And even worse than any of this? This piece of legislation affects the consumer. If you're responsible for the production, distribution or circulation of this material, yes you'll get in trouble, but if you are in possession of this material....run away - YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer, a Liberal Democrat peer who has fought to have the legislation amended said
"Obviously anything that leads to violence against women has to be taken very seriously, but you have to be very careful about the definition of 'extreme pornography' and they have not nearly been careful enough."
Blunkett in a recent column in the Sun newspaper said:
"all of us have a duty to ensure that, in a world where there are enough crazy acts already, we don't allow others to incite, stimulate or gratify those with sick minds."
Baroness Miller is also concerned about invasion of privacy and says:
"The government is effectively walking into people's bedrooms and saying you can't do this. It's a form of thought police."
Another opponent of the new law is Edward Garnier, an MP and part-time judge, who questioned the clause when it was debated in the Commons.
"My primary concern is the vagueness of the offence, it was very subjective and it would not be clear to me how anybody would know if an offence had been committed."
"My primary concern is the vagueness of the offence, it was very subjective and it would not be clear to me how anybody would know if an offence had been committed."
Personally I am utterly disgusted with the Ministry of Justice who are totally unrepentant, saying the sort of images it is seeking to outlaw are out of place in modern-day Britain.
"Pornographic material which depicts necrophilia, bestiality or violence that is life threatening or likely to result in serious injury to the anus, breasts or genitals has no place in a modern society and should not be tolerated," says a spokeswoman for the ministry. That's utter shite. Providing all involved in the production and consumption of this material are consenting adults, what's the problem? The government needs to butt out.
"Pornographic material which depicts necrophilia, bestiality or violence that is life threatening or likely to result in serious injury to the anus, breasts or genitals has no place in a modern society and should not be tolerated," says a spokeswoman for the ministry. That's utter shite. Providing all involved in the production and consumption of this material are consenting adults, what's the problem? The government needs to butt out.
16 comments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Milligan
Reminds me of:
http://netscape.com.com/Police+blotter+Teens+prosecuted+for+racy+photos/2100-1030_3-6157857.html
"Providing all involved in the production and consumption of this material are consenting adults", and donkeys!
There are plenty of sites on the internet, that boast "barely legal", or "looks much younger". Do you not think that these sites will fuel a pervert's passion for child abuse, and by normalising the act, de-sensitise him to the immorality of pedophilia?
I don't for one second condone child pornography, however, if an individual choses to take a series a photographs with a fully consenting partner(s), I can see nothing wrong with it - providing no harm is caused.
I agree that there are plenty of sites like that, but if I, for example, wanted to take a series of photographs like that, why should I get in trouble with the law? What I do in my time is my business, no one elses.
There are laws protecting children from paedophiles, and this is something comepletely different. Whenever this issue comes up in the media, the first thing a lot of people thing of (usually because of the media) is protecting children. But if you're worried your kids might be talking to paedos online, PUT THE HOME PC IN A COMMUNAL AREA.
I also don't think this will 'fuel pervert's passion'. If an individual has a particular desire, he/she will chase that until they get it - regardless of laws like this.
nobody condones child abuse, I am talking about the long term normalising effects on the minds of the type of people who look at this stuff. filming a sexual act is fine by me, ('cept fat people of course), ;-) but the simulaing of an illegal act, sexual or otherwise is not. if people are continuoulsy confronted by, for example rape, in a pleasurable, stimulating, and presumably sexually rewarding circumstance, one would have to assume that the idea of rape will become less and less of a taboo, and we already know that some people are easier persuaded than others. (some morons are gullible enough to develop a taste muckdonalds!!!)
Can I first ask what you mean by "the type of people who look at this stuff"?
But if you're merely "simulating" an illegal act, and not actually taking part in an illegal act, what's the problem. Kids have toy guns and pretend to shoot each other. I'd say that's pretty illegal - wouldn't you? Kids have a great time running around blowing each others brains out - that doesn't mean they're going to grow up to be gangstas and pop a cap in your arse.
People who find simulating rape (or other) scenes are going to do it anyway, regardless of whether they're being filmed or photographed. And if a fully consenting couple take photos of each other appearing to hurt each other etc, and use it for their own sexual gratification, what's the problem???
Rape is an extremely serious topic, and I don't think for a second it will become less and less taboo - but this isn't about rape - this is about images that 'appear' to simulate rape. People involved in the torture type worlds are not necessaily more suseptible to that kind of thing, they just enjoy experimenting, and providing no one is harmed, there's NOTHING wrong with that.
ok ok "type of" was probably mis-placed in this sentence. jeez Rachel! prisons too good for people like me eh!!! ;-) Simulating crimes is ok? what if the bnp simulate an assault on asian youth? in a promotional vid? that's fine right?
Any wannabe gangsta even DREAM about popping a cap in my arse, he better wake up and appologise or he one dead mofo!
In an ideal world, (Like cardiff only bigger), ALL people would have the common sense and moral fibre that you have obviously been blessed with, unfortuately, when we here stories of mothers SELLING their own daughters to the into the sex-industry, to get a crack "fix", can we really rely on people being "consenting adults".
because rape is such a serious topic, simmulated rape in a film, set in realistic context, and conveying the seriousness of the crime, can be valid and relevant! eroticising rape cant be? Or maybe I've over estimated the seriousness of rape, maybe it can be shown in a good light!
Yes, I think the simulation of *some* crime is ok. If the BNP simulated some of their disgusting behaviour to highlight what thugs they really are, then I'd be all for it - providing everyone was consenting etc - because it would mean more people would truly understand what they are. But let's be honest Bulldog - the BNP would hardly simulate what they do would they??!!! They're still pretending that they're a "legitimate" political party.
Hang on, you cannot be suggesting that consensual couples photographing themselves simulating rape scenes and so on will encourage mothers to sell their children to the sex industry??!!
I don't think the seriousness of rape can ever be overestimated, however, if simulating rape floats an individual's boat - so be it. I have no problem (providing everyone's consensual, no one gets hurt etc) (I feel like a stuck record).
This is just our Orwellian government chipping away at yet another civil liberty....
That would mean film as a medium could never be accused of "inciting racial hatred", seems like a risky strategy to me, but what do I know?
The reason for mentioning the "crack mother", was to point out how far people can sink in certain situations, and although technically they are "consenting adults" in reality, they are often anything but.
you see no dilemma with pandering to rape fantasies? seems to me the real crux of this debate is whether one believes some people can be influenced by what they watch, and it would appear we shall have to agree to disagree. incidentally, what would float my boat is a video of a chinese midget in a mcdonalds uniform (old style), beating the snot out of a vegetarian in a bikini, you up for it?
Not at all - but you suggested simulating a BNP assault - if that film were to ever be made it would be making a mockery of the BNP, and their policy, and highlight just how ridiculour BNP policy is.
I agree, and it's *very* sad that people can sink into very difficult situations - but rather than criminalising these people, shouldn't we be helping them? Surely a mother who 'sells' her daughter needs help. Not a prison sentence.
No, I do not see a problem with individuals fantasising and simulating rape (time for that stuck record again: as long as all are consenting adults and no one gets hurt). Why shouldn't they?
Ah, back to the media audience debate again. I don't believe that media messages are 'syringed' into passive audiences - far from it. I think audiences are active and engaged individuals who use the media to gratify certain needs.
Hahahaha :p
"I think audiences are active and engaged individuals who use the media to gratify certain needs."
Hi Rachel.
Emphasis on the "I think" :)
To be perfectly honest I believe you are making the common mistake here of applying your own intake of media to that of the public as a whole.
You are a highly intelligent, university educated media student. Just because you can navigate the subtle nuances of rape fantasy porn does not mean that Joe Bloggs sat at home in his bedsit furiously masturbating over a crying woman being anally pentrated while her face is pressed into the pillow (as an example of the top of my head) is able to.
Whilst I do not think media is capable of taking direct control of people and forcing them to take actions that they would not otherwise take (wouldn't the advertising industry / government love it if it did) I do think that Mr. Bulldog has hit the nail on the head when he highlights "normalization" as a key issue. (In my opinion it is also an issue of legitimising the actions of sexual predators, as well as being thoroughly disrespectful to the countless individuals whose lives have been ruined by rape, but that's just my opinion).
The vast majority of people are stupid. This is why media space is such a highly valued commodity and why some kind of publicly monitored set of standards is desirable, I reckon.
Nice blog, I'll have to pop in again.
Orl the best - Wild Bill C-H
Hey Wild Bill, thanks for stopping by, and thanks for descriing me as 'highly intelligent'. I am very flattered!!
Can I just get something straight in my head? Are you suggesting that individuals with fewer qualifications then me are more susceptible to media effects??
If Joe Bloggs in the description you gave is masturbating to images which 'appear' to threaten someone's life, or 'appear' to result in serious injury, but no one is *actually* harmed in the production or consumption of these images / film, then no, I don't see a problem. If the actress (or whoever is being filmed / photographed) is pretending to be in severe pain etc, but actually really enjoys her job etc and never comes to any harm, what's the problem? I'm sure Joe Bloggs is intelligent enough to realise that the film he is watching is a simulation - not reality!
You seem to be suggesting that people are stupid! I give individuals more credit than that!
Whilst I do believe the media is capable of having an unprecedented affect over people (Hitler and Goebells propaganda is a key example of this), I'm not for a second suggesting that these images / films been broadcast at 4.30pm on BBC1.
If these images / films exist in a 'safe space' - eg, a members only website, or people's personal computers, why is it an issue?
'Normalisation' is a complicated issue. Whilst we are continuously bombarded with images of starving children in the 3rd world, most people in the Western world are probably used to seeing this, and sadly, don't even bat an eyelid when these ads come on. But this isn't the point. Why should an individual be prosecuted for having images of his wife simulating a sex scene saved on his home, personal PC??
Images like this do not for a second legitimise the actions of sexual predators - no sane individual would believe that.
Like I said earlier, rape is an issue which should be taken *very* seriously - but if people are old enough, and fully consenting, they should be able to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes.
I am shocked that you think most people are 'stupid'. Individuals use the media to get what they want, when they want it, and in our increasingly techinical world, individuals are becoming more and more media savvy (media degree or not!!).
Thanks for the compliment! Do stop by again soon :)
wb. "The vast majority of people are stupid"
rt."You seem to be suggesting that people are stupid!" ha ha ha !
wb. "Joe Bloggs sat at home in his bedsit furiously masturbating over a crying woman being anally pentrated while her face is pressed into the pillow (as an example of the top of my head)"yeah well yer wrong! I was fantisizing over a chinese midget in a mcdonalds uniform (old style), beating the snot out of a vegetarian in a bikini. I know it's wrong, but I saw it on a blog somewhere and now I can't help myself!
Yes, but you have to physically go looking for pornography it isn't like blood letting appears on the front page of Google News. You choose to find it, personal choice.
If you are really paranoid about it have paid for websites, gated communities.
Little Johnny isn't going to find corpse buggery by clicking on the Tweenies.
There was a study that showed that the poses of children in clothing adverts were very close to those found in hardcore porn, the sexualisation of children is far more important than porn.
Post a Comment