Scottish Parliament pr0n law faces angry opposition Last week, the long-awaited Scottish extreme porn bill (pdf) was published — s34 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill — and it hasn’t gone down well at all. The proposal was much as expected; similar to the English version, but slightly more extreme. However, unlike the English version, which avoided the trap …
"an image will be illegal if it looks non-consensual"
So he's consented to being tied up and asked the mistress with the big strapon to do it, and to gag him while she does it...
...that appears non-consentual if photographed but is actually completely consentual.
Well, bugger. Pun oh-so-very-much intended.
"so possibly jurors will be required to watch any prosecutions south of the border without sound."
Silent porn, cutting back and forth between the action and black and white cards with the speech on them like an old silent film. Might add a touch of class and/or nostalgia to the production.
The Scots parliament should be looking as to how they are going to pay the English back for bailing out their reckless banks. So much for Celtic financial sobriety.
Just had some late news:
Max Mosely has just cancelled the purchase of his Scottish weekend retreat
My coats the long leather one with the whip in the pocket :)
I questionthe bland assumption that porn is fine, healthy, required for male mental health, etc., but I do think such laws are madness, save where the images shown are actually evidence of a crime being committedd ie the molestation of children, forced incarceration and holding people against their will, and that sort of thing. But an image of a very fat bloke making love to his skinny wife could be seen as depicting 'risk of death' or danger of harm to her (suffocation, etc) and this makes a mockery of the law. If lawmakers want to stop people looking at porn, then they have to stop the desire to see it, and we are in cloudcuckooland then. Just as the 'war on drugs' needs to address why people take drugs rather than the trafficking of drugs, so do these foolish porn laws have to question what it is, exactly, they are trying to extirpate. And if that is possible. Which of course it isn't, not in my reading of human nature.
... to visit www.adultsheepfinder.com
But from now on I'll be going to Wales, not Scotland, for my Gary-Glitter-tourism
Anyway, who are the nation who invented Irn Bru, razor gangs, drunkeness and deep-fried Mars bar to lecture anyone on what's good for us? Ginger skirt-wearing pillocks, the lot of them.*
*Yes, Charles Kennedy, if the cap fits...
Thanks for the thought (Oliver Mayes). As I wrote that line, I was first of all not intending the slightly awkward fnaar fnaar content in considering porn south of the border.
But as far as silent films go, it did strike me as a fruitful vein for further exploration. Not just black-and-white porn...bring back the cinema organist. Oh, darn...fnaaar fnaar again.
Or even the tinkly pianist.
Isn't there a wonderful scene in an early Chaplin where the villain is trying to throttle some damsel in distress...quite violently, too, I seem to remember. And Charlie's answer to this is to keep kicking said villain up the behind?
Hmmmm. Better not watch that sort of thing nowadays, if it turns you on.
Paris...cause she remembers the joke about the six-inch pianist
Cool. I'm going to go around and report anyone who has taken a pictures of a family meal showing people eating sausages and then report them for fellating dead pigs. Sometimes there may even be children present... why doesn't anyone ever think of the children?
But seriously WTF??? This is insane.
As with the legislation south of the border, I'm not the only one perhaps to detect a method in the poor quality of this law. The more confusing and ill-though-out it is, the more people will feel that they should police themselves. If they were serious about helping those who wish to remain law-abiding, they would issue a list of 'approved' sites, images or something. As with England, the agenda here is to generate confusion, one suspects, and an instinct to self-censor. On both sides of the border, these are laws that cry out for judicial clarification. The trouble is, some poor bastard's life will have to be ruined for that to happen.
Anyway, well done to The Reg for keeping the pressure up on this issue.
Look it's really simple, X is bad so viewing images of X should be illegal.
Murder is bad so seeing images of murder should get you locked up.
Speeding is bad, so looking at the image from a GATSO camera should get you jail time.
Shop lifting is bad, so don't you dare go look at that CCTV camera.
And if anyone says otherwise, simply conflate an image of something with the act itself... i.e. Sadam Hussein was in possession of IMAGES of weapons of mass destruction, ergo we need to invade Iraq quick. Possessing images of weapons will get you locked up, and by doing that we choke off the supply of weapons in the world.
My logic is impeccable, "Monkey see monkey do" ergo if "Monkey don't see, monkey don't do", and we're all decended from apes, and apes are hairy like monkeys, ergo, make viewing images of bad stuff a crime will fix the bad stuff.
This mode of logic is (TM) Wacky Jacqui.
Speaking as a fan of pornography (seeing as you felt it necessary to point out that you yourself are not), I would just like to point out that it isn't just males that view porn, in fact, I think you will find that there are even entire genres that are produced without the male audience in mind.
My opinion on the matter is simple: Pornography is part of people's sexuality, and Governments should have not say in any matters relating to the sexuality of the individual.
(Yes, they should intervene when abuse is involved, but that is never about the persons sexuality, it is about the fact that the person has or has tried to physically abuse someone else).
Heart, because we all need more love. Especially government ministers.
Would it be a good idea for the governement to host a number of pictures on a website (or links possibly) to pictures, with a caption of 'Ok', 'not Ok', '5 years for this', 'fine unless the tomato is removed' and the like.
Obviously the more pictures the better since sampling a larger data set gives more accurate results and all that.
That way we would all be educated on the sort of things that we are now allowed.
Of course, they couldn't show us the really naughty pictures, so maybe they could use stick figures or something.
Maybe they could host it at porn.gov.uk or similar.
only a thought.
ttfn
Well done Scotland. Good to see at least one nation wishes to support decent morals and to help promote them. The rest of the UK is allowing morals to slip away and on almost any street you can see disgusting images of semi-naked men and women.
Hopefully the rest of the UK will follow Scotland and tighten up its laws to ban all this filth. Perhaps then we can further the morals set out in the Good Book and engage in a just, fair and decent society; without all the disgusting deviant forcing their views on the rest of us.
Just as in the UK parliament, the feminist writ runs large in the Scottish legislature and with the same deadening effect. The very concept of criminalising possession of an image, any image, is "one giant step for mankind" - backward into medieval darkness.
The complete absence of any rationale behind the proposals betrays its origins in the finely honed mind of the chief bigot herself, the hapless Jacqui Smith. For example, what is the purpose and desired outcomes that this law is meant to achieve? It certainly won't improve the scandalously low conviction rate for rape crimes or protect one single child from being the victim of real, actual, sexual exploitation. Maybe the real intended beneficiaries of this piece of horse-manure are all the dead animals who will be saved from the unwelcome attention of necrophiliacs. .
MSPs who endorse this kind of infantile nonsense should be publicly flogged through the streets of Edinburgh.
Don't forget that it's perfectly acceptable to allow your virgin daughters to be raped to protect your guests according to the "Good" Book...
Still, if the Scots actually have the guts to throw out this stupid law, then it means only we English can't be trusted to act sensibly if we look at this stuff, so obviously Scottish morals are better than ours...
Could you please expand on your views regarding pornography? I would very much like to know why you think of it as deviant and disgusting.
Personaly I find pornography (That is, imagery of a sexual nature, not limited to depictions of people having sex) arousing and uplifting (in a smile-on-my-face after seeing a woman with a very nice bottom walking down the street sort-of-way, not the next plane of existence sort-of-way), but not in any way deviant or disgusting (unless of course you argue that sex itself is a deviation, but I think we have proven that one wrong through quite a few generations of sticking with it).
Remember, there is no correct answer, only opinions :o)
Answers on postcard please, no arousing pictures on the front ;o)
Doesnt the EU have a law for the freedom to pursue ones happyness? clearly these "laws" are stopping some people from being totally happy, some a few times a day or more.
Take these so called laws to the EU court in Brussel, the place where you dont count unless you kidnap at least 4 kids.
Pfcourse clearly illegal things as kiddy porn should be prosecuted, but who do the state legislators think they are imposing all kinds of mirky restrictions on the poor people of the UK.
Glad I am living in holland, smoking pot and watching hard BDSM, and praying My personal rights wont be affected here.
I41 etc...
"Damage... in a pornographic context" - so, er, e.g nipple rings (etc.) are out, the nipple being a) a priori part of the breast and b) damaged? (BTW - is a depiction a rendering or a record of a scene, or both?)
However, on the upside I think the trend is generally in the right direction... soon, no doubt, "depictions" of poverty and greed "in a financial context" will be outlawed, on which topic (whoa boy! too late...) I don't recall any news of a global Greed pandemic in the last few years so I rather assume that bankers are/were just as "greedy" as they had always been... in which case (not that I applaud them for overlooking the severe mathematical limits on the applicability of a certain rather important formula) why pick on the poor bankers alone...
wasn't HMG equally greedy for its tax revenue insofar as it was equally content to overlook the not-unknown technical risks?
Having been HMG's bitch far too long I would be rather relieved to be able to bin my impoverished bank statements in accordance with the Law.
But still... Are we not at War With Filth? We should all fight "the evil depicting ones" and remember - if you deed a depicter or you fund a depicter - you're a depicter... it's so much easier than actually dealing with abuse per se.
"The rest of the UK is allowing morals to slip away and on almost any street you can see disgusting images of semi-naked men and women."
Matthew 18:9 : "And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire."
Well there it is, the word of God, he says that if something offends you, you should pluck out YOUR eye rather than be cast to hell. Can you also put it on YouTube? I'm sure no Wacky Jackie can take offence at someone doing what the Good Book tells them to do.
"...without all the disgusting deviant forcing their views on the rest of us."
If you'd bothered to read anything about this and make any attempt to understand it, you'd realise that those 'disgusting deviants' are not trying to force anything on you. They have not and never will try to get you to look at their specialist picture collection. It is you and people like you who are trying to force your views on them.
As for "...almost any street you can see disgusting images of semi-naked men and women.". You do have a valid point there. Contact the ASA and make a formal complaint.
I don't think it's fair to blame this one on feminists in general. No feminists I know are in favour of this sort of legislation, and I don't see how it's a feminist agenda fuelling this - it's just the same stealth-censorship stuff for political reasons. The implications of such laws are just as bad for women as for men, if not worse.
On the other hand, I'm sure you can find a way to blame everything on feminism if you put in a little effort - doesn't seem to be too hard. It's like six degrees of Kevin Bacon, only with barely-understood ideologies.
... has problems with the idea of freely-given consent meaning you are not the victim of a crime. Recall the R v Brown, Operation Spanner case?
No doubt our Calvinist establishment think we should be grateful that we don't live in Saudi Arabia where consent is *never* an issue, since all sexual activity is either a serious crime or at the discretion of an identifiable male authority figure.
Not Batman's other partner - but the objet trouve on the TV set in Mrs Jean-Paul Sartre's living room. Henceforth, no more dead parrot sketches (3D versions are allowed, if animated by real actors; nostalgic old 2D versions are not, if they include depictions of taxidermy). No more Anyone for Tennis.
In the 19th century, the possession of soap was illegal for a time. Now the filff, so to speak, is on the other foot.
But acting-out (and presumably acting) is ok. Yet if Kent Police and assorted puritans had their way, there'd be no more playing with the English language. No more Shakespeare shaking his spear. No more Luthers luting.
Yours, not mine.
Pornography is fine with me, BDSM included (although not my thing). As long as it's consenting adults.
But then, I don't get my morals from a book. I work them out for myself. Perhaps the MSP's should also work them out or ask their constituents.
I find indoctrination particularly immoral.
Since women and fundamentalists obviously don't like sex, no photo can be seen to be consensual.
And as for a law that purports to "support decent morals", any law that is sufficiently ambiguous and subjective that it could be used to stitch-up innocent people is wholly immoral.
"If your idea of a good time is remaking "The Accused" then I think this law is a good thing."
Really? So what is the difference between the consenting people at home making a personal home movie, image, whatever, and the writer of the accused, the producers of the Accused, the actors in the Accused, the cameramen of the Accused, the make up artists from the Accused, the crew of the Accused, the people who give the broadcasting certificates for the Accused, or all those people who watch this on tv, cinema, video, DVD?
Talk about time for people to plain 'grow up'.
Hmmmm. At risk of condemning myself to a week of grammatical hell...I shall have to take slight issue with our esteemed moderatrix.
A lot of feminists are against this legislation. That is true. Organisations like "Feminists Against Censorship" - the clue is in the title - have taken a valuable stance on behalf of the liberties lobby.
But I think its too easy to distance feminism entirely. Just as christianity contains within it the seeds for, on the one hand, pacifism and total acceptance, as well as the Inquisition...so feminism contains all manner of viewpoints that are described as "feminist" and in some respected quarters accepted as such.
I don't mean the facile argument "God told me to do it" ergo the Yorkshire Ripper is a bad argument for christianity: more the buying-in to a particular point of view (whether anti-gay or anti-porn) by a recognised set of what are, in both cases, quite broad churches.
I've written elsewhere about the roots to New Labour's anti-sex agenda. In part it has to do with the way they switched questions in 1997. Prior to New Labour, a serious debate was taking place in the legal establishment about consent. The question under discussion was the limits of consent: that is, where was it right for the state to draw a line. Tattoing. Religious flagellation. bdsm. Rugby.
On New Labour's arrival, the question shifted to one about where it was ok for an individual to withdraw consent. They shifted the ground from positive consent (when was it OK to say yes) to negative (when to say no). Both are valid questions: but the emphasis was significant.
The shift in emphasis co-incided with the creation of the Sexual Offences Review Team at the Home Office... a group widely regarded as radical feminist in its inspiration.
Of course, it would be unfair just to pick on the feminist elements. Blunkett also made a crack about how nice it was to work with so many of the same religious bent. I think he meant catholics, but not entirely sure.
So the shift in attitude under New Labour, like all such shifts, has complex roots. Some feminist. Some religious. Some - I'd get back to another time - in the Police and in the somewhat puritan ranks of New Labour. Never under-estimate the degree to which New Labour just find sex and related topics "icky".
To blame all that on feminism is wrong.
To seek to exonerate feminsim entirely is just as wrong.
Its what comes of being a broad church.
Paris, cause she's secretly a card-carrying radical feminist. No. Honestly.
Yeah of course. Some people are going to be all for it, and the 'some' includes some feminists, but it's important to distinguish between the different types, which many people don't seem to do (so I wouldn't want to give the impression of doing the same thing - certainly wouldn't want to defend anyone who's supporting these laws on whatever basis, they don't speak for me). Same as with tiresome radical factions anywhere.
Porn is what divided feminists into different groups in the first instance so there's no reason why that would change now.
So a UK-issued DVD copy of The Accused (or whatever) would be absolutely fine, but if you happen to have a non-UK issued copy of the same film - as a download, or as a Region 1 DVD - without that little bit printed on the packaging... <shudder>
Is this all just a very clever anti-grey-import, anti-piracy scheme dreamt up by the Pigopolists?
Why don't they just get on with it and outlaw any sex act unless it is purely(?) for procreation and performed fully dressed, masked and with a partner you find unattractive, and ban ANY erotic depiction including this?
We'll obey that law just as much as the Extreme Pr0n.
Pathetic interfering weirdos!
Paris, because I look forward to the MAD-style folding pictures of her we'll be seeing in the future.
Note of caution, for Telegraphers ascribing this to NuLabour motives and values.
The current Scottish government is an SNP government, and consequatently about as far away from the middle-left, middle-class, stakeholding, focus-grouped Labourites of Downing Street as you can get. This has nothing to do with Brown, or Blairites; from the perspective of British political ideology, it is a fundamentally disestablished administration -- and consequently MacAskill is never going to be the lackey of Jackboot Jacqui.
Indeed: were you to make ardent claims of NuLabourism in such a Holyrood bill within earshot of that parliament, doubtless the main chamber would ring to peals of laughter.
Mine's the one with bells on.
We might all joke about laws like these, but the simple fact is that such legislation has become the norm for this government. It isn't over yet.
There will be more to come shortly, as I'm sure John Ozimek is well aware, regarding the creation and possession of 'indecent' drawings and cartoons. Don't forget many interested parties would like to see similar sentencing in this area as those already dished out for viewing/downloading 'indecent' photographic images. I'd be interested to know where we are here in England & Wales on this new legislation - you can't trust the government to tell us anything until it's all been put into law (and even then they'll barely announce it).
It really is a terrible state of affairs but it all seems well and truly unstoppable - the government consults with 'interested' parties and by default many of these organisations (or 'agencies') are bound to seek to have the laws rewritten to suit their own agendas (or business plans).
– where not a single elected member felt the interests of the sado-masochistic community warranted a voice
Election time is coming. Mr Broon has an appointment with destiny.
I trust el reg readers on both sides of the border will remember the silence of their elected representatives on this and other matters and suitably reward them
That is all
But note that the equation doesn't work in reverse. It's long seemed to me (for whatever my opinion is worth) that the only images that can possibly be declared illegal would have to be of acts that are themselves illegal. If an act is legal, then so must images of it be! The underlying concept, evidently unknown to members of both the British and Scottish parliaments, is that of "natural justice".
But the corporate-ass licking trolls of politics naturally don't want to interfere with important things like movies with their car chases, murders, fights, and God knows what other kinds of mayhem. All of it is unquestionably illegal, but surprise! surprise! quite effective at making money for the studios. Hence the modern politico-legal principle applies, "if somebody important is making money doing it, don't impede them."
[I'm not proposing to outlaw movies of car chases etc; just that if those are legal, then why isn't a picture of an el-Reg regular being consensually pegged with a strap-on?]
This kind of legislation is a disgusting victory for the anti-sex prudes, the Harriet Harmans, the Jacqui Smiths, and the Hazel Blears, and their neutered male pals. What ever happened to the concept of individual freedom?
PS to answer that last rhetorical question: the concept of individual freedom has been flushed down the toilet as incompatible with proper socialist behavior on the part of The New British Man.
Lack of clarity is no excuse. Mea culpa. I have absolutely no problems with feminist aspirations to achieve equality of remuneration and the removal of the so-called 'glass ceiling' which impedes the promotion of women in many organisations, but hopefully not in the hallowed halls of El Reg! Neither do I have a problem with their insistence that they should be respected as individual human beings and not treated as chattels to be bought, sold, and abused by men.
But as you know there is an uglier side to the feminist movement in the form of the rabid man-haters who are prepared to pre-judge and condemn anyone with testicles. When these extremists are in a position to draft legislation we end up with loony-tune laws such as the current proposals to criminalise people simply for being in possession of an image.Or the legislation that can result in a man being sent to jail for having sex with a prostitute who may have been illegally brought into the UK. Being ignorant of the fact that woman has been trafficked into this country is not a valid defence. You have balls therefore you are guilty. Thank you Ms Smith.
** Nice bit of trolling lol.
"without all the disgusting deviant forcing their views on the rest of us."
Oh, you were 'forced' to go and look at all those websites were you? **
Eh? how did you arrived at that conclusion: - 'forcing their views on the rest of us' became 'forced to go and look at all those websites'? I've obviously missed point 'B' in your journey from points 'A' to 'C'.
Anyway, i digress....
This seems like another knee-jerk reaction to an event (is this not also rooted in the case where that guy strangled his girlfriend as part of his perversion?).
Can we really legislate for deviants with personality disorders?
I am always interested in this category, as the only women I know who speak about hating men are straight women who happen to live with a right bastard.
The feminist position against porn is that (1) it reinforces the image that women are *only* sexual objects there to pleasure men, that woman=sex, while man=human (2) the porn industry itself involves the use and abuse of women, and in fact a lot of men who are abused or come from abusive childhoods (3) the porn industry is closely knit into prostitution, and prostitution involves the abuse of women, especially when it involves 'white slavery' (read Mischa Glenny's latest book on international crime for the horrific extent of this), when it attracts those who have been abused as children, or who are drug addicts, to prostitute themselves.
The idea of porn as a lot of hot-looking model/actresses having fun rumpty-pumpty is not exactly accurate. Some mainstream stuff is OK, and the people involved in it very clued-up, but a lot is actually filmed abuse, and to be able to disassociate how it was made with the fiction that is shows is part of the disconnect feminists find so distressing in current male culture, that is, good, decent men who would find the bullying and abuse of a young woman in Sainsbury's something to intervene to prevent will happily watch it on screen, as their pleasure comes first, and how it got onto their screens, well, la la la I'm not listening.
I'm not sure I have represented the feminist stance against porn properly, but it's not insane and irrational, it's not full of hate and death-to-men. It's a thought-out position, and just because they want to eliminate your fun (ie want to change how you think about sex and women) does not make them demons. Anyone who has worked with the homeless and has seen young women and young men completely messed up by their childhoods and seeking the only thing they know, which is more abuse, and finding it so easily, continually, relentlessly offered to them in the porn business, is bound to be less welcoming to porn. To me, it's like drugs: the spliff you enjoy or the coke you snort has come to you on the backs of hundreds and thousands of poor, oppressed third-world people and destroyed first-world people and your pleasure is not guilt free.
Having said that, I still think the proposed laws are deeply stupid. You don't change attitudes and minds by enacting laws.
"Can we really legislate for deviants with personality disorders?"
Excuse me? A murderer is a murderer. Therefore shouldn't you be asking 'Can we really criminalise innocent consenting people where there are no victims?'
I suggest you get your facts straight before labelling a huge proportion of very 'normal' people, and I shall kindly go out of my way to provide a link for you to do so.
http://www.revisef65.org/psychopathology.html
...give a hearty standing ovation to El Reg, it's contributors, it's esteemed commentards and moderatrix for a much more enlightened set of views and opinions than followed last weeks' "Make the men redundant first" article and comments.
I still can't get my head around the fact that some of the most insightful reporting on general news I read comes from a tech site, but it's still fantastic to have it. If you ever bother issuing a paper edition (again) to sit alongside Private Eye on the news stands in Smiths, I'd gladly subscribe.
Trebles all round.
P.S. There's no sarcasm here, BTW. No really
> I'm not sure I have represented the feminist stance against porn properly, but it's not insane and irrational,
I suggest you look up the name "Andrea Dworkin" for some of the most extreme (and irrational) arguments against porn (starting with "all men are rapists"!)
No, not all feminists think this way (I personally know several members of the Feminists Against Censorship group who are of the opinion "It's my body, don't tell me what I can or can't do with it just because you don't like it or think I'm letting down the Sisterhood") but the fact remains that there are those (and some of them are now in power!) who believe the sort of things that you cite.
I look at porn. In fact I could be accused of producing it as I make and sell BDSM gear and have a catalogue and website of affordable leather products that features female (and male!) models in it. But I don't think that the models (male or female) only exist for my pleasure or that their modelling makes them "less human" than me.
The assertion that "a lot" of those who participate in porn are victims of abuse or that porn is "filmed abuse" is ludicrous. Yes, there may be *some* who have been abused, yes, not *all* of it is consensual, but trying to use that as an excuse for banning something simply to protect a *minority* is pointless and short-sighted, not to mention downright insulting to all those who, of their own free will, choose to appear in it.
PS @Gregor, what, exactly, is your point apart from a bit of petty pedantry?
Where does this article published today fit in with your notional feminists' position?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7927461.stm
Theirs may be a 'thought-out position'. Lots and lots of thought. Lots of emotion too - well it's an emotive subject I guess.
Not a lot of fact though.
Yes, the prostitution industry is not whiter than white. But groups like those in the the NZ article can tell you (and do you really believe radical feminists over those who work in the industry?) that abuse let alone trafficking is much in the minority.
And the porn industry is not closely linked to the prostitution industry. If abuse in prostitution is unusual, in porn it's more so. And, you may think illogically, it appears to be extremely rare in the sort of 'violent porn' that this law mainly targets.
Ask your feminists for an example - yes that's right, just ONE example - of serious abuse in the making of violent porn. They'll tell you about the snuff films the existence of which has been long discredited. Ignore all those that are clearly anecdotal and don't refer to a real person and a real film or image, and they have NOTHING else.
"a lot [of porn] is actually filmed abuse" is it Hollerith? These assumptions help nobody, and they are demonstrably lies.
I see the thinking. So, as some cheap clothing is produced through economically vulnerable or virtually slave labour, and some criminals make profits, we can expect a law telling us to get naked?
Or maybe all just wear the same approved boiler suits? Look the same, think the same - one of us, one of us?
Why not go after the criminal exploiters? It seems to be a tactic of ZaNu Labour and their ilk to instead target a convenient sub-group, currently non-criminal, who do not fit with their social ideology. I guess real criminals are far too problematic - <irony> they are, after all, victims of society. </irony>
And I know some people would not like the squishy icky sex things I might like to get up to, but that does not mean that my consensual adult partners are only joining in because, as 'the virtuous' believe, they are incapable of thinking properly or enjoying themselves.
"Can we really legislate for deviants with personality disorders?"
Excuse me? A murderer is a murderer. Therefore shouldn't you be asking 'Can we really criminalise innocent consenting people where there are no victims?'
I suggest you get your facts straight before labelling a huge proportion of very 'normal' people, and I shall kindly go out of my way to provide a link for you to do so.
http://www.revisef65.org/psychopathology.html
mmm, on reading my last sentence, I should have perhaps been clearer..
The case that has triggered this type of legislation was the guy that murdered his girlfriend. Seems he had a prediliction for seeing woman suffer / being hurt in a sexual context and acted out on this fantasy. I suggest the description of being both sexually deviant and having a personality disorder is accurate in this case.
What is not clear is what effect the material he was looking at had on him. Therefore the intent of the legislation (to stop people like him from accessing this type of material and then going onto commit murder, presumably) is based on a flawed presumption.
Ergo, can we really legislate for deviants with personality disorders?
Thanks for the link though. If i do, in the future, decide to direct my comments to the "huge proportion of 'normal' people" you refer to, i'll be sure to read it.
"Anyway, who are the nation who invented Irn Bru, razor gangs, drunkeness and deep-fried Mars bar to lecture anyone on what's good for us? Ginger skirt-wearing pillocks, the lot of them."
We're also the nation that gave you modern economics, penicillin, the telephone, television, the modernisation of the steam engine that kick-started the industrial revolution, one of the greatest African explorers and the world's most famous fictional detective.
So awa back tae yer manky scheme an bile yir heid, ya Sassenach tube.
That definitely deserves repeating.
It just goes to show you can't be too careful
It just goes to show you can't be too careful
It just goes to show you can't be too careful
It just goes to show you can't be too careful
With respect to David Mitchell. Keep 'em coming, Dave.
Just ban sex altogether and be done with it. It will save time.
On related news (kiddie porn cartoons, here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/17/cartoon_badness/ ), Hall of Fame-worthy comment from a MP:
"If somebody is in the process of arousing themselves sexually by that process, it must be part of something. In a lot of cases, it will be part of something that will lead on to something else."
I think that's clear. Or not.
You wrote: "Can we really legislate for deviants with personality disorders?"
I wrote: Excuse me? A murderer is a murderer. Therefore shouldn't you be asking 'Can we really criminalise innocent consenting people where there are no victims?'
I suggest you get your facts straight before labelling a huge proportion of very 'normal' people, and I shall kindly go out of my way to provide a link for you to do so.
http://www.revisef65.org/psychopathology.html "
Your response was: "mmm, on reading my last sentence, I should have perhaps been clearer..
The case that has triggered this type of legislation was the guy that murdered his girlfriend. Seems he had a prediliction for seeing woman suffer / being hurt in a sexual context and acted out on this fantasy. I suggest the description of being both sexually deviant and having a personality disorder is accurate in this case."
My response to that: It was triggered, a knee jerk reaction to a case where not only was someone killed, but he went out of his way to hide that it had ever happened.
This is not something that happens every day of the week, yet has been happening before images, tv, the internet ever even existed, yet because he happened to have images on his computer, oh, a new reason for a mentality they still can not explain or erradicate after thousands of years! Er...riiiight...People act out their fantasies every day of the week yet you would never know, because guess what...everyone's fine and happy and getting on with their daily business as usual, keeping their private lives private and acting responsibly because they 'care', while doing so.
As others have written for example, the person who wrote the film 'the Accused' had certain thoughts. It doesn't mean he would ever go out and rape someone in such a manner. The producers, directors, script writers, actors and actresses, cameramen and all those involved are all taking part in play 'fantasy acts' as part of their job - a job they love doing. Every day regular people are no different and are generally as sane and as normal as any of those involved in film making.
You wrote: " What is not clear is what effect the material he was looking at had on him. Therefore the intent of the legislation (to stop people like him from accessing this type of material and then going onto commit murder, presumably) is based on a flawed presumption.
My response: The law as it stands gives too many 'excuses' for criminals to receive lighter sentences or even get out of jail free cards. Each and every person that exists are responsible for their own actions. All this nonsense "It wasn't' my fault, the pictures made me do it!" is just another excuse being handed to such criminals to pass the blame onto something else and not take responsibility for their own actions and giving them lighter sentences, early parole etc etc. Again, people will kill people, a very small minority and have done so for thousands of years, long before images, long before the internet, long before cameras and videos appeared. To blame it on images is just a nonsense.
You asked again "Ergo, can we really legislate for deviants with personality disorders?"
My response: Given your clarification of what you mean, no. And yet that is 'exactly' what this ridiculous law is doing, giving them a validated 'excuse' to say "It's not my fault!'. So again, I'll repeat, where there are no victims, there has been no crime committed, there should be no criminilisation. It is no different to the days where Gays were instantly labelled as Paedophiles, which of course is simply not true. We've come a long way since then, and just as with S&M, England is the only country who does not (want) to recognise that according to the extensive research that 'does' exist, S&Mers are actually 'less likely' to have personality disorders. But who can be blamed and held responsible then? Let me think....Oh, of course, individuals and self responsibility!
You then wrote, which really doesn't surprise me: " Thanks for the link though. If i do, in the future, decide to direct my comments to the "huge proportion of 'normal' people" you refer to, i'll be sure to read it. "
My response: That attitude says it all. Not interested in finding out facts? Not a politician by any chance, are you? :p
It's too easy to want something done, point the finger at something easy and convenient to point the finger at and bury your head in the sand. Facts are facts and refusing to even acknowledge them is why the Government stuff up so badly in the first place and will continue to do so. And the sad part is, the innocent people who are going to have their lives wrecked, their jobs wrecked, their families lives wrecked - for nothing - in the process. That'll really put murderers off from murdering, won't it.
'My response: That attitude says it all. Not interested in finding out facts? Not a politician by any chance, are you? :p'
Attitude? Lol, just not interested in S&M. At all.
But don't be surprised to receive a comment in the same tone as the one that you left ;-)
To me the S&M aspect of this is incidental. My thoughts are, that for a small number of people in this world, who have some kind of deviant personality (evidenced by the desire to harm or kill other human beings), the use of certain types of pornography (if the desire has a sexual element) or violent video games/films etc, etc may normalise (to them) the extreme aspects of their nature. I think it is then a small step for them to cross the line.
Is this an excuse for them? No. They are culpable for their actions and the full penalty of the law should be applied.
While i agree with you re: blaming images for unacceptable behaviour, the power of images to influence cannot be denied. Why do so many young girls want to be thin? - because they see their heroes on TV etc and want to be like them. Why do companies advertise?
As i said, what is not clear is how much difference not having access to such material would have made to a man such as this. Consequently, i think this law is flawed.
"My thoughts are, that for a small number of people in this world, who have some kind of deviant personality (evidenced by the desire to harm or kill other human beings), the use of certain types of pornography (if the desire has a sexual element) or violent video games/films etc, etc may normalise (to them) the extreme aspects of their nature. I think it is then a small step for them to cross the line."
You're sure, are you, that it's safer for people to stay "unnormalised", and to feel that a sexual interest in these matters has to be evidence of a dangerous sickness that must be resisted at all costs?
Even though a common thread in so many serial killers is a a repressive upbringing and a long period when they fought and suppressed all those disturbing thoughts. Until they couldn't do it any more....
Cos, there's no way porn could do anything but harm, could it? Ted Bundy who was responsible for maybe 60 killings thought so, and he should know.
I haven't followed all the thread and agree with other things you say, but the 'normalisation' argument isn't one to take on trust and unexamined.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
