Tory Lady tries to give bodice-rippers the snip First there was the Dangerous Pictures Act, and then there was the Dangerous Cartoons Law. Now, courtesy of the Conservative Party, we could be in for new laws on "Dangerous Writings". If you thought Tories were not quite so censorious as New Labour, then this is a salutary reminder that they can be every bit as righteously …
It's interesting that, historically, the right have been known as the party of excessive moralising and legislating against freedom of expression. The comment towards the top of the article shows how this perception has changed, probably due to the 'rise' of the libertarian right and New Labour's increasingly authoritarian shift.
Of course, the rest of the article demonstrates that the Tories are still just as prudish as ever.
Given the government's reliance on cherry-picked research, along with the recent events with the chiropractors suing for libel a researcher who published evidence that rubbing someone's neck doesn't cure cancer, why aren't the bdsm community suing for libel those researchers the government is cherry-picking? Not only does it impede this legislation, it also makes money for whoever does it.
"would make it illegal to possess extreme pornographic literature. That means not pictures or cartoons, but words on a page."
Oh good - can we ban the Bible please? The King James version contains some very offensive passages with descriptions of vile sexual practices and explicit violence.
Paris, because there's not a dirty word in her mind ...
it is 1984 - Thought Crime, Touch your Toes Mr Smith.
Fantasy - Reality two different things, I suppose if your Fantasy self got locked up in a Fantasy Jail, for some Fantasy writing, then it would work out, but somehow these 'law' makers seem to want to mix fantasy with reality.
See what happens when the pressure is taken off them, they plough on with their hypocrisy.
Media needs to jump on this more, and reveal the names of all the people who have contributed and presented the bill, then their conduct can be put under the microscope. No one is innocent in this country, there is always something, and someone willing to spill the beans.
Laws are not meant to be made up willy nilly, the 10 commandments pretty much covers it, and throw in the Golden Rule for good measure, we should be removing laws not making more. The only extra laws we need are those to be used to govern the government, they need less protection, more regulation, and stiffer penalties for any infraction.
"...make it a criminal offence to possess writings which portray life-threatening acts, acts likely to result in serious injury to anus, breasts or genitals..."
Better get the DIY books out of the pub quick, then: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5748855/Man-cuts-off-own-penis-during-drunk-DIY.html
There has to have been something fundamentally wrong with the past two generations worth of education (perhaps government policy?) when parliament finds itself in a position of having to legislate on things we used to call "Common Sense"
Perhaps the government could help the economic recovery along a bit by creating some new jobs on a committee and study group of 'Bloody Silly Legislation" or "Internal Department Investigation Of Terminal Stupidity"
Readers should contribute to the already overtaxed brains of Government acronym creators by coming up with some alternative names for this new and very necessary department ?
So that would include banning the booker prize winning The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy and An Obedient Father by Akhil Sharma (I couldn't read that book myself but that's no reason why it should be banned or the issues raised be presented in public). And what about Lolita ?
... that would probably make me a "criminal sexual deviant" (rather than the normal run-of-the-mill sexual deviant) because I own some Clive Barker, Richard Laymon and other books by similar authors.
Three books that sprung to mind without even thinking about it:
"Cabal"
"The Cellar"
"Resurrection Dreams"
Actually, BOTH extreme wings of the political spectrum have been historically associated with puritanism and a desire to control.
The current crop of New Labour are social conservatives of the puritan variety - 100 years ago they'd have been crying down fire and brimstome on the morally lax of all classes; the tories are social conservatives of the royalist variety - 100 years ago they'd have been pouring contumely on the indolent unwashed lower classes. Both sides would of course have been privately engaging in all sorts of shenanigans. One law for those in power, another for the plebs...
Thank you again, Mr Ozimek, for keeping us informed of such tyrannical legislation.
If this amendment is accepted and becomes law, the continued lawful possession of - how shall I put it? - indecent writings about children, would then seem anomalous. We would have all kinds of so-called child porn images being illegal to possess, along with extreme pornographic images and writings. But written child porn would still be legal to possess. It's not at all hard to imagine what parliament might decide to do about that "loophole".
So, we can expect huge numbers of normal, ordinary, healthy teenagers to be criminalised simply for writing (and thereby possessing) smutty fantasies about people their own age. The result is that the very children who are supposed to be protected end up being made criminals for basically being adolescents. What kind of society legislates in such ways as to make normal, young people ashamed of their own, emerging sexualities?
As a former child, with many years of experience of being under the age of eighteen, I can certainly say that such legislation would be totally unacceptable. It will be defied by many hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, of ordinary, healthy teenagers - often unknowingly.
But what if that "loophole" isn't closed? What if this proposed amendment becomes law, so that possession of extreme pornographic writings is a crime, but indecent writings about children remain lawful to possess? What message would that send? (This government does like to send legislative messages, after all.) That sexual abuse of children isn't as bad as BDSM-themed fantasies involving only fully consenting adults? Surely, if this amendment becomes law, the subsequent "loophole" would have to be closed.
Please, for the sake of the children: STOP THIS LUNATIC LEGISLATION NOW!
You don't have to search far on t'internet to find literature portraying bodily mutilation - news / current affairs / history sites often have details accounts of real life experiences (just look at enforcement methods used by practically every dictatorship in history!) as well as the hyperactive imaginations of some pr0n authors. Someone needs a serious reality check here - just because someone's reading the literature (and if it's online, their computer will automatically download and save a copy in the cache - and even if privacy mode is turned on, your ISP will probably save a copy on your behalf, whether you like it or not...), it doesn't mean they'll be any more likely to recreate the plot in real life than anyone else.
It's just a rehash of the stupid video game violence theory (violent crime is on the increase, and more people are playing violent computer games, therefore violent computer games cause people to become violent )
I've said it before but why is it deemed perfectly fine to portray murder and violence but some kind of heinous evil to portray kinky sex between two consenting adults?
Is it only me that finds that a deeply unhealthy attitude?
So let's encourage people to be desensitised to violence and to be massively uptight about sexual expression. My feeling is, though INE, is that this isn't just storing up problems for the future but actively encouraging them!
Is it time for some extreme satiric writings? Starring Baroness O'Cathain, Martin Salter, Maria Eagle, etc. And maybe set in Guatemala.
Better make sure the story includes a character daring to draw dirty pictures of children, just for good measure. (Imagine if it actually does end up becoming a crime, one day, to possess written descriptions of someone drawing and possessing cartoons of adults having sex in front of children. Isn't it sad that this isn't entirely implausible anymore?)
"Like that Act, this amendment would only apply if the writing was deemed to be pornographic"
of courts will have to decide if I was reading a work to be aroused or if I was reading it for "arts" sake?
so a picture of a naked person is pronagraphic if it is in a magiseen but not if it is in a frame in a garrley??
simmerley a story of peron being raped and murdered is porn if on asstr but not if it is in a slasher novle??
".. he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel" -- Judges 19:29-30
"every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin." -- Genesis 17:10-11, 23-24
"Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death." -- Genesis 22:19
"The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines" 1 Samuel 18:25
I'm pretty sure that a significant part of the work of death metal band Cannibal Corpse would be caught under this law, except that it doesn't seem to cover music, only writings and film. If this law passed, would I be allowed to own Cannibal Corpse albums and listen to songs like "F---ed With A Knife" and "Necropaedophile", so long as I threw away the lyric booklet?
(Not that I would want to own a Cannibal Corpse album, but the point needs to be made.)
is that the enterprising mind can find sexual stimulation and gratification in any material, regardless of the original intent of its creator.
For instance, I am now looking at a selection of pictures of Baroness O'Cathain and having some rude thoughts about her. It's not easy, but I'm sufficiently bloodyminded to want to prove the point.
What about cannibalism?
If someone finds cannibalism erotic, then a story about cannibalism might be pornographic to that person. But most people simply wouldn't recognise such stories as erotic at all. Are such writings to remain entirely legal to own?
I wonder what Baroness O'Cathain would make of that? Would she understand that eroticism and obscenity only really exist in the mind of the reader?
What about extreme furniture porn?...
So writing about having babies would be illegal?
It's a sexual act that often wrecks a womans genitals (at least for a while).
OK, I actually get the whole animation thing, after all animation/CGI is now so realistic, while there isn't a victim the viewer won't know this, in future if you had kiddie porn and claimed it wasn't real regardless of how realistic it was it's not a defense (fair enough, the price we pay might have to be artistic restriction) but extending this into fake snuff or written porn is not drawing a line that needs to be drawn.
"an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals"
I've just realised what the significance of that "anus, breasts or genitals" phrase is. It's because the people who write these laws are criminalising only what they themselves think would be erotic. Amusingly, whoever originally came up with the "anus, breasts or genitals" significantly omitted buttocks. They obviously don't regard buttocks as erotic, yet do regard the anus as erotic - they're into anal sex, but don't get turned on by having their bum groped.
What's really striking is what this must mean for the rest of such legislation. It means they find bestiality and necrophilia erotic, but not cannibalism. It means they find life threatening activity erotic, too, but not mere sexual assault.
This kind of interpretation of such legislation - that the legislation tells us what the legislators themselves find erotic - could be useful in prising their minds open a bit. Assuming they're going to deny finding, say, necrophilia erotic themselves, they'll have to aggree that there are some things that some people do find erotic that they themselves don't. Cannibalism is a good example to then give them.
Once they've accepted that, for some people, cannibalism is itself an erotic activity, they can be introduced to more and more examples of seemingly non-sexual activity that is nevertheless erotic to those with such kinks and fetishes. Then ask them how a jury of mostly normal people are supposed to recognise such stuff as "pornographic". They'll find it harder and harder to make the "pornographic" part of such legislation do an adequate job.
A key thing for them to then recognise is that the definition of "pornographic" in such legislation essentially limits the proscribed material to that material that most people would recognise as being "pornographic". That limits how extreme and unusual it could be. The most extreme, most unusual stuff - such as cannibalism - would still remain legal to possess - potentially driving the Graham Couttses of this world to even greater extremes. I mean, just imagine if he'd actually eaten Jane Longhurst instead of just storing her body!
Might this be a way to prize their minds open, even if just a bit?
"For instance, I am now looking at a selection of pictures of Baroness O'Cathain and having some rude thoughts about her. It's not easy, but I'm sufficiently bloodyminded to want to prove the point."
She's about to star in some sadistic lesbian fanfic. With Paris.
Thanks for the idea, AC.
""For instance, I am now looking at a selection of pictures of Baroness O'Cathain and having some rude thoughts about her. It's not easy, but I'm sufficiently bloodyminded to want to prove the point."
She's about to star in some sadistic lesbian fanfic. With Paris.
Thanks for the idea, AC.""
we all apreacate the horrors you face in the name of freedom *shudder*
you sirs are heros!!
"acts likely to result in serious injury to anus, breasts or genitals, sexual interference with a human corpse"
What's so special about the anus, breasts, and genitals? Why is serious injury to truly important organs like the fingers, eyes, ears, heart, and brain not also verboten? Why are injuries of the "naughty bits" apparently okay if they aren't "serious"? What about acts that may cause such serious injuries, but aren't likely to (i.e. serious injury is by mischance)? Is non-sexual interference with a human corpse okay? Are moobs covered, or are "breasts" only a female phenomenon in the minds of those drafting this crap legislation?
If someone gets the lining of their anal canal tattooed with, say, a fresco of Labour's ladies (Hazel, Jackie, Harriet, et al), some questions: Is that part of the anus, or is it a distinct organ? Is injury likely? If so, is it *serious* injury? And what about the minor detail that it was done with the full consent of the tattooee?
Is the application of lipstick to a human corpse by an mortician *sexual* interference? After all, lipstick is almost entirely intended to send a sexual signal.
A Philadelphia lawyer could run circles around the prosecution in such cases and in the process demonstrate that, as usual, the law is an ass.
Much, much more seriously: Prudish prohibitions like this always make me think that somebody, somewhere, has serious sexual hangups. Is it right that the psycho-sexual maladjustments of the few should be the basis for public policy affecting all?
I think this, as well as "Naked Lunch" by Burroughs would be banned. Great works of literature banned by these Tory barbarians - sometimes I wonder who is really defending civilisation. It turns out it is us lot, the liberal-minded who mostly inhabit the Labour party, it seems.
We're doomed to hell in a hand basket.
"Like that Act, this amendment would only apply if the writing was deemed to be pornographic – so any number of slasher novels would remain OK, whilst similar writings with sexual overtones could instantly condemn their possessor to a criminal record."
The problematic word in that quote is "pornographic". It's too subjective and personal. You'll find a lot of people who think a thong or a g-string, or a woman going topless, is pornographic. I've heard people decry that the Sports Illustrated swimsuit calendar is pornographic. Additionally, there are some people who become aroused by dangerous situations. As such, even slasher novels aren't guaranteed protections from such an idiotic law.
One of my biggest questions is whether or not they define "mutilate", and if so, what the definition is. There are many people, especially in the medical and mental health professions, who consider body piercings to be mutilation. Given the prevalence of nipple and hood piercings, almost always done to enhance sexual pleasure from what I'm told, I imagine much writing would immediately be considered pornographic and extreme because of the mention of such piercings, and would thus be illegal. Of course, so are all pictures and videos depicting people with such piercings.
Since the world seems to be so gung-ho about dedicating every single day to any number of causes, I vote that we create a "Pre-1984 Day". On that day, we can all wax nostalgic about how life was back when actions were illegal and thoughts were acceptable (you may be demented and a psychopath or sociopath, but you were still entitled to your thoughts), back when you could do whatever you wanted in the privacy of your own bedroom (as long as you weren't hurting someone without their consent), back when sex was considered a good thing. Nowadays, with porn more popular than ever (and the quantity of it more than ever), with society's attitudes towards sex and the human body so much more open, the vocal minority and the government are doing everything they can to make sure sex is kept within rigidly-defined lines (missionary position only, five minutes, once per month, with the lights out, for the sole purpose of procreation, not enjoyment), that sex is never spoken of, and that the human body is fully clothed at all times (and yet, for some reason, nude art and sculptures from centuries past is somehow acceptable).
$deity help us when they do finally legislate ThoughtCrime. Ever thought about killing someone? Well, then it's off to the clink for you because you are obviously a danger to society. However, if you work for a "defense contractor", and you dream of new and exciting ways to maim, torture, and murder people, then you're a good citizen doing his/her best to protect your country. It's only those people who have no intention of actually killing someone that are dangerous.
Let's have a look at that definition:
"of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal" - CHECK - I can see no legitimate purpose for it, so that's a reasonable assumption.
"grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character" - CHECK - It's extremely offensive.
"portrays ... an act which threatens a person’s life, an act which results, or is likely 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, or a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive)" - CHECK - All of the above, if you can believe it. That is sick, sick, sick! I found its dwelling on the topic of mutilating breasts and genitals particularly disturbing.
So if this becomes law, it will actually outlaw itself!
Oh wait, it would also have to be realistic, that's one thing this law can never be accused of.
Come off it - the legislation was proposed by a Tory Lady like the article says at the top. You can slag off the Labour Party for draconian pursuit of spy cameras (introduced by the Tories) or so called anti terror laws (fully supported by the Tories) but they aren't prudes. I have been paying attention and unfortunately the Labour Government has been the best possible one over the last 12 years. Even though some of it is rubbish, they are still light years better than the Tories. Does anyone really think that the fight against the rubbish class system, that means that people born into poverty are probably going to stay that way no matter how hardworking or clever they are is going to be fought by an upper class toff who went to Eton?
And you can criticise all you like, but Labour isn't full of prudes or nutters who want to cuddle up to Polish and Czech ultra-nationalists.
Like the skull by the way. That means you are the bad guy. Trust me on this.
Seriously, isn't all that "forbidden this/forbidden that" making it more... alluring? De Sade, the Story of O etc. are all so famous, because they were reviled and deemed "dangerous" - nowadays, there are communities inspired by some of their concepts.
By trying to make it a taboo again, isn't that giving these things back their "specialness" they lost when these ideas (or allusion to these ideas) entered mainstream media (like nowadays: every second or third romantic comedy must feature a dominatrix or some embarrassing BDSM event).
"Actually, BOTH extreme wings of the political spectrum have been historically associated with puritanism and a desire to control."
An excellent point. People talk about the "Extremes" of the political spectrum but it's much more like a belt. At the extreme ends a right wing nutjob (Baroness old trout) looks remarkably like a left wing nubjob. It's not surprising from time to time one of these nutters has an epiphany and crosses to the other side.
Just when you thought this piece of legislation could not get longer or loonier. Thumbs up for the comment, thumbs down for the clause.
One more time... in English this time, if you please. I could almost, but not quite, understand you. Don't get me wrong, I believe the point of writing and speaking is communication, so spelling and grammar are not sacrosanct to me. However, your post failed at that primary purpose. Your post was unintelligible, therefore your need to improve your spelling and/or grammar to a point where it resembles the language in which you are attempting to communicate.
Thanks.
Poppy Z Brite, author of erotic horror, would be another example - one of her short stories (His Mouth Will Taste Of Wormwood) features a bit about a dog giving oral sex to a woman. Not to mention her novel Exquisite Corpse, which features necrophilia and sex killings.
In practice, people might not be locked up for possessing physical published books, but that just shows the inconsistency if people are arrested for possessing similar writings that either they downloaded from a BDSM erotica site, or were their own personal fantasies.
Not mentioned in the article is the progress of Scotland's version of the "extreme porn" bill. This bill is already broader than England's version, and a selection of "Women's" groups are coordinating a lobbying effort against the Government to extend it even further, in particular demanding that non-photographic images be covered (they cite Second Life as an example, and this would presumably cover cartoons and drawings also). They stress that they see this law as merely being a "first step" - the end game is to see possession of all porn criminalised.
Have a read of the responses at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/justice/inquiries/CriminalJusticeandLicensing/ju-criminaljustice-evid.htm , if you fancy seeing the kind of anti-porn crusade that's going on here.
Dude[tte], you have the worst command of written English I have ever seen -- and that's saying something, as I live on the Internet. I think it's safe to say you are immune to this legislation should it ever come to pass, because the old bill will not have a scooby what you're on about.
Sorry to be mean and I know how much of a c**t I am for saying it, but I humbly beg you to take some time to improve your literacy. Most people on here can at least limit themselves to just a couple of howlers per comment.
Well-meaning, despite the invective.
(I'm sorry to say I don't know who the patron saint of anuses is.)
It's Angel St Michael, Guy. Go to http://www.tetherdcow.com/ to read more than you probably want to know on the painful topic of Anal Haunting. Um, she's serious, it seems.
A grenade, 'cos that's sure to get things moving.
They are not having my fantasy, horror, Sci-Fi, or Marque De Sade books, the damned Victorian hyprocrites, and cowards. You need the dark to appreciate the light. Don't these idiots understand, it is fiction, fantasy, and a warning about, and to, people like themselves, or maybe they fear us understanding them too well!
"Is it right that the psycho-sexual maladjustments of the few should be the basis for public policy affecting all?"
Isn't that why we canot shop on Sunday's - rules forced upon us based upon the belief systems of a bunch of mental defectives.
A ex-colleague(programmer) while training to be a minister left his wife to live with his new girlfriend and her husband. The reason this sicko threesome though this was OK? God says it is "meant to be".
Oddly enough God told him it was OK the day after they sold thier house and were preparing to move to thatcham to be neaer the god-college - so he could nick the proceeds of the sale. Evidently god knew what his ex-wife who had been supporting him through his years of unpaid ministry would have done when she found out he had been shacking up with thier close friends in a threesome.
Shirley i the metrial has to be relativistic and porn then all they need to is attach a disclaimer saying something like
"this work is a fictional work of art and is not meant to be realistic or used for self gratification"
if they do not include that message when is court then you say they have taken it out of context and show some other thing like bible quotes out of context
"Come off it - the legislation was proposed by a Tory Lady like the article says at the top. You can slag off the Labour Party for draconian pursuit of spy cameras (introduced by the Tories) or so called anti terror laws (fully supported by the Tories) but they aren't prudes. "
Did you miss the whole extreme porn law? Whilst this version of it is a Tory Lady proposal, the extreme porn law for images that this law is a copy from, that is not merely a proposal but got passed earlier this year, is from Labour. Not to mention their law criminalising possession of any sexual cartoons/drawings that depict someone appearing to be under-18, or even an adult with childlike features. ( http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/graphic-artists-condemn-plans-to-ban-erotic-comics-1652270.html )
No, I'm not saying whether Tory would be better, but Labour are appalling here too.
@mmiied Re: relisem/ porn test.
An interesting idea, that might help. But remember it's still a question of whether the jury thinks it was produced for arousal - so despite a disclaimer, they might still look at the story and think the disclaimer was just misleading.
There's none so blind as those who will not see. The extreme porn law was by the Labour government. Extending it to include cartoons was Labour (with a Tory trying to add a wreaking amendment). Redefining consenting adults as children to get them covered by child porn laws was the Labour government. Labour have just as many prudes as anybody else, probably more.
"" "sorry will try harder"
But then you wrote,
"Shirley i the metrial has to be relativistic and porn..."
I just can't work out what that was supposed to say.""
maby it was meny to be
"of course if the writing has to be realistic and pornographic"
and I was trying better all but one of those words was passed by my spell checker
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
