• commentary
  • WEDNESDAY AUGUST 30 2006 9:00 PM

UK to Ban "Violent Porn"

Submitted by legionnaire

Edited by legionnaire

Tags: porn, ban, UK

Not content with making the creation and distribution of "violent porn" illegal, UK legislators will be criminalizing possession of pictures of "material featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury."

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

It follows a campaign by Berkshire woman Liz Longhurst whose daughter Jane, a Brighton schoolteacher, was allegedly strangled by Graham Coutts.
[...]
It is already a crime to make or publish such images but proposed legislation will outlaw possession of images such as "material featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury".

Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker MP said: "Such material has no place in our society but the advent of the internet has meant that this material is more easily available and means existing controls are being by-passed - we must move to tackle this."

Mrs Longhurst said legislation, which would apply to all websites, would mean her daughter's death had not been "entirely in vain".


While what happened to Jane Longhurst is a tragedy, it seems odd that parliament would be so quick to place the blame on the pornography viewed by her killer, rather than the killer himself, for her murder. If a law is required to deal with a problem of this scope then presumably thousands of people view this sort of pornographic material all the time, and cases like these, particularly in the UK, which has a relatively low murder rate, are rare. So if so many people are exposed to this kind of porn so often and incidents like this happen so rarely, how is it possible to place the blame on still images?

There are those in the UK who foresee problems with the ban as well.

But the proposed legislation has drawn opposition from anti-censorship groups and organisations who represent people involved in sadomasochist activities.

Shaun Gabb, director of the anti-censorship organisation the Libertarian Alliance, said: "If you are criminalising 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."


It's amazing to me, an American, that people interested in S&M actually have representatives trying to preserve their rights at all, since in the US anything even slightly different from straight, vanilla sex is usually ostracized and demonized, and never taken seriously by legislators.

Even those who don't find the images stimulating should take pause when governments of free countries decide to start making particular types of content (made with consenting adults) illegal. Particularly when they're not depicting any actual illegal activity; the condition for what constitutes a "violent image" clearly states that the image need only "appear to be" threatening in order to qualify. It's a slippery slope, and not too difficult to imagine what will be next on the ban list.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

Comments
Ainur

Ainur

I'm lost
May 2005

AUG 30, 2006 09:10 PM

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fiiiiiiiine
I feel fiiiiiiine
I feel fiiiiiiine

spamtwo

spamtwo

United Kingdom
April 2006

AUG 30, 2006 09:31 PM

legionnaire said:
Even those who don't find the images stimulating should take pause when governments of free countries decide to start making particular types of content (made with consenting adults) illegal. Particularly when they're not depicting any actual illegal activity; the condition for what constitutes a "violent image" clearly states that the image need only "appear to be" threatening in order to qualify. It's a slippery slope, and not too difficult to imagine what will be next on the ban list.



what your forgetting is you can already be prosecuted in the UK for taking part in S&M activities even when all parties are willing participants if the acts leave visible and lasting markings. You can find out more
here although I'm not sure if it goes in to too much detail about the Spanner case.

So the consenting adults point of view doesn't wash in the UK courts.

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

AUG 30, 2006 09:34 PM

Sounds like the UK sucks...

Glacian

Glacian

Minneapolis, MN
August 2006

AUG 30, 2006 09:56 PM

Laws are for rich people who want porn to themselves

quagmirething

quagmirething

I'm lost
June 2005

AUG 30, 2006 10:06 PM

legionnaire said:
Not content with making the creation and distribution of "violent porn" illegal, UK legislators will be criminalizing possession of pictures of "material featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury."


It's worse than that. You really need to read the consultation document. It spells out that

The material under consideration does depict consensual sexual activity, nor even the milder forms of bondage and humiliation which are common place in pornographic material. If depicts suffering, pain, torture and degradation of a kind which we believe most people would find abhorrent.


Which, with a bit of careful reading, makes it clear that it's intended to cover anything beyond good old plain vanilla. I am left wondering what sort of "degradation" they are talking about, as that alone will be enough to invoke the law. Seems a subjective minefield.

Under "Evidence of Harm" they add

in some cases the participants are clearly the victims of criminal offenses.


This brings back an old issue. As the law stands caning some one's bottom (and leaving marks) involves two crimes, assault and accessory to assault. It seems that some people would love to return the days of the Spanner case. As spamtwo has mentioned.

Reading the document is an odd experience. The constant references to "the good of society", that "which most people find abhorrent", their wish not just to stop people seeing these images but to stop consenting adults from engaging is "aberrant sexual behavior" of any sort. They've hit upon the, not uncommon, idea that people can be controlled by limited what they are exposed to and they want that control exercised.

spamtwo

spamtwo

United Kingdom
April 2006

AUG 30, 2006 10:24 PM

the problem with the law (and most UK law) is until there is an actual case which sets a precedent for what is and isn't acceptable material as quagmirething points out almost anything/anyone could be sent for trial under the interpretations contained in the draft.

I pity the first person who becomes the test case for the law and I pity them even more if they get a particular right wing judge and the papers get in on the act and judge them as being 'perverts' and 'dangerous'.

AnalogPussy

AnalogPussy

Burnaby, BC
August 2004

AUG 30, 2006 10:28 PM

So Rubber Ball should move itself to Canada where we allow all sorts of naughty S&M fun whether it be in pictures or in person with consenting adults... that and it would save myself a trip to the UK biggrin

bcguitar33

bcguitar33

Jamaica Plain, MA
January 2004

AUG 30, 2006 10:36 PM

Shaun Gabb, director of the anti-censorship organisation the Libertarian Alliance, said: "If you are criminalising 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."


Um, this might have been a valid point if there weren't already things that were illegal to posess. Given that it was already illegal to posess certain items, I don't see how adding another thing to the list of forbidden items changes the ability to search for them.


"First they came for the violent porn, and I did not speak up, because I jerk to SG."

quagmirething

quagmirething

I'm lost
June 2005

AUG 30, 2006 10:41 PM

Precedent doesn't really clear things up that much. In the US the precedent is that intercourse with a bound person is obscene, but even such a clear and abstract ruling isn't much use today. Standards have changed, it's now a perfectly common bedroom activity. It's fear which stops people releasing porn which might end up in court.

Not that this always works. People can still drag you into court just because they find what you do distasteful.

ThisIsWhoWeAre

ThisIsWhoWeAre

Oakland, CA
July 2004

AUG 30, 2006 10:42 PM

I'm gonna fuck you... softly,
I'm gonna screw you gently,
I'm gonna hump you... sweetly,
I'm gonna ball you discreetly....

quagmirething

quagmirething

I'm lost
June 2005

AUG 30, 2006 10:48 PM

Don't I get dinner first? I was planning to order the lobster.

ThisIsWhoWeAre

ThisIsWhoWeAre

Oakland, CA
July 2004

AUG 30, 2006 11:08 PM

quagmirething said:
In the US the precedent is that intercourse with a bound person is obscene, but even such a clear and abstract ruling isn't much use today. Standards have changed, it's now a perfectly common bedroom activity. It's fear which stops people releasing porn which might end up in court.



Hell, my choices for a new headboard while bed shopping were specifically narrowed to those with bars we could attach ropes to...

dem_z

dem_z

United Kingdom
June 2004

AUG 30, 2006 11:13 PM

legionnaire said:
Not content with making the creation and distribution of "violent porn" illegal, UK legislators will be criminalizing possession of pictures of "material featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury."

[. . .]

While what happened to Jane Longhurst is a tragedy, it seems odd that parliament would be so quick to place the blame on the pornography viewed by her killer, rather than the killer himself, for her murder.


This is normal for the UK. We pass laws all the time, and many of them are bad laws. Laws often get made in reaction to a small number of well publicised tragic events. This is an example of the weird double standards of the UK gutter press; promoting their papers with lurid stories of sleaze and sex, then being outraged when people have sex.

Even those who don't find the images stimulating should take pause when governments of free countries decide to start making particular types of content (made with consenting adults) illegal. Particularly when they're not depicting any actual illegal activity; the condition for what constitutes a "violent image" clearly states that the image need only "appear to be" threatening in order to qualify. It's a slippery slope, and not too difficult to imagine what will be next on the ban list.


And here's the thing: the consultation documents and then the bill and then the act can all describe one set of porn, but MPs in the media will be talking about videos of actual rape, or videos made without the consent of someone in them.

ClD

ClD

Australia
February 2006

AUG 31, 2006 12:12 AM

"While what happened to Jane Longhurst is a tragedy, it seems odd that parliament would be so quick to place the blame on the pornography viewed by her killer, rather than the killer himself, for her murder"

Well well well....why am i not surprised? It's ethier porn, horror movies or video games.

spamtwo

spamtwo

United Kingdom
April 2006

AUG 31, 2006 01:01 AM

in case you don't already know, Graham Coutts the man convicted of the murder of Jane Longhurst has won an appeal against his murder conviction as the judge in the trial should have given the jury the option to convict of manslaughter, more here

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

featured interviews