the photograph. How did they feed the beast?
"Feeding the beast" is a convenient and completely unsubstantiated argument against something. Almost anything is capable of working on our baser instincts and influencing our behavior. People are responsible for their own actions, regardless of the motivation or catalyst. As another poster pointed out, the Bible has been used to inspire and justify horrific acts of violence and subjugation over the four millenia. Even today, those extreme anti-abortionists who murder OB/GYN doctors for performing abortions use the Bible as inspiration and justification for their behavior. Would you support calls to outlaw the Bible for "feeding the beast" in those cases?
While I find simulated child-porn to be offensive, as a true freedom-loving American (not the Bush variety), I cannot think of a reason it should be outlawed. If no "actual" children are involved, the fact that most of us find it disgusting is not sufficient reason to criminalize it.
Re:Ah brilliant (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it isn't. There has been one victim of crime and no evidence at all showing that his perusal of violent porn caused him (or anybody else) to become a murderer. Yet, the proposed law will criminalize probably millions of people and it will give yet more ill-defined powers to a police that is already highly intrusive.
It's a bad law, and it's passed without significant. And your knee is jerking just as much as that of the 50000 people who signed.
Re:Does pornography increase incidents of rape? (Score:3, Insightful)
The woman advocating the law is stating that there is a relationship between porn and sex crimes. She is stating that the man who strangled her daughter was in some way either motivated or empowered by porn.
Now, correlation does not always equal causation, but as far as I know causation will always include correlation. Ie, you cannot have A causing B without also having A correlating to B. So, if her arguement were valid, then you'd expect a causitive relationship between porn and violence to coincide with a correlation between the two, right?
Now, what these studies show is a lack of correlation. In fact, they show an inverse correlation, which is exactly the opposite of what you'd expect. So either the mother has to be incorrect in her assessment of a sex offender, or else the researchers must be wrong.
Call me cold hearted, but I will take the word of a researcher over the word of an emotionally charged mother who has lost a daughter. Being traumatized by a criminal act does not grant you any degree of insight into a criminal mind.
Re:Thank god for grieving mothers... (Score:3, Insightful)
What? I'm all for freedoms of just about everything, and whatever porn you want to watch is your business. I also drink, and I'm all for freedom to drink. Because no one's getting harmed. Look at the number of deaths every year from drunk drivers. Completely different thing.
Re:Ah brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
DON'T GIVE THEM ANY FUCKING IDEAS! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ah brilliant (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Ah brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, here's your standards:
It is acceptable for a person to watch or imagine any type of fictional scenario that appeals to them. It is not acceptable for a person to commit a violent or harmful act against another person.
That an easy enough standard for you, or would you like some clarification?
Re:Steganography... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you must have something to hide?
I'd like your credit card number, all of your tax forms, and I'd like to know what lies you've told to your friends, what thoughts of criminal activities you've had, what crimes you have been accused of, precisely what your blood alcohol level was before you drove, every instance of cruelty or indifference you've ever committed, and exactly which products you buy and stocks you invest in - oh, and what you're getting your spouse and kids for the holidays. This of course is for your job interview - and so I can ruin the surprise of your gifts for the holidays. Everyone has something to hide, except people who are 100% self-sufficient or barter for all of the goods and services they need.
If you do not have violent pornography, you would not need encryption or stegnagrophy... Encryption can hide pornography, but has no use if you're not doning anything illegal.
First off, it's "steganography." Do banks have legitimate need of encryption to protect your ATM withdrawls? Do you have legitimate need of a PIN to access your funds? Have you ever wanted to have a diary, but were afraid someone who lives with you might read it? Does your front door, car door, and safety deposit box have a lock? Why? WHAT ARE YOU HIDING?
Here in America, we are allowed to do what we want.
I would say, "Here in the United States, we are a nation of laws. We are free to act within those laws." (By and large. When that breaks down, I like to get out and protest.)
Violent pornography hurts poeple so it should be illegal.
Think of a movie with a love scene. Top Gun. Dirty Dancing. Eight Mile. You do understand that the actors (probably) didn't actually have sex while they filmed that scene, don't you? It's acting.
Now think about other sex scenes. Shawshank Redemption. Sleepers. The Accused. Bad Lieutenant. Sybil. Far less pleasant, right? But, probably, none of the actors were actually hurt while those rape scenes were being filmed. (Or at least, not physically hurt more than in filming any normal "fight scene.") Are those still "good movies," or do you just categorically call them bad and harmful to society? I happen to think Shawshank is one of the best movies ever made, and a ton of people - including the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences, The American Cinema Editors, the American Society of Cinematographers, the Directors Guild of America, the Golden Globes, the Grammy's, the Screen Actors Guild, and the Writers Guild of America all agree with me.
Do you want to tell me what, precisely, is the difference between the rape scenes in Shawshank Redemption and this violent pornography that you're defending us all from?
Put another way - if a dude spanks a chick's ass while they're simulating sex (just for the sake of argument) in front of a camera, is that violent pornography or is it not? I frankly don't see the harm in it.
Is it the violence that really bothers you, or is it the pornography? Or is it some mix of the two? Look, just because I think something should be legal doesn't mean I endorse it, or think it's a good idea. I hate alcohol with a passion, but I don't think prohibition is the solution to drunk drivers. I blame the f-ing drunk drivers. Do you think the portrayal of violence in pornography is disgusting and bad, or do you really think owning it should be illegal?
Do you really want to go after the portrayal of sadism and masochism? You think that stuff hurts people? I mean, you think it hurts them in ways they don't like?
I don't mean to make light of times when people are the victims of violence or rape - that's very serious, and there are already a ton of laws on the books. But, do you think we're doing well enough against actual violence and rape, that
Re:DON'T GIVE THEM ANY FUCKING IDEAS! (Score:4, Insightful)
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'?
Serious point being missed (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Australian here! Our gun laws... (Score:1, Insightful)
We had a drop in the number of violent crimes where a gun was used. We also had a HUGE drop in the number of accidental shootings.
If you want to bring the Swiss into it, sure they have a gun in every home, along with someone who has been trained to use it in a professional manner.
I'm not saying it's the guns' fault that people use them to commit crimes but when there are stacks of them out there and they're very easy to get hold of...well, it makes it just that much easier, doesn't it?
One of my favourite quotes from the West Wing:
"if you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia you've got a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year and they had 112. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws."
Re:Steganography... (Score:2, Insightful)
"Appears to be" - that's basically different words for "simulated".
Just to follow on from what you were saying (Score:4, Insightful)
For example look at a magazine rack in a huge store - huge variety of magazines covering every topic under the sun. If you asked a random person why they were buying a particular magazine (let's say Steam-powered touring caravan monthly) - it'd be because they were interested in Steam-powered touring caravans. I think it's highly unlikely they'd say they have no interest - but suddenly feel the inexplicable desire to develop one.
If you like something, you're attracted to media about it. It may introduce you to something related, suggest something you hadn't thought of - but that's it.
Where's the beef? (Score:3, Insightful)
As you pointed out, everyone seems to have heard the argument that viewing certain types of [kiddie|violent] porn causes one to go out and [abuse|kill] other people -- but there seems to be scant hard evidence besides the circumstantial: there do seem to be a lot of criminals who have abused kids or raped women and have also enjoyed porn, but correlation isn't causation. The substantial number of people who do like certain kinds of "deviant" porn and who don't become criminals, suggests to me that in fact the cause of the criminal behavior is separate, and it that it may lead people to both like the porn and to do the behavior later. Similarly, Jack Thompson and his associates have told everyone that violent videogames are "murder simulators" and cause people to lead lives of crime, but there's little convincing evidence of this and much to the contrary. The argument for banning violent pornography and simulated "child" pornography is the exact same argument for banning certain violent video games.
Now, there is a separate argument for banning true child pornography: by making it illegal to possess, you cut off the demand for it, which in turn means there's less of a motivation for people to make it. Since making it inherently involves the abuse of children, this is a Good Thing. Understand that this is a completely separate argument from banning violent porn that's made using consenting adults (or merely actors who simulate violence), or porn that looks like children but doesn't actually involve any (e.g. hentai, CG, or using particularly youthful-looking-but-legal actors).
If at some point there is some convincing and widely-accepted (by the scientific and subject-matter educated communities, not just 'man on the street' "wisdom") evidence showing that viewing certain types of entertainment actually causes criminal behavior, then perhaps we could have a discussion on how best to regulate that type of material. However, in the absence of such evidence, this whole issue is nothing but a political red herring, something that's being created as a "feel good" piece by desperate politicians trying to capitalize on the emotions of people who don't know better.