The new UK law on viewing BDSM and bondage...

But what does it mean?!?

So, a news story on today's BBC.com. A woman who's daughter was murdered, has campaigned for, and won, "a ban on the possesion of violent sexual images".

BBC Story

Does anyone have more information on what kinds of images they are talking about? It justs seems a very sweeping statement. (I've seen pictures of missionary that could be considered violent!)

The man convicted appears to have had a strangulation fetish, but the ban seems to be potentially of a much wider scale.

Any ideas?

Go Ask Jeeves.

Go Ask Jeeves.

Well, duh. Why didn't I think of that?

Thank you for your input.
(There, attention - feel better now?)

I suppose it'll come down to consent again in the end. Current obscenity law in the UK states that images must be of adults who have consented to pose for them and consented to have them distributed.

A lot of these extreme sites have material that nobody would consent to be the subject of, the people depicted (i haven't seen this stuff, not the extreme stuff but have a friend who works at broadmoor who has) have either been physically forced or heavily coerced into the most horrific scenes. Some of these images show (apparently) dead people. I'm sure it's this stuff that the new legislation will target rather than consensual BDSM

I hope so anyway

The Future...

This breaking story could have huge ramifications for collectors of BDSM related porn and pics in the UK...has the world gone completely mad? How convenient to blame crimes on the internet or other media forms....where did people get their ideas in the past before we had such convenient targets? Perhaps it might be more advantageous to look at how society as a whole, including the family, play a part in creating psychopathic tendencies and address that, more so than targeting areas which are often secondary to those who already have a problem. Band-aid actions just never work IMHO...similar to the debates I used to get into as a DV worker. I was thought to be horrible for suggesting money should be spent looking at perpetrators and finding ways to solve their issues so they do not continue to abuse, the common thought being it is better to spend all the money on programmes for shelters and educating the victims/survivors, many who went on to one abusive relationship after another, or were not supported adequately by community and legal areas to escape permanently and safely.

Catalina

Well, when I read the article, I was thinking that they would be targeting things like flogging material, until I saw...

"material featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury".

So obviously they aren't that incompetent
There's always better ways to spend your money than on censoring and "internet crime", but there's a petition with 50,000 signatures, and a very publically supported campaign, politicans can't afford to ignore that. ¬_¬

You do realise this targets many areas people here are interested in such as breath play?.... and as the guy said, he already had the interest, he just sought images on the internet....that didn't make him do it or think of it in the first place so where is targetting everyone who keeps any porn related to such areas going to stop murders and rapes? People can be very easily whipped up into frenzy enough to sign a petition without fully understanding the implications or futility in the actions suggested. To me it is typical of our times...quick fix to shut the people up and make the pollies look good, but not really achieving a long term solution at all. As to how people spend their money, that is their business....some people may think what you spend money on is stupid, but is that reason to then prevent you doing so?

Catalina

catalina_francisco said:

You do realise this targets many areas people here are interested in such as breath play?.... and as the guy said, he already had the interest, he just sought images on the internet....that didn't make him do it or think of it in the first place so where is targetting everyone who keeps any porn related to such areas going to stop murders and rapes? People can be very easily whipped up into frenzy enough to sign a petition without fully understanding the implications or futility in the actions suggested. To me it is typical of our times...quick fix to shut the people up and make the pollies look good, but not really achieving a long term solution at all. As to how people spend their money, that is their business....some people may think what you spend money on is stupid, but is that reason to then prevent you doing so?

Catalina

Click to expand...

haa, Just my opinion, I'm agreeing with you, its a band-aid solution that won't solve anything, and they'd be better off doing other things.
(and I spend about 80% of my money on tuition.)

Damn, it would appear that if someone frequented this site, they certainly would be prosecuted. Chances are, the site itself will have to further self-censor.

This looks pretty serious.

Once they try to prosecute a few cases, they will learn that they cannot prove who was sitting behind the computer regardless of what records show. That's when bio-personal ID of some sort will be required by ISPs as mandated by law. In other words, to log online you will have to prove that it is you who is sitting behind the computer or the ISP will not provide access.

If the powers that be at Lit share any word, will you please keep us updated Cat...thank you for posting this.

"It is great news that the Government has not only listened but has responded to calls to outlaw access to sickening internet images..."

So, who decides which are "sickening internet images" and which are not? Will there be some kind of internet czar who will determine what is considered too violent/sexual for viewing? How will they know what's on your home PC and how will this be regulated/inforced?

"...which can so easily send vulnerable people over the edge."

There always has to be something to blame bad/violent/criminal behavior on. The list is endless; violent video games, violent movies, too much television, letting little boys play with guns, pornographic magazines, cartoons, too many Twinkies (remember that defense?)... yada, yada, yada. This man was apparently, already over the edge but it makes everyone feel better to place the blame on something.

This is a scary example of civil rights violations run amuk. Personal, private rights be damned... we have to find some way to prevent the "vulnerable people" in our society from going "over the edge" and killing us.

This sounds way too American, to me. I'm surprised it could happen in the UK. It's a real sad direction for Parliment to move in.

Aeroil said:

haa, Just my opinion, I'm agreeing with you, its a band-aid solution that won't solve anything, and they'd be better off doing other things.
(and I spend about 80% of my money on tuition.)

Click to expand...

LOL, believe it or not I have knowl people who beieve any form of education or tuition is a waste of resources.

Catalina

A Desert Rose said:

"It is great news that the Government has not only listened but has responded to calls to outlaw access to sickening internet images..."

So, who decides which are "sickening internet images" and which are not? Will there be some kind of internet czar who will determine what is considered too violent/sexual for viewing? How will they know what's on your home PC and how will this be regulated/inforced?

"...which can so easily send vulnerable people over the edge."

There always has to be something to blame bad/violent/criminal behavior on. The list is endless; violent video games, violent movies, too much television, letting little boys play with guns, pornographic magazines, cartoons, too many Twinkies (remember that defense?)... yada, yada, yada. This man was apparently, already over the edge but it makes everyone feel better to place the blame on something.

This is a scary example of civil rights violations run amuk. Personal, private rights be damned... we have to find some way to prevent the "vulnerable people" in our society from going "over the edge" and killing us.

This sounds way too American, to me. I'm surprised it could happen in the UK. It's a real sad direction for Parliment to move in.

Click to expand...

So true ADR...obviously from what I have heard, rape (or simulated) and breath play are on the list..now wonder if they will extend it to TV programmes we both love...doubtful but still seems double standards, not to mention totally stupid.

Catalina

RJMasters said:

Damn, it would appear that if someone frequented this site, they certainly would be prosecuted. Chances are, the site itself will have to further self-censor.

This looks pretty serious.

Once they try to prosecute a few cases, they will learn that they cannot prove who was sitting behind the computer regardless of what records show. That's when bio-personal ID of some sort will be required by ISPs as mandated by law. In other words, to log online you will have to prove that it is you who is sitting behind the computer or the ISP will not provide access.

If the powers that be at Lit share any word, will you please keep us updated Cat...thank you for posting this.

Click to expand...

Seems all those right wingers feel it necessary to protect us from ourselves!!! Now who is going to protect us from them?!!

Catalina

Alright, so a man got off on video/pictures of women being strangled on the internet in a 'sexual manner' so now they ban this: "material featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury".

So are they going to ban shows featuring stupid guys doing stupid, possibly deadly stuff?
Ban footage of people participating in SSC BDSM because it appears to be life threatening? Isn't part of the appeal of BDSM to some the edge play?

Censoring the matieral that legal adults can see/hear/read/possess is wrong, with certain exceptions. Child pornography and the like is wrong.
However, sexual asphixiation is, while not common, not unheard of as a kink- its not the fault of those that practice it/have it practiced on them that some fucktard with issues killed a woman.

The violent images did not make him kill her. HE killed her, plain and simple. Was the method of murder influenced by the images- quite possibly so. Or he could have just had a pair of tights available at the time and used what was handy.

Violent crimes have been around long before the invent of the interent, mass media, or even printed material. Its people that kill people, not images.

catalina_francisco said:

So true ADR...obviously from what I have heard, rape (or simulated) and breath play are on the list..now wonder if they will extend it to TV programmes we both love...doubtful but still seems double standards, not to mention totally stupid.

Catalina

Click to expand...

It's just another example of society being willing, in fact anxious to give up their rights in the name of a higher mission, i.e. protecting themselves from some evil they can't/won't/don't understand. It's amazing that so many will readily give up their personal freedoms in the name of preventing some unknown evil. It happens here all the time.

The irony is that the higher mission should be preservation of our own civil rights. They just don't get it, yet. Some day the ramifications will come home to roost on those who set this all in motion. I wonder if they'll mind then?

A Desert Rose said:

It's just another example of society being willing, in fact anxious to give up their rights in the name of a higher mission, i.e. protecting themselves from some evil they can't/won't/don't understand. It's amazing that so many will readily give up their personal freedoms in the name of preventing some unknown evil. It happens here all the time.

The irony is that the higher mission should be preservation of our own civil rights. They just don't get it, yet. Some day the ramifications will come home to roost on those who set this all in motion. I wonder if they'll mind then?

Click to expand...

It seems no matter how many times this happens in history, the human race gets sucked in again and again, or at least some of them. As I have said before, why are we, the supposedly most intelligent animal in the kingdom, the only ones who do not learn and adapt behaviour through previous experiences as a means to survival?

Catalina

there is another post on this same topic that was posted by catalina called "the future..."

Vixandra said:

The violent images did not make him kill her. HE killed her, plain and simple. Was the method of murder influenced by the images- quite possibly so. Or he could have just had a pair of tights available at the time and used what was handy.

Click to expand...

And really, isn't it more likely that he was searching out pics that fit his kink, rather than one picture being responsible for his fantasy?

I just see this as such a broad policy, that it's all going to depend on the Government, as to who gets prosecuted. God help us.

myinnerslut said:

there is another post on this same topic that was posted by catalina called "the future..."

Click to expand...

Uum, yes. And did you notice the time stamps?

i like bdsm!!!

People are willing to give up the freedoms that they rarely exercise. They don't know the value of them.

Wonder why so few of us take advantage of the opportunities we have? Are we scared to step outside of our little hamster wheels?

I think if we could persuade more people to try a little kink, we'd all become a little more socially responsible and open-minded

VelvetDarkness said:

I'm sure it's this stuff that the new legislation will target rather than consensual BDSM

I hope so anyway

Click to expand...

So do I. I'm just worried that it's heading down the path of the conservative Right, telling us what is and isn't OK for us.

can't e stick these two threads together? i'm getting confused.

Britain has lost all sense in many areas of legislation.

This is just another example, that, and the media giving unbalanced view. I am sure there must be more to this story. Not necessarily good or bad just more.

Remember the recent furore about child car seats? Finally we are given the height of children who need to be in a seat instead of their age.
I find it disappointing that UK media try to sensationalise everything for a good or shock headline.

I will hold off screaming until the define 'violent.'

It does depend on that definition, but I do feel sad for this woman.

She lost her daughter, but focusing on a campaign which is so grey and will be difficult to police will not bring her daughter back.
I don't see how it can help with the grieving process, to me, it seems it will only delay remembering the good things about her daughter.

Focusing on how a person died instead of their years of life always seem sad to me.

If this comes through as legislation (complete with legislative loop holes) it will not stop other women dying. When this mother reads of another death despite this law it will not help her. I can only imagine it will bring back feelings of loss for her own daughter.
What this law will do is push the means of obtaining images even further underground. It won't actually stop people having fantasies about extremes.

Society as a whole has a responsibility to prevent death at the hands of another person. But whilst they still show graphic deaths in Hollywood films we have a long way to go.

The future?

I dunno, it bites. It's terrible what happened to that woman, but it's far easier to blame images than it is to protect people from one another.

We were fine before anyone legally sanctioned our smut and we'll be fine after this. We're creative and malleable and will find ways to get our rocks off.