Unless you happen to have been living on Mars for the last year or so, you probably know that this week (January 26 to be precise) it will become a criminal offence (in England and Wales) to possess pictures that the government deems to be "extreme porn". You might also be aware of two diametrically opposed views on this …
The law states about acts that could cause "serious harm" to certain parts of the body...
Now, if it's serious harm as being viewed by other people, that means using perfectly legal toys in perfectly legal ways could fall into that category, wouldn't they?
Hate to think what'll happen to places like Ann Summers.
Oh wait. Next up: banning the sale on sex toys since they encourage bad behaviour.
I am sorry that you have had to experience stories of people who have experienced sexual violence, but do you honestly think that this law will do *anything* to change the number of people who experience that sort of thing? How many of those abusers had actually looked at "extreme pornography" and then been "inspired" to go on and carry out their abuse?
I think that you would find that most of them did it because they "enjoyed" it and the power it gave them over the person they were abusing, not because of anything they'd seen. They might, subsequently, have looked at images which fitted in with their "preferences" (no matter how deplorable such preferences might be) but we should not reverse cause and effect, yet that is what this law does.
> And I think Graham's position is one of "special pleading". So, if there are two images depicting the same act, one of them is OK because the motivation is fine by your lights, but the other isn't? Is this position reasonable? Images carry no instrinsic information regarding the motivation behind them.
Err, no, you first miss my point then, inadvertently, agree with it!
The fact is that, yes, there is no "intrinsic information" regarding the motivation behind them, yet this law purports to be justified on the grounds of how an image *appears* to a viewer! How can two images of the same act be both criminal and not criminal simply depending on how it *looks* to someone?
I like the comment one person said about a judge who decides what is pornographic.
If a ppicture gives the judge a hardon then it is deemed pornographic.
Almost same situation here.
But I would just remove anything currently they have and just make a side note that if any porn that shows blood durring intercourse comming out of the body be it on a male or female no matter where the location the blood is comming out of then it should be deemed illegal.
Bright red spots on skin shown as abuse should be banned and deemed illegal.
Stalking or simulated stalking made to illicit fear in the victim should be banned.
Crying or twisted facial features such as fright as to emulate that of pain should be banned.
Emulated or simulating the examples above in real life or in animation 3D CAD or cartoon drawings showld be banned.
> Do you really hold the view that looking at pictures of Necrophilia, or bestiality or other deviation (as outlined in the act), is normal behavior? Do you really believe that a picture of somebodys anus being torn apart could be considered as something that doesn't cause harm to others?
Do you believe that *your* definition of "normal" is the only one that is valid? If so, that's arrogant.
Do you believe that a staged and faked image of an act is the same as someone actually carrying out that act? If so, that's arrogant.
You continue with your arrogance when you state: "So your civil rights and your liberties are affected by this law, well son, theres a really simple answer to that. At the risk of repeating myself, oh again, don't download Extreme porn."
Do you *really* not comprehend this issue? You are saying "if your rights are affected by this law, don't exercise these rights"!
I have the right to walk down the street and go about my lawful business "without let or hindrance". If the Government introduces compulsory ID cards, that will infringe on my rights. So your solution would be "well don't walk down the street, then!"???
> I really don't care what you or others get up to in the privacy of their own homes,
Yet this law will stop me from owning pictures *EVEN IN* the privacy of my own home! Even if they are pictures I have taken myself of two other consenting adults engaged in legal activities if, in someone else's *OPINION* they are "life threatening" or "likely to result serious injury" because I was not a "direct participant" in the acts. And even if I took the pictures with a self-timer and I was a "direct participant" in those acts, if I cannot *prove* that I was, then I am still guilty of a criminal act! (Presumed innocent? Not any more, sunshine)
> however the internet isn't just there for YOUR benefit, others, including children, use it,
Oh dear, it's the desperate "WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" argument. The internet is the *world*. If you're a parent, would you let your children go wandering out anywhere without any control or supervision? No? Then why would you let them do so on the internet?
It is a *parent's* ultimate responsibility to take care of their children, not mine, nor the Government.
> and if people who upload (or download) 'Extreme' pornography, are to stupid to realise that, then Governments will act to curb these abuses, so through their own selfish stupidity these people deserve these laws to make them conform.
Oh good grief! "Make them conform"?!
Yes, Big Brother! We must all be obedient Proles who are not permitted selfthink and accept whatever blackwhite the Party tells us. We must not look at anything not approved by Pornosec in case it causes us to engage in Crimethink or Sexcrime!
Ownlife is forbidden!
Ignorance is Strength!
> Desensitisation anyone?
Just because someone may become "desensitised" to something, does not mean that it automatically follows that they're going to be inclined to *do* it!
> there are things that can be done to ensure that looking at such pornography is a very deliberate act rather than an innocent stumble upon.
Exactly! If you don't like it, don't look at it. Install blocking software, sign up to Cleanfeed etc. But don't pass laws that say "I don't want to see this, so let's ban it such that *nobody* else can see it either!"
PS @ Michael
Re: The Dictionary: The Zebra did it.
@First they came...
"First they came for the pedophiles, but I was not a pedo so I did nothing.
When they came for the necrophiliacs, I was not a necro so I did nothing.
Then they came for the BSDM fetishists, but I was not into BDSM so I did nothing.
They came for the nudists, I was not a nudist so I did nothing.
Then they came for me, and there was no-one left to speak out."
Devils advocate here.. I generally disagree with this law (wording.) It seems some of you are against the spirit of the law. What if I rape and kill the heck out of some people, it goes to trial, but I get off on a technicality. Can I sell the tapes? How about if I consented to being tortured, raped and murdered. Not necessarily in that order. Can we film and sell that? Awesome. All you need is a note from me right?
ha... eating a cow is ok, but sex with steak... that's just sick.
-AC because I'm just brainstorming, and it doesn't count until you say it right?
> No, I'm not saying people who view this stuff are 'inferior' I would never hold that view. But I don't equate it with normal behavior. Surely normal behavior is behavior that is carried out by the majority of the population.
Indeed. But "sick" is a value judgment. If you had just said initially that looking at "extreme porn" was not normal, I would have to agree, but if you're going to call it sick, you should offer some evidence that it's harmful or otherwise "bad".
> Arrogant is the wrong word to use. Intolerant would be a better one.
Yes, you are intolerant for sure, but more than a little arrogant too.
> If a snail was sexually abused and physically violated then had its picture taken before consumption, then yes I would be happy for the outlawing of eating snails, since it is'nt, I have no opinion on the subject.
I wouldn't have figured you for an animal rights guy, but more to the point it sounds like you're talking about non-consensual violence now. Why? That's not what concerns most people about the law. If two adults get off on having their genitals bitten or want to stab each other with spikes prior to sex, why would it be wrong if I wanted to watch?
Re: Re: @Sarah Bee
"Hmm, I wonder if I can get everyone else who's got no excuse to use spellcheck. Hmmmmm."
You could ask amanfrommars to use a semantics-checker...
"What if I rape and kill the heck out of some people, it goes to trial, but I get off on a technicality. Can I sell the tapes? How about if I consented to being tortured, raped and murdered. Not necessarily in that order. Can we film and sell that? Awesome. All you need is a note from me right?"
BIG IANAL WARNING
as I understand the OPA and other existing laws
no to selling tapes cos that is publishing and is already illegal under the laws
again no as that is publishing under the act
but let me make 2 points in return
1. as you got off technically no crime is committed it may seam horrid to victims but as you where a-quitted no crime
2. in that situation we know how those pictures came about and then they can go after the "real" purp this law is worded as to make the facts behind the pics irrelevant it is purely perception that matters
By happy coincidence
I don't have any vile Porn on my machine. But even if I did how could it get there if it got past the IWF's 404 list?
Also, in the case where I got called up for trial, could I call Mark Oaten as an expert witness, to ask whether he thought it was VILE and DISGUSTING what I was doing?
>...but if you're going to call it sick, you should offer some evidence that it's harmful or otherwise "bad".
Lots of people hold lots of different viewpoints without them ever being asked to justify it through evidence, I could turn the table and instead say "If you don't think its harmful then prove it", However that would be pointless.
I'm calling the desire to view these pictures as 'sick' because that is the viewpoint I hold, I realise that viewpoint is different to others, but does that make it less valid?
> If two adults get off on having their genitals bitten or want to stab each other with spikes prior to sex, why would it be wrong if I wanted to watch?
I can't answer that for you, I'm not moralizing on what others wish to get up to in their own lives, the subject is the possession of pictures of "Necrophilia, Bestiality etc..."
As I've stated, I have no issue with what you get up to in your private life. I've simply pointed out that wishing to view 'Extreme' porn is not and never will be 'normal' behavior, Most people would be revolted by such pictures, so to actively seek these pictures out, is not displaying normality.
I believe thats 'sick', you consider my view as arrogant, I don't. If others wish to insult me for that, then that displays their own intolerance, not mine.
I'm just using a word that the vast majority of the population would use when confronted by pictures of "Necrophilia, bestiality, ... etc... etc... etc...". My original question was "Why do you think that arrogant?", as in "why do you think that I'm assuming a viewpoint that could be considered superior?", when I don't feel I am? I'm simply making the same statement most people would in the same situation.
Now, if you take exception to the use of that word, doesn't that display a teensy weensy bit of an inability to allow others their opinion? perhaps a smidgen of intolerance? perhaps you feel you're being personally attacked, so therefore retaliate at anyone who doesn't agree with you, when plainly the word wasn't aimed at you personally. There's a word for that too.
I am technically literate, I take all the precautions I can to ensure that I and my family can surf the internet without being subjected to these pictures. however, even with all these precautions, I still find myself inadvertently, from time to time, coming across them.
Unfortunately there are a lot of people (yes, including children) who do not understand the danger of clicking a harmless looking link (or even one designed for the curious), and being subjected to a barrage of 'Extreme' porn. They normally do not have the technical savvy to make it stop. I know, I have had to wipe this crap off a lot of computers in my time.
(you'll probably now take exception to me calling it 'crap' ~ It is stuff that I don't want, to be flushed away by the exersizing of the delete key i.e. 'crap')
These pictures are often linked in the press to the behavior of frankly ill, (or 'sick'), people who commit sex crimes, I have no idea of the validity of that assumption, but it matters little, since in the eyes of the general public that link has been established.
If the sex industry had really got their act together and ensured that only those wishing to view these pictures could do so in the privacy of their own homes, instead of thinking that they'd make more money by 'advertising', The lawmakers would not have stepped in and come up with an admittedly too broad-ranging act.
The majority of internet users are not surfing for 'Extreme' porn (despite Michaels belief ~ you're really 'not' in the majority son), The majority want to be able to use the internet, without having to install lots of programs to make their surfing 'safer'.
So, We have the 'rights' of a small minority of the population, as opposed to the 'rights' of a majority of the population, now where do you think the politicians will look for the votes?
Don't blame the Politicians or the general public, blame the people who thought the likes of "Goatse" was funny.
World of Warcraft
is it illegal to watch a tauren druid in cat form spamming x or /sit over the top of a naked draenei priest while the priest is yelling what appears to the druid as "YOU ME RUFF LOVE". If i fraps'd it and youtube it would i be in court over it?
the fifth of November......
Just the beginning: THEY really ARE starting Tought Police.
And Civilisation´s DeLeveraging WILL give them the excuse.
´Tis getting cold.
not going to contuin arguing over most of your comment cos we are reaching the silly stage and I think sara would prefer it if we stopped soon but one thing I will say
"I am technically literate, I take all the precautions I can to ensure that I and my family can surf the internet without being subjected to these pictures. however, even with all these precautions, I still find myself inadvertently, from time to time, coming across them."
this law will do zero to stop those pictures being out there or you being sent links to them all it dose is make you a criminal if you look at them the law even sort of admits that as the law criminalises possession not distribution
The thin edge of the wedge
This is just a test from the government to see if they can get away with an aburdity: making owning pictures of legal acts illegal. The overall longterm intention is to make sexual images illegal. Here's why: most sexual images are of women. These images "objectify" women. Objectification leads to rape. Therefore, pictures of naked women "cause" rape. Therefore they should be banned. There are lots of women who actually believe this catechism. So beware, the Jackie Smiths of the world have an ideological commitmernt to controlling that great evil: male heterosexuality.
Keep your eyes open for the next installment of petty-Stalinist ban-o-mania. It'll be fun to watch.
@World of Warcraft
Haha, that made me laugh. Which I suppose is a form of gratification.
SID old boy,
It is an undeniable fact that your views on this law differ substantialy from the views of the rest of the people who have posted in this forum to voice their displeasure at it. Such blatantly deviant behaviour cannot be tolerated.
Furthermore not only are your views deviant from what is obviously the normal view in this forum but it has been deemed by a group of your peers to have caused harm and distress to numerous members of this forum; this being a very open forum we fear that this distress could affect just about anyone as there are absolutely no warnings posted anywhere on the register as to your deviant views and their publication here.
Regretebly there is no law currently in effect that could be used to bring you in front of a formal jury of your peers so that you can answer for these crimes; we are so very happy though to see that by passing the Extreme Porn Law, the United KINGDOM is proudbly paving the way for the introduction of laws that will punish deviant behaviour until there will come a time when ALL deviant behaviour will sieze and we will all live in complete peace and harmony without a shred of deviance to soil the uniformity and compliance!
You're still a Dick.
To quote Sir Terry Pratchett: Someone who goes to a Star Trek convention in a Star Trek Uniform and set of Spock ears is seen as a "nerd" or not "normal", whereas someone who wakes up from under their Manchester United duvet, drinks their coffee out of a Manchester United mug and goes out dressed in their Manchester United replica shirt is just a "dedicated fan".
You just want to define "normal" as "whatever I agree with" or "what people I like do" which, once again, is simply arrogant. And calling someone "sick" just because they do something you don't like is also arrogant and insulting. Paging Mr Pot and Mr Kettle-Black!
I don't consider this denying someone the right to hold an opinion, if you could actually *PROVE* that there was any "sickness" you might have a valid point, but since you don't, no.
I am pleased to hear you are "technically literate" but if you think this law will do *anything* to stop these images appearing on your computer than you *really* haven't understood it!
This law criminalises you for *having* them on your computer! This law says that if in someone else's opinion *you* deliberately downloaded those images or didn't delete them immediately and beyond *your* ability to retrieve, then *YOU* are guilty of a criminal offence! It will then be up to *YOU* to prove your innocence! Isn't that a wonderful thing...??
And just because these images are frequently "linked" (usually by the tabloid media or those who have an anti-porn agenda to push) to people who commit crimes is not proof. I could probably claim that virtually all of those who had committed these crimes had also drunk alcohol, would you therefore accept that there was a "link" between alcohol and such crimes? No, of course not. Yet because this spurious link has been created in the minds of the public (the rule of the mob), it seems you're willing to believe it.
If you want to do some research, try looking at the work of Professor Milton Diamond PhD of the University of Hawai'i who examined the effects of the availability of pornography (including so-called "extreme pornography") on sex crimes in the USA and Japan and concluded: "It is certainly clear from the data reviewed, and the new data and analysis presented, that a massive increase in available pornography in Japan, the United States and elsewhere has been correlated with a dramatic decrease in sexual crimes".
Why should the sex industry *not* be permitted to advertise? In any case, that is utterly irrelevant to this law, which has been created by a bunch of narrow-minded prudes who consider that it is "abhorrent" or "deviant" or "not normal" (sound familiar?!) and that we, the general public, cannot be trusted to look at it in case we do something nasty, so the Nanny State is going to lock us up if we look at it.
I don't care if anyone is "in the majority or not", Rights are there to protect EVERYONE, not just you and those who behave like you, but all of the people. Freedom of Expression doesn't just mean the Right to say things or look at things that Uncle Sid and friends enjoy and don't think are dangerous.
I do blame the politicians (who are often only interested in grabbing headlines) and the general public (who believe the tabloid media's scare story) and I also blame people like *YOU* who can't accept that others have rights too.
I have an easy solution to this problem
If they can't exactly explain what an acceptable picture is, then surely the government should provide an email address where everyone can send their photos for approval. If a photo is found to be objectionable, we can then delete it without consequence, but naturally we should be granted immunity to prosecution while we wait for our replies.
Of course we can get the ball rolling right away on this. If your local MP voted for this new law, just send him every single photo or picture you think might be a bit dodgy. They'll probably need some assistance deciding what seems objectionable, so a quick message to the police detailing the types of photos and pictures your MPs now have in their inboxes would be a great way to help them out.
Hello, Uncle Sid
@our lovely Uncle Sid
"I'm calling the desire to view these pictures as 'sick' because that is the viewpoint I hold, I realise that viewpoint is different to others, but does that make it less valid?"
A valid viewpoint is quite different from making something illegal. I believe there is a God. Some people believe there is no God. Which one should be made illegal since both ideas can't be correct? God forbid, we start bringing in things like Hinduism where a plethora of gods exist. Which ones should be sanctioned, if any? Which viewpoint matters? Which ones are sick and which ones are normal?
"I can't answer that for you, I'm not moralizing on what others wish to get up to in their own lives, the subject is the possession of pictures of "Necrophilia, Bestiality etc...""
Genuine necrophilia is already illegal. I'm in the US and we'd call that "abuse of a corpse." I don't know what Britain calls it. However, simulated necrophilia (a pale person lying very still) is completely legal when between two consenting adults of age.
Bestiality is also illegal in the states. I imagine the furry community would be devastated if viewing simulated bestiality was someone illegal. If it is an anthropomorphic cat yiffing with an anthropomorphic wolf, is it still bestiality?
What about drawings of acts that would be illegal? If I drew two stick figures and said "this one is raping that one" but it really just looked like some random lines, would that be illegal to own?
"As I've stated, I have no issue with what you get up to in your private life."
Ah, but you *do* have problems with what people do in their private life if you find their behavior sick enough to require a law forbidding it. You contradict yourself.
"I believe thats 'sick', you consider my view as arrogant, I don't. If others wish to insult me for that, then that displays their own intolerance, not mine."
You are seen as arrogant because you make no effort to see this from any point of view but your own. I can easily understand your view point. I don't want to look at "extreme porn". I tried once, following links from an article about "this is what will be illegal" and it actually made me feel physically ill.
So what? Should that make it illegal for some other person to print out a picture of it? Certainly not.
Maggots also make me ill. I wish we really could outlaw those. Ugh.
"I'm simply making the same statement most people would in the same situation."
Clearly you aren't making the same statement most people would be making since nobody else on this forum seems to agree with you.
"Now, if you take exception to the use of that word, doesn't that display a teensy weensy bit of an inability to allow others their opinion?"
One man's opinion should not be every man's law.
"I am technically literate, I take all the precautions I can to ensure that I and my family can surf the internet without being subjected to these pictures. however, even with all these precautions, I still find myself inadvertently, from time to time, coming across them."
How's that? I take very few precautions and have never found myself inadvertantly looking at porn, extreme or otherwise. I have well tuned spam filters, ad and flash blockers in my browser, and run no-script. I see exactly what I expect to see.
"Unfortunately there are a lot of people (yes, including children) who do not understand the danger of clicking a harmless looking link (or even one designed for the curious), and being subjected to a barrage of 'Extreme' porn. They normally do not have the technical savvy to make it stop. I know, I have had to wipe this crap off a lot of computers in my time."
No-script + Adblock Plus + Flashblock + Firekeeper would stop a great deal of that. There are some sites that provide PAC files you can use to black hole porn sites. There are some DNS providers that will black hole porn sites, too.
"The majority of internet users are not surfing for 'Extreme' porn (despite Michaels belief ~ you're really 'not' in the majority son), The majority want to be able to use the internet, without having to install lots of programs to make their surfing 'safer'."
If someone isn't willing to take control of their Internet experience, then they should have no expectation of being protected from malicious and salacious content. If there isn't someone coaching them on the dangers of the Internet, they need to stay off. Porn is the least of their worries what with worms infecting 15 million PCs, click-jacking, phishing, etc.
"So, We have the 'rights' of a small minority of the population, as opposed to the 'rights' of a majority of the population, now where do you think the politicians will look for the votes?"
I don't know how it works in Britain, but politicians are *supposed* to look out for every single person, especially those who are marginalized.
"Don't blame the Politicians or the general public, blame the people who thought the likes of "Goatse" was funny."
Goatse is funny, but only if you "rick roll" someone with it. It's pretty disgusting and shameful taken on its own.
Thanks, Sid, for continuing to put up with everyone on this forum.
Never mind evidence eliminator
My colleague "Rees Boy" says he stores all his extreme pr0n as "Magic Eye" images, because hardly anyone can see them.
The problem I see is that if he comes to court, nobody will want to admit they can't see it, so he's done for either way.
Serve him right for beating his meat over Sarah Palin being horribly abused by an angry moose.
Paris because he's probably got a few of her too.
"however, even with all these precautions, I still find myself inadvertently, from time to time, coming across them."
"This is all very good advice, but wouldn't it be better just not to down load sick images from malware infested porn sites in the first place?"
Yes it probably would be safer. On the other hand, I suspect that this new state of affairs really adds something playing at Hackers Vs. Spooks, since there is now some real (if small in many cases) risk to someone breaking your (massively over-engineered) encryption scheme.
OK, OK, that was said in jest. Seriously though, if one good thing comes out of this whole mess, it is that (non-cryptogeek) people may start taking serious measures to ensure their communications and stored information are secure from government observation, and thus lead to a somewhat freer society (not government, but society).
I do, however, have the most delightful image of some terribly disappointed government types spending hours cracking a highly encrypted file, based on their own assumption that to be so hidden it must be of an criminal nature, only to discover a certain music video, staring a certain Mr. Rick Astley.
Mines the one with the encrypted PDA full of grocery lists in the secret pocket.
Streaming Sites ?
Was just wondering if sites like youporn or pornotube where you can stream pornographic videos would leave anything on your hard drive that could be recovered and used as evidence against you, does anybody know ?
"Then cross your fingers, and pray"
Maybe you should have prayed first before watching the porn?
Humans are irrational
I just read 127 the comments above and still cannot grasp they huge interest in the topic. I wish a professor in law history and a social psychologist could shed some light here.
Humans are mimetic animals. No matter how educated or reasonable they are, subconsciously they will want to identify, imitate, fantasize, enacting or own whatever is depicted as a picture or a movie or art in general. If you like car, perfume, jewelry, shoes, PCs, gadget etc. advertisements, this means that you want one (in some cases you would even steal or kill in order to get one).
Keeping pictures of Hawaii in your PC means that you want to visit Hawaii. Keeping schematics of atomic bombs means that you want to destroy the commies or that you wish you could design a better one. Keeping nude/pr0n/kp/BDSM pictures represents your deep desire is to possess/shag/imitate the individuals depicted. Your first reaction is that "I like to watch and have a collection of those, but it would never ever cross my mind to do such things".
Are you sure you are normal? Does the state have any guarantee you are normal? Do I have a guarantee that my kids are safe from YOU?
Here's my line of thought: The primary function of imagery (and art in general) is magic. The pics in your PC's drive are no different from our ancestors' cave paintings of buffaloes being hunted down and killed.
Law, and to a certain extent, ethics, are timeless. What has worked for thousands of years will work now too. You cannot guarantee to the state - any state - that you will not repeat what is depicted and that you whatsoever have no such intents. Also, you cannot guarantee to the state that your children will not ever accidentally discover your artsy image bank and think it's perfectly ok since their daddy likes them. Also you cannot guarantee to the state that you will not sell them and thus propagate the disease. And finally, you cannot guarantee that you will not think "this is an easy money source" and attempt to produce them yourself at your basement.
The constitution of your country does not make such agreements with you - and even if such "contracts of good will and behaviour" were established, the state would have no guarantee that you'd actually keep them. Threatening/frightening/punishing simply does not work.
The question is, should there or should there not be laws addressing the ape-like human instincts? If the laws against theft, assault, violation, murder are ok with you, don't you think that there should be some kind of law regarding images (and art in general)?. Can you propose what kind of images and in which contexts should be legal and which not?
Finally, can or should an image that you would not possibly dare to show to your (adult or non-adult) son or daughter be legal and reside on your hard disk?
Paris, because her pictures are the axis of all evil - when she's dressed we'd kill to get her nude, when she's naked, we'd kill to dress her up again.
@Humans are irrational
No, it's just you.
Are you just plain thick, sick in the head, or both?