Pornography In The UK

[oggbashan]

I disagree, Og. Please quote your sources.

Are you inviting me to break the proposed law?

Following links from Yahoo Adult groups frequently leads to sites registered in Russia, the Czech Republic, Japan, the Ukraine etc.

It might be legal for you to go looking. Me? I'm investing in a disk scrubber for all the stuff I have looked at in the past. There are too many for me to claim I was inadvertently on the site.

Thank whoever that I have never used a credit card to pay to see any sexual imagery.

Whether they can prosecute me for winning prizes on Literotica, and 100 dollars Australian and therefore being a professional distributor of pornography? I thought my only problems were the tax man.

Og

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

A large amount of the really nasty stuff available here has been produced in Russia, Japan, China and in the Eastern European states. The UK law cannot cover videos produced beyond our borders until it is downloaded onto a UK citizen's computer.

Much of the sex trade in the UK is staffed by women from the former communist states, often working under duress. One of our local brothels was raided this year. The women working there were from rural China. They had been told that their husbands and children back home would be killed if they refused to be prostitutes. That would be a much more worthwhile target for action than digital images of violent sex that may or may not have been real.

Og

This is exactly the reason the British Law won't work, Og. They want it, they'll get it.

If they really want to stop it there has to be Internation Regulation. Is that really going to happen? I think not, especially in the eastern european countries where much of the business world is controlled by gangsters who hold great sway over the political figureheads.

 

[oggbashan]

I know that the proposed law won't work.

It is a reaction to a widely publicised case of a psychopath who dismembered his teacher girlfriend. He had a collection of snuff videos. He was and is insane, but that doesn't matter. The teacher's mother has been demanding action and the government has decided that this measure will be popular.

It will be, because it has been sold as violent sexual aggression, and the campaign has been based on Megan's Law for paedophiles. It doesn't matter that consensual sex between adults covers a wide spectrum including role-play and IS LEGAL. It won't be legal to watch a DVD of yourself and wife playing spanking, tying, gagging or breast-smothering. If the law is passed as it stands - You can DO IT, you can't watch yourself doing it.

Since handguns were banned in the UK and our Olympic pistol sportspeople have to train and keep their guns in France - there are more guns on the streets and more shootings. The only people affected were those who owned and used guns legally. The criminals just imported more guns.

It is madness, but that is responding to popular demands - government by knee-jerk reaction.

Og

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Since handguns were banned in the UK and our Olympic pistol sportspeople have to train and keep their guns in France - there are more guns on the streets and more shootings. The only people affected were those who owned and used guns legally. The criminals just imported more guns.

Not so different than what is happening in the US right now.

It is madness, but that is responding to popular demands - government by knee-jerk reaction.

Og

And a law, just like the "Patriot Act" that wasn't though through before it was drafted and will be a thorn in the ass of society for a long time before it's changed.

 

[CharleyH]

Are you inviting me to break the proposed law?

Following links from Yahoo Adult groups frequently leads to sites registered in Russia, the Czech Republic, Japan, the Ukraine etc.

It might be legal for you to go looking. Me? I'm investing in a disk scrubber for all the stuff I have looked at in the past. There are too many for me to claim I was inadvertently on the site.

Thank whoever that I have never used a credit card to pay to see any sexual imagery.

Whether they can prosecute me for winning prizes on Literotica, and 100 dollars Australian and therefore being a professional distributor of pornography? I thought my only problems were the tax man.

Og

I am inviting you to quote your sources, thats all. I dont see links from adult groups as very credible. As for the rest? lol

 

[Pure]

For example, it would cover violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in "serious and disabling injury".

well, let's see... that arguably rules out Macbeth, Hamlet, King Lear; Titus Andronicus for sure.

i guess there will be an exception for "British Classics" of literary merit.

so everyone is going to be safer, you say...

 

[NoJo]

Since handguns were banned in the UK and our Olympic pistol sportspeople have to train and keep their guns in France - there are more guns on the streets and more shootings. The only people affected were those who owned and used guns legally. The criminals just imported more guns.


Og

Dangerously erronious (and common) reasoning there, og -- handgun increase is not caused by the change in the law, as you imply. It's caused by the increase in drug trafficking.

Personally I agree that the law is completely unworkable (not least because of the transnational nature of the Internet), and quite likely a bit of government pandering to the prim.

But I can quite believe that exposure to extreme violence can trigger latent psychotic behaviour in certain individuals, and those individualsneed to be kept away from such stimuli.

The situation is similar to that of the outlawing of publications which incite racial hatred. And associating this law with those relating to child pornography is in danger of muddying the issue: The argument about the "consensual" nature of rape and snuff videos vs child porn is missing the point that it's the acts being depicted, rather than expolitation of the participants, that are at issue.

 

[R. Richard]

Don't live in th UK, but a bump is in order. What is your take on the article, R. Richard?

As with all reasoning adults I can clearly see that the bathwater has to go. Whazzat? Don't bother me about the baby.

 

[CharleyH]

For example, it would cover violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in "serious and disabling injury".

well, let's see... that arguably rules out Macbeth, Hamlet, King Lear; Titus Andronicus for sure.

i guess there will be an exception for "British Classics" of literary merit.

so everyone is going to be safer, you say...

great start for an amazing discussion - you should take off on this.

 

[CharleyH]

As with all reasoning adults I can clearly see that the bathwater has to go. Whazzat? Don't bother me about the baby.

I see you are a cunt. Great for me.

 

[R. Richard]

I know that the proposed law won't work.

What has tha got to do with anything? If the government only pased laws that worked, a man could make some sense of life.

It is a reaction to a widely publicised case of a psychopath who dismembered his teacher girlfriend. He had a collection of snuff videos. He was and is insane, but that doesn't matter. The teacher's mother has been demanding action and the government has decided that this measure will be popular.

Why can't the Queen just say, "Off wif' 'is 'ead!" After all, it worked for Henry the VIII!

It will be, because it has been sold as violent sexual aggression, and the campaign has been based on Megan's Law for paedophiles. It doesn't matter that consensual sex between adults covers a wide spectrum including role-play and IS LEGAL. It won't be legal to watch a DVD of yourself and wife playing spanking, tying, gagging or breast-smothering. If the law is passed as it stands - You can DO IT, you can't watch yourself doing it.

Well, it shouldn't be legal! I mean, aren't you glad tha all of us here at Literotica waited until our 18th birtdays to have sex?

Since handguns were banned in the UK and our Olympic pistol sportspeople have to train and keep their guns in France - there are more guns on the streets and more shootings. The only people affected were those who owned and used guns legally. The criminals just imported more guns.

Of course. Not too well know, is that during WW II, Winston wanted to fight them in the landing places, on the beaches, along the roads and in the streets! However, the British lacked anything to fight them with [pitchforks do not count here.] There was a plan to get guns from the USA.

It is madness, but that is responding to popular demands - government by knee-jerk reaction.

I hate to be picky here, Og, however, as a writer I must tell you that the "knee-" item would be better of omitted.

 

[NoJo]

If I met someone who got off on watching videos of women getting raped, I'd be very much inclined to cut off his testicles and set fire to them. So they clearly do lead to violent behaviour.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Anyone have a link to the text of the statute?



That really doesn't tell us much. The case law surrounding the Obscene Publications Act of 1954 would also explain more. From first blush, it sounds like it only covers snuff, which is a no-no in several jurisdictions on this side of the pond, too, but only an examination of the case law will tell us exactly what it covers, and whether Zeb's fear of a slippery, astroglided slope to the Obscene Thoughts Act of 2010 has any modicum of merit.

Zeb, help us out by finding us a link to the text of UK's Constitution, would you?

I don't think that the UK HAS a Constitution, which is the issue. You can't raise constitutional issues when the government can pass any damn law that it pleases. Without a First Amendment, anything in the media is fair game. I feel for you, my English friends. I like you, but I wouldn't trade places right now.

 

[NoJo]

Case law is a rather a difficult concept for Americans.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Case law is a rather a difficult concept for Americans.

Not really. It's frequently used in precedents to interpret our written Constitution (or rather, misinterpret, most of the time). But I guess that's all you have to go by, which is why I don't envy you. I like knowing that my rights are, at least theoretically, set in stone. It increases the difficulty of trampling them a wee bit.

Nothing against you. I'm just a firm civil libertarian.

 

[CharleyH]

If I met someone who got off on watching videos of women getting raped, I'd be very much inclined to cut off his testicles and set fire to them. So they clearly do lead to violent behaviour.

DAMN! I thought this was porn.

 

[thehotchip]

Like it nor not, agree or disagree, violence is a very, very big part of human nature. We start wars and kill thousands, millions; people are kidnapped or murdered or raped or attacked on the street every single day; children are abused by their own parents. On a far more singular, more personal level, if someone you loved was being attacked, would you not resort to physical action/ violence to stave off the attacker and save that loved one? We are all capable of violence; it runs through human kind. It is part of the reason the horror industry is so huge, it is part of the reason people enjoy boxing or wrestling or watching things explode in action films. Like sex, violence runs parralel, a primal part of us.

And it has existed for centuries. There have been wars as far back as you'd care to research. In fact, there is more violence in the Bible than a lot of Hollywood action/ horror. Shall we ban the Bible, too? Once you start banning things, it is a slippery-slope into censorship and thought-control, just as George Orwell predicted in 1984.

The point is, banning films or internet material will do no good, it will not keep anyone "safe" or save mankind. We are our own worst enemies, there will always be people killing and maming and raping - even if you were to ban every film and every book ever made. The truth is, there is far worse happening around us every day, and nothing that can be made, whether written in a book, or screened in a film, will ever, ever match the terror and violence of the real world.

It is also human nature to have fantasies and thoughts we would not always voice aloud or act upon - sexual fantasies, in other words. You may fantasize about rape because it turns you on, you may fantasize about worse things, it does not mean you are going to go out and act upon them. There is a line between sexual gratification through imagining a scenario in our head, and actually putting that fantasy into motion. And, if anything, having access to such material (for example, the non-consent stories here on literotica) is in all probability a GOOD thing. Why? Because it is an outlet - a way for us to pour out those sexual energies and dark fantasies inherent to human nature. And when you look at the sheer volume of websites dedicated to non-consent stories or incest stories, does that not tell us something? Does that not say it is a common thread in human nature, a common fantasy? That it is okay, as long as it remains fantasy?

Maybe we are all perverted, maybe none of us are "normal". Who knows? What it comes down to, is that banning films etc etc, will not do one bit of good.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Like it nor not, agree or disagree, violence is a very, very big part of human nature. We start wars and kill thousands, millions; people are kidnapped or murdered or raped or attacked on the street every single day; children are abused by their own parents. On a far more singular, more personal level, if someone you loved was being attacked, would you not resort to physical action/ violence to stave off the attacker and save that loved one? We are all capable of violence; it runs through human kind. It is part of the reason the horror industry is so huge, it is part of the reason people enjoy boxing or wrestling or watching things explode in action films. Like sex, violence runs parralel, a primal part of us.

And it has existed for centuries. There have been wars as far back as you'd care to research. In fact, there is more violence in the Bible than a lot of Hollywood action/ horror. Shall we ban the Bible, too? Once you start banning things, it is a slippery-slope into censorship and thought-control, just as George Orwell predicted in 1984.

The point is, banning films or internet material will do no good, it will not keep anyone "safe" or save mankind. We are our own worst enemies, there will always be people killing and maming and raping - even if you were to ban every film and every book ever made. The truth is, there is far worse happening around us every day, and nothing that can be made, whether written in a book, or screened in a film, will ever, ever match the terror and violence of the real world.

It is also human nature to have fantasies and thoughts we would not always voice aloud or act upon - sexual fantasies, in other words. You may fantasize about rape because it turns you on, you may fantasize about worse things, it does not mean you are going to go out and act upon them. There is a line between sexual gratification through imagining a scenario in our head, and actually putting that fantasy into motion. And, if anything, having access to such material (for example, the non-consent stories here on literotica) is in all probability a GOOD thing. Why? Because it is an outlet - a way for us to pour out those sexual energies and dark fantasies inherent to human nature. And when you look at the sheer volume of websites dedicated to non-consent stories or incest stories, does that not tell us something? Does that not say it is a common thread in human nature, a common fantasy? That it is okay, as long as it remains fantasy?

Maybe we are all perverted, maybe none of us are "normal". Who knows? What it comes down to, is that banning films etc etc, will not do one bit of good.

Welcum to the AH and bravo on this rather intelligent rant.

 

[CharleyH]

But I can quite believe that exposure to extreme violence can trigger latent psychotic behaviour in certain individuals, and those individualsneed to be kept away from such stimuli.

The situation is similar to that of the outlawing of publications which incite racial hatred. And associating this law with those relating to child pornography is in danger of muddying the issue: The argument about the "consensual" nature of rape and snuff videos vs child porn is missing the point that it's the acts being depicted, rather than expolitation of the participants, that are at issue.

Oh please! Isn't reading any government document a bit - well WEIRD? I am agreeing that the outlawing of anything - perhaps even - well - I like to listen right now - - isn't it like a none sequitor? Explain more, sj.

 

[TheEarl]

I think people are overreacting a bit here. Unless someone can correct me, BDSM hasn't been mention. Nor has spanking, nor rape stories.

As far as I've read (and I hope you'll forgive me if I've missed something, for I have been out of the country), the law applies to films where someone has, for a long-term or permanently, been physically damaged, harmed or killed in the making of.

It's a long way from perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than the current law, which is the Obscene Publications Act. This states that any material with the potential to 'corrupt or deprave' is illegal.

Hell, I'm happier with the idea that snuff is banned than of a jury trying to decide if my stories could corrupt or deprave.

The Earl

 

[R. Richard]

I think people are overreacting a bit here. Unless someone can correct me, BDSM hasn't been mention. Nor has spanking, nor rape stories.

As far as I've read (and I hope you'll forgive me if I've missed something, for I have been out of the country), the law applies to films where someone has, for a long-term or permanently, been physically damaged, harmed or killed in the making of.

It's a long way from perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than the current law, which is the Obscene Publications Act. This states that any material with the potential to 'corrupt or deprave' is illegal.

Hell, I'm happier with the idea that snuff is banned than of a jury trying to decide if my stories could corrupt or deprave.

The Earl

What bothers me is the ideas behind the Obscene Publications Act and the new law. The new law, by itself, is not necessarily that bad. However, the way that sex related laws are enforced inevitably leads to a situation where someone is sentenced to life imprisonment for posesssion of a Playboy magazine.

 

[Pure]

?

i know this sounds pedestrian, but does anyone have a link to or copy of the proposed text of the law?

 

[TheEarl]

i know this sounds pedestrian, but does anyone have a link to or copy of the proposed text of the law?

http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/the_cjs/whats_new/news-3199.html

This page has an article from the sources mouth, as well as a link to the consultation paper which is the first step towards the proposed law.

The Earl

Edited - the link off that link is broken. Bloody government website!

 

[TheEarl]

Found it: Here

My response coming later.

The Earl

 

[oggbashan]

http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/the_cjs/whats_new/news-3199.html

This page has an article from the sources mouth, as well as a link to the consultation paper which is the first step towards the proposed law.

The Earl

Edited - the link off that link is broken. Bloody government website!

That's because that source was August 2005. The consultation ended last year. As usual the government ignored the response which had a majority saying that no new legislation was necessary.

The new link is: here

Og