New British Law?

[One from the Vaults]

I saw this post on another forum, by an intelligent member who I expect probably checked his sources (although he didn't cite them):


There's a new law about to be passed in the UK, which will criminalise the possession of pornography which contains:

An act which threatens or appears to threaten a person's life
An act which results in or appears to result in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals
An act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse
A person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal

As most of these attempts to legislate morality, the bill is justified with reference to a singular gruesome murder, the perpetrator of which turned out to be a fan of **** porn.

What do we think? Is this just more 'violent video games murdered my son!' hysteria, or should there be limits to what consensual adults can get up to (or simulate getting up to) on film?

Also, once this does become law, what happens to films with **** scenes and suchlike? Would it be illegal to possess Straw Dogs (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067800/), and if not; where is the line between illegal pornography and a legitimate film containing graphic violence and sex scenes?

(In case you can't guess, I think this is yet another daft moral panic from the British government; and a really poorly thought-our law).

Anyone heard about this?

[agnetha]

Hello,

and this information is on the bbc website. It does look very draconian legislation and its unlikely that people will stand up against it because of the stigma they would receive.

The background story of the campaign on how this Act came into being shows how weak and moralistic the current British government is. Potentially they could raise a lot of revenue fining "normal" people and the onus is now on the user, not the website to control what they view.

Agnetha

[Bok the Gargoyle]

the onus is now on the user

At least this will still be legal! However, if the anus were to be on the user [having been transferred from the ‘used’] then I guess they would throw away the key ;)

[Su0]

Of course we can worry what "seriously injuring genitals" can mean but otherwise the law sounds fine. I don't see why animals and corpses should be allowed to be sexually abused. And I don't mind if ********** / similiar extreme videos are banned as I only enjoy normal-ish bb, which probably isn't classified as "seriously injuring".

Not that I live in Britain, though..

[pungdjur]

Of course we can worry what "seriously injuring genitals" can mean but otherwise the law sounds fine. I don't see why animals and corpses should be allowed to be sexually abused. And I don't mind if ********** / similiar extreme videos are banned as I only enjoy normal-ish bb, which probably isn't classified as "seriously injuring". So basically you're pro any legislation that doesn't interfer with your own perversions? :rolleyes:

[teapot42]

Of course we can worry what "seriously injuring genitals" can mean but otherwise the law sounds fine. I don't see why animals and corpses should be allowed to be sexually abused. And I don't mind if ********** / similiar extreme videos are banned as I only enjoy normal-ish bb, which probably isn't classified as "seriously injuring".

Not that I live in Britain, though..

The main problem with this is that it assumes that no-one can differentiate fantasy and reality. It may even have the side-effect that those who can no longer indulge their fantasies this way end up committing more crimes to 'get their fix'. I can see the point of a lot of it, but the way it's been done seems wrong.

As for whether BB is covered by it, it's impossible to tell until there is legal precendent and the BBC are keen to point out that there is unlikely to be much legal precedent as most people will accept a fine rather than have their name and kinks exposed in public.

I suspect a lot of people would include BB as involving serious injury to the genitals simple because they don't understand the fetish, but also as they will argue that serious injury is a significant possibility from a forceful blow tot he genitals. I know that I'll certainly have to be carefully weeding out my collection but even then I know there will be a risk someone will over-react to my detriment....

[teapot42]

A few links for those who this may affect or who are interested in it:

The Backlash website has some good content:

http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/proposed.html


The Explanatory Notes on the legislation are not that explanatory for anyone who isn't a lawyer but make worrying reading:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/en/07130x-f.htm#index_link_104

For example, the law covers

acts which result in, or appear to result (or be likely to result) in, serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals; this could include the insertion of sharp objects or the mutilation of breasts or genitals;

I think the 'likely to result in' part is very likely to catch ballbusting... Also, it's interesting that the maximum sentence for this is three years, yet for bestiality and necrophilia it is only two years!!!! In addition, anyone who gets two years or more is placed on the Sex Offenders register - in effect, putting them in the same bracket as paedophiles...

[Rebecca]

Of course we can worry what "seriously injuring genitals" can mean but otherwise the law sounds fine. I don't see why animals and corpses should be allowed to be sexually abused. And I don't mind if ********** / similiar extreme videos are banned as I only enjoy normal-ish bb, which probably isn't classified as "seriously injuring".

Not that I live in Britain, though..

Ever hear of a slippery slope?

You may condone all laws that don't affect you, but then please do not complain when a new law limits your freedoms as a consenting adult.

Rebecca

[gopballbuster]

Ever hear of a slippery slope?

You may condone all laws that don't affect you, but then please do not complain when a new law limits your freedoms as a consenting adult.

Rebecca
Right, gay marriage is illegal here, this does affect me, but when you don’t give someone else their rights, you’re taking mine away too. If I were British, I would do everything in my power, this does not sound good. At least in American we have the First Amendment to fall back on.

[zetsubou]

And how do you combat a law that condemns you? It'd be like arguing with scientology

[Sack-attack]

Yes, I was reading about this also on BBC website. Not very happy about it. As far as I undersatand it this means that any depiction of sexual violence, consenting or not is illegal (to posess).

By that reckoning films like Basic Instinct or Hardy Candy would definately be illegal to own. Maybe even any film where a someone gets kicked in the nuts.

I wish our frickin government would butt out of peoples lives and concentrate on doing something that is actually likely to make a difference to violent crime. Like locking up those who commit the crime for a decent length of time instead of letting them out after a few years to **** and murder again. Grrrrrrr:cussing:

[agnetha]

Hello,

and the new law focusses on possession of images so presumably after it is in force anyone who downloads anything that is considered excessive has become a criminal. As someone else said, no one is going to want to make their fetish public so a test case might be some time coming.

Is the written word included and if so is viewing of this forum an offence too?

Finally, the moderators of this site have been deafeningly quiet.

Agnetha

[kickme000]

Right, gay marriage is illegal here, this does affect me, but when you don’t give someone else their rights, you’re taking mine away too. If I were British, I would do everything in my power, this does not sound good. At least in American we have the First Amendment to fall back on.

Even your first amendment has alot of limitations.

[thelantern]

Fuck the government. I'm downloading as much violent porn as I like. So long as it was produced by fully consenting parties, then it's fine by me and Gordon Brown can fuck off.

[gopballbuster]

Even your first amendment has alot of limitations.
I realize it has limitations, but it guarantees the right to free speech, freedom to worship, and of journalism. I realize this must be within reason, but it is very clear and it says these things to protect American citizens from these kind of absurd laws. I feel sorry for our friends in the UK, this is totally wrong. This law seems to go against some of the basic tenets of freedom.

[mick_sl8ter]

I am not at all surprised by such a (meaningless) law.

George Orwell's 'animal farm' is about to become a reality.

How to stop governments from taking absolute control ?
Besides bombing global society back to the dark-ages ??? (which I do not consider a prerafable option)

'They' will take over. You will lose all your freedom, privacy and integrity as a human being. They will take full control of your body, mind and soul.

And at the head of this new world order sits satan himself.

Only God can save us !!!

[mick_sl8ter]

The name of the book was not 'animal farm' , but '1984'. Anyway you know what I meant.

[One from the Vaults]

I realize it has limitations, but it guarantees the right to free speech, freedom to worship, and of journalism. I realize this must be within reason, but it is very clear and it says these things to protect American citizens from these kind of absurd laws. I feel sorry for our friends in the UK, this is totally wrong. This law seems to go against some of the basic tenets of freedom.You make it sound like the US doesn't constantly stomp on the rights of its citizens. Say, all those people who've gotten arrested for peacefully protesting the terrorist training camp in Georgia.

[Tamakeri]

You make it sound like the US doesn't constantly stomp on the rights of its citizens. Say, all those people who've gotten arrested for peacefully protesting the terrorist training camp in Georgia.

Ha-ha, no law or constitution can keep figures in authority from any short-term abuse of that authority. A cop can arrest anybody for anything. The constitution provides a framework to prevent or repeal an abusive law, not keep an abusive cop from using his handcuffs.

But that said, I think you picked the wrong example. In this past year's protests, of 22,000 protesters, exactly 16 "crossed the line" purposely and changed their own status from demonstrator to trespassor, specifically so they would be arrested. They had the right to demonstrate but not to trespass, and they trespassed specifically so they would get arrested to add additional voice to their demonstration. Not much of a stomp on their rights.

[gopballbuster]

Ha-ha, no law or constitution can keep figures in authority from any short-term abuse of that authority. A cop can arrest anybody for anything. The constitution provides a framework to prevent or repeal an abusive law, not keep an abusive cop from using his handcuffs.

But that said, I think you picked the wrong example. In this past year's protests, of 22,000 protesters, exactly 16 "crossed the line" purposely and changed their own status from demonstrator to trespassor, specifically so they would be arrested. They had the right to demonstrate but not to trespass, and they trespassed specifically so they would get arrested to add additional voice to their demonstration. Not much of a stomp on their rights.
Thank you, you put it much better than I did (and I teach this to 16, 17, and 19 year olds) Nothing is to stop a bad cop from arresting one, but that person has the legal recourse to fight his or her arrest in court through the Constitution. Of course this has been trumped in the past, Franklin Roosevelt, one of the worst American Presidents, issued Executive Order 9066, and we all knew what that did. I'm just saying American citizens have a great amount of rights, today. Most people who are arrested for trespassing, et cetera at political rallies are not detained for a time greater than 48 hours anyway. I still think most Americans are still afforded most of their freedoms.

[bigsqueeze]

im from england and i think this law is ridiculas it was thought up to put a cork in the minority complaining the goverment here knows full well that there are thousands of people that are going to fall into this new grey area of whats serious and whats not but those people wont speak up because were all afraid of our freinds familys and boss's learning our dirty little secrets it just one more law restricting the once great britain