This deserves to be read widely...

[deedle]

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

As usual, there are those who care more about their own sexual proclivities than the effect of violent pornography on the rest of the population. *sigh*

[resisterance]

what was there d? the bbc have taken the page down.

[deedle]

How bizarre...

It's here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berk ... 297600.stm

with the second link under the 'doubts remain' picture.

[sam]

Sorry for the hyperlinks not making themselves readily known. Sometimes I hyperlink and underline it as well, but I'll look into doing something more permanent about it.

[resisterance]

I've heard that libertarian Alliance guy on the radio a few times on different subjects, moaning on about anti censorship stuff. Funnily enough i've never heard him say anything regarding the censorship of feminist voices.

I don't know why the press take that group seriously at all - have you seen their website? Numpties, every single one of them.

[resisterance]

Mr Cohen [The Spanner Trust - who promote sadomasochists rights apparently?) said that unlike child pornography or bestial pornography, which was easily recognisable as illegal, sadomasochists will find it difficult to know what side of the law their pictures fell.

He added: "Violence is not consensual but injuries can be received in all forms of activities. People will not know whether their pictures are illegal or not.

See for me that's enough - that's all i need to know. If there is a chance that the images are illegal and that someone has been abused to create them, that's enough.

"It's a very difficult area, I think the burden of proof has to be very high. If this goes through I hope it receives a lot more scrutiny."

Say, for example, as high as the burden of proof for rape? Is this law going to be usable or not?

The government says the new law will not target those who accidentally come into contact with obscene pornography, nor would it target the mainstream entertainment industry.

Is anything outside of 'obscene pornography' now classed as 'mainstream entertainment'?

the Libertarian Alliance opposes the legislation on the grounds that people should be able to look at whatever they wish.

and apparently those of us who are abused to fulfill those wishes dont get any rights.

[deedle]

It's fucking maddening isn't it!

But at least the libertarians didn't win the vote this time. And AOL (my ISP) are doing a vote about it tonight.

So far, out of the 4962 people who've voted, 71% say violent pornography should be outlawed, 21% say no, and 9% don't know. How can anyone say they "don't know"!!?

[Pony]

The law will be unworkable because the wankers just put it in under lip service to protect their political careers. Now it can wend its tortuous and ineffectual way through the courts getting effin nowhere but making lawyer's millions.

p.s. numpties !!! I love it.

[resisterance]

that's what i worry about. i'm glad this is being talked about and i'm glad that there is some recognition at last that 'people' are hurt in some 'obscene' 'violent' pornography.

BUT - i think that this law will probably be unusable, because courts and police don't believe women, and probably many of them are porn users themselves.

and i worry also that now we are going to have porn in only two categories, that considered 'obscene', which i imagine will have to be really extreme, and that which is considered 'mainstream'.

i find it quite insane btw that the BBC actually features quotes and has interviewed men on this from the Libertarian Alliance and the Trust that supports sadomasochists, but has NOT featured quotes or interviews with feminists or with groups that support and/or represent abused women, particularly women abused in pornography.

the only women being referred to at all are the woman who was murdered (a 'good' woman) and her mother (another 'good' woman) who has been campaigning for this. The woman (and children for that matter) used
in the making of violent pornography don't even get a mention. The main concern is that men who watch violent porn may copycat those scenes with 'normal' women. I haven't seen any real public concern expressed for the women used in the original scenes.

Has anyone? Because I've mainly been listening to the BBC radio on this, have any other sources given a viewpoint from the women abused in violent porn in the first place?
[/i]

[delphyne]

I haven't heard any positive reporting. The reporter on the BBC TV news started off by saying "but this isn't like child porn because....." and I'm assuming she was going to say because the women in it are consenting but I had to run out of the room screaming because I couldn't stand any more of the shit I'd been hearing. They had already interviewed a forensic psychiatrist who was arguing that this wouldn't stop men who were planning on doing stuff like this to women, he didn't seem to make the connection that the women in the pictures are already being abused. The coverage has made me so angry, I'm just trying to hold on to the idea that at least they have passed the law.

[resisterance]

Yeh, I'm sorry for being so negative. It's just that none of the reporting that i've heard or seen so far has recognised that the women in the images are real people. noone seems to care about them.

i heard the libertarian alliance guy say something about how men shouldn't be criminalised for looking at violent porn because how are they supposed to know if it was consensual or not?



i just don't get it.

[annared]

I like to think it is a positive move.
Saying that a while back it was made impermissible that rape victims past sexual history could be brought up in the trial. Well guess what, it still is, and some Judges do not even know that it is now not allowed FFS!

[resisterance]

how will this work then? presumably the authorities will need to have some sort of classification system, between what is considered obscene violence (hereafter known as OV)and what is considered acceptably mainstream (AM). then they'll need to have reasonable suspicion that a person is indeed looking at the OV end. then they'll need to obtain some sort of warrant (?is that just on tv?) to remove and search the harddrives and/or homes. then if they find anything i guess they'll categorise it all a bit further.

then, what? if the OV porn they find does not feature animals or children, how will they go ahead with the case?

will there be a flat conviction rate set for owning OV pornographic material? or will it be flexible depending on how consensual the porn appears to be?

i'm confused as to the actual application of these rules. will people who make and distribute OV pornography be actively sought out, pursued, and prosecuted?

and i am confused too by the categorization - i think that to some extent once they specify what is meant by "Obscene Violence" everything else will become a free for all with an almost-official stamp. i worry that anything that isnt officially classified as OV will automatically be treated as harmless and mainstream.

none of this means i don't support this bill, just that i'm really confused as to how it is going to be used and what the effects will be. will it stop women being used and hurt in violent porn?

[delphyne]

"will people who make and distribute OV pornography be actively sought out, pursued, and prosecuted?"

They are actually supposed to be prosecuted now. Things like bestiality are illegal to make or distribute already, although I've never heard of any prosecutions. These laws are supposed to extend that illegality to possession as well.

[sunnysmiles]

LOL VG1! I agree with you - I posted this in the other thread on this board somewhere...
-------------------------------------------------

Does anyone know what the definition will entail. I am assuming there will be a lot of leeway in terms of what constitutes 'violent'.

I am sure the S&M crowd will be advocating 'lifestyle' and 'fantasy'...

I mean what I want to know is - will nipple-clamps/hair pulling/handcuffs/whips/riding crops etc... constitute violent?

I think this is great and a first step - but i want to see the definition, otherwise I am sure people will be able to get away with a lot and appeal what 'violent' means.

[annared]

I cannot remember where I found it as it was when proposals were first becoming known in May (I think)

What would be covered were Rape, Strangulation, torture and necrophilia, but more might have been added by now.