Pornography In The UK

[Selena_Kitt]

Worries me.

This: "it will be illegal to possess pornographic images depicting scenes of extreme sexual violence" coupled with "He pointed out that the government was supported on this issue by women’s and children's groups, as well as police forces. In addition, a petition signed by around 50,000 people objecting to the extreme websites that promote violence against women as sexual gratification, has been presented to Parliament."

Um... what's the definition of "extreme sexual violence"? How violent is violent? Who decides? And is it still a crime if all parties consented? Will it be illegal to MAKE such films? Will women consenting to be in violent films be prosecuted?

Slippery slope, that's what this is...

 

[TheEarl]

Um... what's the definition of "extreme sexual violence"? How violent is violent? Who decides? And is it still a crime if all parties consented? Will it be illegal to MAKE such films? Will women consenting to be in violent films be prosecuted?

Slippery slope, that's what this is...

12. The material covered by the offence would be:
(i) intercourse or oral sex with an animal; and
(ii) sexual interference with a human corpse, as proposed in the consultation
document. We have considered the point raised by some respondents that
these categories do not exactly mirror the criminal offences set out in the
Sexual Offences Act 2003, which refer to penetration, but have concluded
that the broader categories should remain.

13. We have reconsidered the remaining categories set out in the consultation:
(i) serious violence in a sexual context, and
(ii) serious sexual violence.
We have concluded that the reference to “in a sexual context” caused confusion
and was unnecessary in view of the pornography threshold described above. We
therefore propose a single category of serious violence.

14. We have considered the violence threshold, which was originally proposed at
GBH level, and concluded that the test was not sufficiently precise, would be
difficult to apply and would draw in material which would not pass the
obscenity threshold. We have concluded that the offence should apply to
images of acts that appear to be life threatening or are likely to result in serious,
disabling injury. Again, it would be for the prosecution to show that the
material fell into this category. We would consider giving non-statutory
guidance on the type of injury which we consider would fall within this
category.

15. In summary, material would need to be:
(a) pornographic
(b) explicit
(c) real or appears to be real act (these would be objective tests for the jury)

16. It would cover:
(i) serious violence*
(ii) intercourse or oral sex with an animal
(iii) sexual interference with a human corpse
*by serious violence we mean appears to be life threatening or likely to result in
serious, disabling injury.

So basically, it's film or pictures which contain animal sex, dead person sex or violence likely to be fatal or permanently disabling, that was specifically designed to cause arousal. It would be the prosecutors need to prove those points.

Seems a fairly adhesive slope to me.

The Earl

 

[oggbashan]

Serious violence?

As usual, the proposals are too widely drawn. Serious violence? Death is serious.

As quoted by The Earl above, parts of the networks' 10pm News would be illegal if downloaded. Our Crimewatch reenactments would be illegal, as would much CCTV. Could councils be prosecuted for recording street violence on Friday and Saturday nights?

'Saving Private Ryan' would be covered as would explicit news reports of bombings in Iraq.

Many classic movies would be an offence if played on a computer.

This has a long way to go before it becomes law. I hope our legislators will realise that the law has to be much more precise than the first draft.

Og

 

[English Lady]

I think you're be-labouring the point ogg.

Acting would not be counted as it's aim is to stop things that appear to be life threatening. A movie with actors is not going to come under that banner. Also the news doesn't show violence in a guts blowing out kinda way and it's not depicted to get people off.

I am with the Earl on this, it looks like the slope ain't slippy at all, doesn't even look like much of a slope to me.

 

[TheEarl]

As usual, the proposals are too widely drawn. Serious violence? Death is serious.

As quoted by The Earl above, parts of the networks' 10pm News would be illegal if downloaded. Our Crimewatch reenactments would be illegal, as would much CCTV. Could councils be prosecuted for recording street violence on Friday and Saturday nights?

'Saving Private Ryan' would be covered as would explicit news reports of bombings in Iraq.

Many classic movies would be an offence if played on a computer.

This has a long way to go before it becomes law. I hope our legislators will realise that the law has to be much more precise than the first draft.

Og

The bit that I quoted also stated that the bit of film needed to be made with the specific purpose of getting people off and that it was for the prosecution to prove this.

Therefore, 10 o'clock news, Crimewatch, Saving Private Ryan and classic movies would all be safe as they were not designed for sexual titillation.

I know that the government doesn't have the best record of drawing up sensible laws, but I think you're overreacting a bit here Ogg. You appear to be trying to look for the Greek soldiers in a wooden horse that's only three inches high and not hollow. I'm thoroughly in favour of keeping an eye on this law, as no doubt it could go tits up at any second, but the sheer fact that two BDSM groups were involved in this early drafting suggests that the government has actually <shock horror> thought this one through.

The Earl

 

[cantdog]

What?

How does banning film of torture and rape make you more secure?

Next it will be books. Then speech. Then thought. Then you're in a world of a mess with no way out.

The 'security' thing is the security of the victims. Just as in the case of child porn. The ban doesn't address the victim problem directly, no, but by drying up the market in rape and torture films, perhaps the motivation to victimize (in order to produce them) may be lessened. At least, I imagine that to be the reason.

Definitions and limits are the key, as ogg says. This could work fine if it is carefully constructed. I don't find a big alarming need for it, myself. The world on this side of the water is not inundated with torture films or snuff films.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

The 'security' thing is the security of the victims. Just as in the case of child porn. The ban doesn't address the victim problem directly, no, but by drying up the market in rape and torture films, perhaps the motivation to victimize (in order to produce them) may be lessened. At least, I imagine that to be the reason.

Definitions and limits are the key, as ogg says. This could work fine if it is carefully constructed. I don't find a big alarming need for it, myself. The world on this side of the water is not inundated with torture films or snuff films.

Ah but, it is still censorship.

 

[Liar]

As usual, the proposals are too widely drawn. Serious violence? Death is serious.

As quoted by The Earl above, parts of the networks' 10pm News would be illegal if downloaded. Our Crimewatch reenactments would be illegal, as would much CCTV. Could councils be prosecuted for recording street violence on Friday and Saturday nights?

Uh... wasn't one of the criteria that the material had to be pornographic as well as violent? As in exreme violence intended for sexual arousal. Hard to see where that could cover the evening news.


However, if it's just extreme violence and sex in the same scene, then we could find many questionable films. Have anyone here seen, for instance, the movie Irreversible? Then you know what I mean. One of the most gruesomely violent and brutally realistic rape scenes ever made, including some seriously injuring abuse. In an ever so serious, artisitc movie.

But it's pretty clear that the intention behind the scene is not to arouse the viewer, but rather the opposite. Would that be illegal?

 

[oggbashan]

Wait and see

I disagree with EL and The Earl.

Why not? We have a right to our own opinions. I HOPE that the law is more precisely drafted when eventually it is passed - if it is.

The problem with Parliamentary legislation is that the MPs know what they intended when it was drafted but lawyers have to interpret exactly what is written in the Act. The lawyers cannot take account of the intention - only the actual wording.

As currently drafted it could cover too much. While 'extreme sexual violence' is the target, what is 'extreme'; what is 'sexual'; and what is 'violence' will have to be argued in the courts when the first prosecutions start.

I have had recent unfortunate experiences with the Licensing Act 2003 that was intended to give the public a say in what should or should not be permitted to happen on licensed premises. The case law established by applications pursued by brewer's barristers eroded the rights of people adversely affected by anti-social activities. It became very difficult to argue that loud music until 2 am every night in a residential area was unreasonable unless neighbours very close (within 100 metres) were prepared to give evidence in court. If they were 110 metres away, even if the noise was intolerable, their evidence was inadmissable. If drunken yobs urinated all over residents' front doors and vandalised cars it didn't count if the licensed premises were more than 100 metres away. On the other hand, people who were within 100 metres could make unreasonable objections and effectively ban entertainment that had been operating for years without complaint.

I am very cautious and very wary about the impact of any new legislation because the reality on the ground can be so different from the legislators' intentions.

Og

 

[herecomestherain]

I guess hogtied.com is going to be off limits then.

More discussion here -- BBC

And here

I wonder if kinksters will be able to muster 50,000 names on a petition. Here, the conservative groups are expert at gathering names and lobbying government.

I'm in the middle of a wearying and frustrating wrangle with our own Office Of Film And Literature Classification over their refusal to give an exemption to show a sexually explicit non violent film at a film festival. Ogg's comments about legislation and intent are very close to home for me at the moment.

 

[herecomestherain]

Double post

 

[ishtat]

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.

So how do you account for the fact that in the UK you will see things published, on television or any other media that is almost impossible to find in the USA? You rely far too much on the first amendment.The reality is that there is far less censorship in UK and Europe than in the USA.

 

[TheEarl]

I guess hogtied.com is going to be off limits then.

Oh for crying out loud!

The discussion of the law has been specifically drafted so that it will exclude just about everything that us perverts are into. BDSM is not included in this law. Bondage is not included. Spanking is not included. In fact, nothing is included except scenes of death/disfigurement or scenes which appear to be death/disfigurement which are specifically intended to be pornographic.

Yes, it's currently vague, but it's also currently only a discussion panel. They're not drawing up legal verbage yet. They're pointing out the broad strokes, which do not include anything except death/disfigurement porn.

BDSM is not at threat under the proposed law, as it stands!

I can understand wanting to be wary about this law changing intent midstream. I can understand being worried about any future legislation. What I cannot understand is why so many people are reacting to this law like the government's specifically stated it's coming into our homes and is taking our whips away!

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

Addendum to point out that the new law is a hell of a lot more specific than the old one, which just states that it is illegal to produce material that may corrupt or deprave. If that's not too vague, then I don't know what is. This law will be going into specifics and will only involve snuff porn. Dead bodies, designed to arouse.

The Earl

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

So how do you account for the fact that in the UK you will see things published, on television or any other media that is almost impossible to find in the USA? You rely far too much on the first amendment.The reality is that there is far less censorship in UK and Europe than in the USA.

That's unfortunate, cowardly self-censorship by the media. But, you're right that it happens. Odd: we have more guarantees of our rights than you do, and yet your media is more courageous. Go figure.

 

[TheEarl]

That's unfortunate, cowardly self-censorship by the media. But, you're right that it happens. Odd: we have more guarantees of our rights than you do, and yet your media is more courageous. Go figure.

Just because we haven't got a constitution doesn't mean that certain things aren't enshrined in law. Woe betide any UK government that suggested changing the laws that enforce freedom of the press, same as any US government that suggested overturning the First Amendment.

The Earl

 

[oggbashan]

That's unfortunate, cowardly self-censorship by the media. But, you're right that it happens. Odd: we have more guarantees of our rights than you do, and yet your media is more courageous. Go figure.

I think that in practice we have more guarantees of rights that in the US.

In Kent, where I live, in 1066 the local militia compelled William the Conqueror to accept that Kent should continue to enjoy its ancient rights, laws and privileges. Some of those rights were not superseded until the 20th Century and were a factor in making Kent one of the most prosperous parts of England.

During the Commonwealth, when the country was ruled by the dictator Oliver Cromwell, the juries of the City of Canterbury twice refused to convict fellow citizens who had broken the law by celebrating Christmas. They persisted even when threatened by Cromwell's soldiers.

The City of London cannot be entered by the monarch except with the specific agreement of the Lord Mayor of London. He never refuses now - but in the past several monarchs had to beg the Lord Mayor for admission and were refused.

Our laws are based on the idea that everything is legal unless it is specifically forbidden and even then we argue...

Welsh, Scots and Northern Irish laws vary from English Law and then the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands have their own different laws.

There is always someone willing to make a stand to preserve ancient principles and oddities, including me.

One of my neighbours made a complaint about an elected councillor riding on the sea wall. Cycling was banned by a 19th Century bylaw. The councillor had to apologise to the local magistrates at a time when the Council was trying to make the sea wall part of a cycle route. It still isn't.

I could empty our local beach because men and women are bathing together after 7am and they are not wearing the approved university bathing costume that covers at least 3 inches of each arm and leg and the women's version has to have a skirt - but I won't. Knowledge of still-valid local laws can be very useful to stop something happening that might annoy people.

We Brits stand up for our rights. The King should have realised that the American Colonies in the 18th Century were just as bloody-minded as the rest of his subjects.

Og

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Just because we haven't got a constitution doesn't mean that certain things aren't enshrined in law. Woe betide any UK government that suggested changing the laws that enforce freedom of the press, same as any US government that suggested overturning the First Amendment.

The Earl

So, in a practical sense, you're as safe from it as we, you're saying. Interesting notion. Again, it was intended as a compliment to your media, by the way. Not as an insult. I admit that our TV stations are sometimes gutless. Radio, too, hence Howard Stern's "exile". The FCC is not constitutional, but it damn sure exists (and with teeth, as any real DJ or announcer could tell you). And what's worse, anyone with a phone pays for it. So much for "no taxation without representation". Samuel Adams is spinning in his grave. I, for one, don't recall electing the FCC.

Ogg, that's rather fascinating. I knew about the Lord Mayor, but the other stuff is news to me. Well, aside from the fact that Christmas was once illegal. I hear that you still have to practice with longbows. Now, that's a nice alternative to guns when you need one. I could see the signs: Burglars, beware of longbow.

And, yes, he should have known. We were wanting our rights as Englishmen (well, technically many of us were Scots, Irish, and Germans, but a charter's a charter, right?). And if he had listened, we'd be playing the same version of football as you folks.

Not that I'm a Tory. I like being in a Republic rather than a Monarchy. But that's me.

 

[geronimo_appleby]

The Smoking in Public Places legislation was mis-handled and look at the subsequent confusion... They'll fuck this up too.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I want a video of Tony Blair getting it on with Maggy Thatcher so I can post it on the web for me British friends

 

[geronimo_appleby]

I want a video of Tony Blair getting it on with Maggy Thatcher so I can post it on the web for me British friends

Nooooooooooooooooooo! I really don't want that image in my head...

 

[TheEarl]

Nooooooooooooooooooo! I really don't want that image in my head...

Seconded.

Tony Blair getting it on with David Cameron, on the other hand, whilst also disgusting, would answer a lot of questions...

The Earl

 

[Liar]

I don't think that the UK HAS a Constitution, which is the issue.

The UK doesn't have a document called "The Consitution".

But just like any other democratic nation, don't they have an equivalence? I once studied the legislature in a handful of European countries, and all have, for a lack of proper translation, "core laws". That set of code, defining stuff like what is a person, what is a citizen and what rights and obligations does persons and citizens have? The kind that takes extended due process to edit, and to which all other laws realte to and validate against.

That's what the US Constitution is, when it comes down to it. Doesn't the Brits have that?

 

[TheEarl]

The UK doesn't have a document called "The Consitution".

But just like any other democratic nation, don't they have an equivalence? I once studied the legislature in a handful of European countries, and all have, for a lack of proper translation, "core laws". That set of code, defining stuff like what is a person, what is a citizen and what rights and obligations does persons and citizens have? The kind that takes extended due process to edit, and to which all other laws realte to and validate against.

That's what the US Constitution is, when it comes down to it. Doesn't the Brits have that?

Effectively.

The laws aren't quite as protected as the constitution, as we don't have the catch-all expression of "That's unconstitutional!" but they are effectively unviolable.

The Earl

 

[oggbashan]

The UK doesn't have a document called "The Consitution".

But just like any other democratic nation, don't they have an equivalence? I once studied the legislature in a handful of European countries, and all have, for a lack of proper translation, "core laws". That set of code, defining stuff like what is a person, what is a citizen and what rights and obligations does persons and citizens have? The kind that takes extended due process to edit, and to which all other laws realte to and validate against.

That's what the US Constitution is, when it comes down to it. Doesn't the Brits have that?

The English, and since the various Acts of Union, the British to a lesser extent have no written constitution. Our laws are based on precedent and a legal fiction 'time immemorial' - that is laws that were in existence, known and understood, before laws were written down. Our laws are changed by legislation and by case law - the setting of precedents. If a judge decides that an existing law means 'x', that is what it means, even if that was not what it meant before. That ruling can be changed on appeal to a higher court, but if not challenged, or upheld on appeal, that ruling is added to the interpretation of the law until another judge says differently. For example: Is a hovercraft a ship or an airplane? Case law decided that it was an airplane until legislation was introduced making a hovercraft neither ship nor airplane...

We have a system of rules for the conduct of Parliament, Erskine May, that sets out how new legislation can be introduced and old ones repealed. Erskine May is only a codification of what was the practice when he (Erskine May) recorded it, plus agreed changes to the procedures. It includes historic nonsenses such as the lines drawn on the carpet of the House of Commons that are two swords' length apart so that Members of Parliament did not skewer themselves on their opponents' swords. The House of Lords was too polite to need such a device.

Most European countries' basic laws are based on the Code Napoleon, even if they had to defeat him. What Napoleon did was to bring together and sort out the various existing legal systems and produce a unified whole. Some of it was based on Roman (church) law.

England (Henry VIII) threw out Roman Law with the break with the Roman Catholic Church. Even before then there had been difficulty between Canon Law and Civil Law. Thomas A Becket's martyrdom was ultimately caused by his refusal to adapt Church Law to English Law.

If a UK Prime Minister were to do something unconstitutional, the Monarch has the right to dissolve Parliament and force a General election. Her Majesty the Queen has never done this, but the Governor-General of Australia, her representative in Australia, did it to the Australian Parliament and caused a constitutional row - yet he was proved to have that power. Whether he should have used it? That is still debated.

The English Government has three parts: The Crown, Parliament and the Judiciary. The Crown has ultimate power to approve or delay legislation in theory but not in practice. The Queen would probably tell her Prime Minister that a piece of legislation was unwise long before she would take the ultimate step of refusing to sign an Act of Parliament. The Judiciary interprets the law that has been passed by Parliament and approved by the Queen. The Judiciary is supposed to be independent but would advise the Prime Minister if a significant law was unworkable, BEFORE it became law. The whole thing is a balance of compromised powers. It creaks and groans but it works.

Og