The proposed government legislation on violent pornography.

[Dj-Zero]

i started a similar thread a while back with little interest, i have a petition against this and filled it at the club on Saturday night, so i figured i might give this another go.

In a nutshell, the Government has decided that the mere possession of any pornographic material that it calls "extreme" is to be made illegal, with a punishment of up to three years in prison.

But what is "extreme" pornography ?

Let's not fudge the issues.

First, let's not confuse this with child pornography, which is indeed reprehensible and rightly illegal. This is about pornography featuring adults.

Second, the Government makes great play with the terms "extreme" and "violent". It would have you believe that people are getting kidnapped and then tortured, raped or murdered on film.

Well, if that is happening anywhere, no one can produce examples, and it certainly doesn't feature on the websites the Government has mentioned. If that sort of material does exist, those who made it should of course be prosecuted.

What can be found, if you look for it, is material that that features

• real, but consensual activity
• staged (i.e. fictional) non-consensual activity (performed by consenting actors)

Now, you might not be into this sort of thing, but the question is, should the State get involved in the private lives of consenting adults who are?

What this means is that say, for example, you occasionally tie up your partner during sex, and that you take a picture of said partner tied up, for your own use. If anyone saw the picture you could be facing up to 3 years in jail!

i for one don't think this is right, and as such i have petitions that will be available to sign at the Dj booth of the club. Thank you to those who have already signed it

If you have any questions on this feel free to check out the Backlash FAQ.

[Dj-Zero]

Also, the petition can be downloaded from the Feminists Against Censorship website at the following link, just scroll down a bit.

http://facnews.blogspot.com/

[Dj-Zero]

[RiseAgainst]

Originally Posted by Dj-Zero

thats a bit fucked up, considering whats broadcast on TV these days

if its between two consenting adults, where is the issues?

[: : Scott : :]

Originally Posted by Dj-Zero

What this means is that say, for example, you occasionally tie up your partner during sex, and that you take a picture of said partner tied up, for your own use. If anyone saw the picture you could be facing up to 3 years in jail!

The government won't ban that. No-one will go to jail for that. Ever. Neither will anyone go to jail for owning that image, rendering the message it carries pointless. Be realistic.

Originally Posted by Dj-Zero

• real, but consensual activity

Incidentally, do you agree that "violent" pornography should be legal? If so, how do you gauge when something is too violent, even if it is consensual? Consider someone who is completely fucked up and consents to being killed on camera for a porno movie; do you think that should be legal to distribute? If not, what if someone consents to being seriously injured [like being amputated]? The main argument on that site is that the terms "extreme" and "violent" are subjective and ambiguous. Maybe legislation is a good thing then, to allow the elected government to draw the line somewhere and define what is and is not legal?

This petition seem to have been set up by people who need a fix of violent pornography and can't get an erection unless a sentient being has died and like to look at pictures of girls being stabbed in the vagina. I don't think you feel that way, but I think it's important to contend the arguments that Backlash present before deciding one way or another, especially if you're going to get people in your club to sign it without maybe knowing exactly what it is they're signing.

[RiseAgainst]

i think you missed a key part of Doug's argument

• staged (i.e. fictional) non-consensual activity (performed by consenting actors)

STAGED being a very key word

murder/amuptation/snuff isnt staged.

and all pornographic images and videos to disturbute require allparties to sign documents to claim they were of legal age, sane mind and good health before hand and i know in the USA they are required to have a doctors certificate for the last two.

do you believe any violence should be banned from TV as well?what about domestic violence on say Eastenders. does being hit in the head with an iron cross the extreme line?

[: : Scott : :]

Originally Posted by RiseAgainst

i think you missed a key part of Doug's argument

• staged (i.e. fictional) non-consensual activity (performed by consenting actors)

STAGED being a very key word

Do you? That's interesting because I don't think I missed that part of his argument, I just chose not to argue with it because I agree that people can stage things, and other people can jack off to it if they want, who cares?

Originally Posted by RiseAgainst

murder/amuptation/snuff isnt staged.

and all pornographic images and videos to disturbute require allparties to sign documents to claim they were of legal age, sane mind and good health before hand and i know in the USA they are required to have a doctors certificate for the last two.

Right. So in response to my contention, you're implying that;

Originally Posted by Dj-Zero

• real, but consensual activity

is already illegal if it is violent or extreme, in the USA, which you agree with, thus undermining the original arguement against this legislation against violent and extreme porno being distributed in the UK?

Originally Posted by RiseAgainst

do you believe any violence should be banned from TV as well?what about domestic violence on say Eastenders. does being hit in the head with an iron cross the extreme line?

No. To clarify, I believe that people should consider what this proposed legislation actually is before condemning it as nanny-state. That's assuming this legislation actually exists, this is the only place I've heard about it and the OP is source light.

The backlash site only has broken links to "The original 175 Kb pdf from the Home Office", so I can only assume they didn't just make it up.

[Dj-Zero]

Originally Posted by : : Scott : :

Incidentally, do you agree that "violent" pornography should be legal? If so, how do you gauge when something is too violent, even if it is consensual?

Well, the example you gave, of someone concenting to be killed on camera, that kind of film is illegal anyway and, as such, isn't the issue here. i think that people should be free to express themselves without worrying if their art is going to land them in jail, and yes, some artists could go to jail for their work if this legislation is pushed through.

You say you haven't heard of this until i posted, that is why i'm posting about it, to try and make people aware the government are trying to push this through.

[: : Scott : :]

Originally Posted by Dj-Zero

Well, the example you gave, of someone concenting to be killed on camera, that kind of film is illegal anyway and, as such, isn't the issue here. i think that people should be free to express themselves without worrying if their art is going to land them in jail, and yes, some artists could go to jail for their work if this legislation is pushed through.

You say you haven't heard of this until i posted, that is why i'm posting about it, to try and make people aware the government are trying to push this through.

I gave that example to illustrate that some things are already illegal and considered to "violent" and "extreme" to distribute on film. A main argument on the site is that the ambiguity in the terms "violent" and "extreme" mean that innocents might go to jail or be put on the sex offender registry.

I think it's counter intuitive for them to argue against a legislation based on the ambiguity of the terms it uses, when obviously it would have to rigidly define those terms before being passed.

Do you know anywhere where the original home office proposal is hosted so we could read it and draw our own conclusions? Also, do you think it's appropriate to ask people to sign a political document like a petition in an environment like a night club when they're all pished, and maybe don't know what it's all about? Maybe I'm totally missing something, but when the only source is something that's by definition biased against something it's maybe not the whole story.

[Dj-Zero]

Originally Posted by : : Scott : :

That's assuming this legislation actually exists, this is the only place I've heard about it and the OP is source light.

Well, you can check out all the media coverage, see it on the Home Office main page or take a look at the actual response.

[Dj-Zero]

Originally Posted by : : Scott : :

Also, do you think it's appropriate to ask people to sign a political document like a petition in an environment like a night club when they're all pished, and maybe don't know what it's all about? Maybe I'm totally missing something, but when the only source is something that's by definition biased against something it's maybe not the whole story.

i had thought of that, but the only people who signed it on Saturday were completely sober (two of them don't drink at all), and that's another reason to bring it up here, stuff trying to explain this to drunk people

[RiseAgainst]

Originally Posted by : : Scott : :

I gave that example to illustrate that some things are already illegal and considered to "violent" and "extreme" to distribute on film.

so to conclude your argument, you think the current law isnt doing enough in terms of violent pornography?