|
|
|
Devil's Advocate
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:35 PM
Posts: 1,142,
Visits: 1,400
|
|
What are the Tories saying now? Link me up baby...
If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing.
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:39 PM
Posts: 102,
Visits: 192
|
|
James_Adamson (8/30/2006)
1) The news was entirely one sided, "banning this = good" was about it. barely a mention of consent etc.. ... 3) Once again, the government think that banning something will stop it. Dumn fucks. No one on the news thought to mention that this isn't true.. Actually, the reports I listened to on Radio 4 yesterday afternoon had a Spanner spokesman clearly explaining that the only issue that came into things was the consent of the participants, drawing parallels between the depiction of simulated non-consensual acts by consenting actors in a sexual context with depictions of simulated (non-sexual) violence, which seems to attract much less opprobium. The same report mentioned that production of "extreme" porn is already illegal, but they can't enforce it since so much is produced abroad, and the move to ban possession is to allow something even vaguely likely to have an effect onto the statute books, so I don't think anyone involved is under the illusion that a ban will stop things. No, what concerns me is that the excuse being used is that the freedom of a great many people to enjoy entertainment produced without harming anyone is being limited because a tiny number of already disturbed people committed crimes after partaking of similar entertainment. If that's seen as valid reasoning, we're on the slippery slope to wider censorship.
You're entitled to your opinion as long as you realise it's wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Devil's Advocate
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:35 PM
Posts: 1,142,
Visits: 1,400
|
|
The problem is, despite what the spanner people say, That this proposed legislation doesn't concern itself with consent at all.
If it looks dodgy, no matter how consenting the actors* are, it would still be on the banned list. I very much doubt this will change anytime soon, If ever.
The other problem is as you say: A small minority influencing legislation. Perhaps we should get our own petition of 50,000 people and see what happens. Answer: fuck all. The politicians are never going to support a cause like "we want our extreme porn!" for fear of putting off their core voters.
Looks like we are screwed. And not in a fun, consensual way.
*I use the term loosely!
If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing.
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:39 PM
Posts: 102,
Visits: 192
|
|
Sorry, I wasn't clear about what the Spanner guy said. It was that the only thing that should matter is whether the participants consent, and he was objecting to the fact that this isn't what the legislation states.
You're entitled to your opinion as long as you realise it's wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 10:29 PM
Posts: 152,
Visits: 1,567
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apprentice
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Friday, February 01, 2008 12:43 AM
Posts: 18,
Visits: 301
|
|
I was watching News24 yesterday around lunch time and they hada senior police man on. He was saying that he was going to ignore the consent angle and bestiality angle for the purposes of the interview, but he thought it would be unenforcable even if they did try and he doubted very much anyone ever would. He described it as "a success of spin over common sense" and drew paralells with the video nasties thing in the mid eighties. The problem, he said, would be proving violence in court.
Personally, I'm very sorry for the person killed, and her mother, and I hope this gives her some closure and whatnot, but this law is not going to have much effect in the forseeable future. My biggest concern is the possibility of it being used as a springboard for further censorship - once its on the books there is no way it can ever be removed - because what politician is going to stand up in the house and say "I want violent porn"?
Loz
|
|
|
|
|
Devil's Advocate
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:35 PM
Posts: 1,142,
Visits: 1,400
|
|
|
|
|
|
Champion
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 12:44 AM
Posts: 287,
Visits: 3,376
|
|
One of my pet hates about the reaction to such proposals is "Campaign in the name of associated victim". In the area of violent porn, see the case of Jane Longhurst, who was (iirc) raped and murdered by a madman who was obsessed with "extreme" porn. It is understandable that the family will want to see such publications banned, but it is exactly this kind of emotional reaction that cripples such debates. I think this comment on the BBC editor's page sums it up:
Stuart Wilson (comment on BBC site)
As much as we abhor what happened to Jane Longhurst, the understandable but over-emotional reaction of her mother simply to ban almost everything which in her view is pornography is NOT the answer.
It's very easy to allow already emotive issues such as this one to be taken over by the "Campaign in name of victim" crowd, and thus surrender our civil liberties to irrationality. Yes, there are some nutters out there who will get obsessed with certain things and go on to commit horrific crimes - but people with such mental illnesses are the problem, not the material itself.
Consider, if you will, what might happen if a person with an appropriate (for the sake of this argument) mental illness became obsessed with LARP? It is not hard to imagine them going out and committing a nasty crime - yet it wouldn't be a problem with LARP corrupting the minds of the nation - just the warped mind of a person who needed psychiatric care.
In summary, this debate needs to be rational, and concerned with two main things:
1) Not damaging civil liberties or freedom of expression
2) Making sure that whatever is passed into law will actually have an effect, not make any problems worse.
Ias
EDIT: Looks like we've already lost. Hmm.
Maelstrom: Then: Regimental Sergeant Major Mdjai, Havocstan Army
Now: "?"
DUTT: Then: Commander J.W. Cranstan, Durholme City Guard
Now: Justice
RL: Ias
I was going to run for parliament, because I want to make the world a better place, but I ran into some old friends and went out for a beer instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |