Thread

A potentially illegal image

Morgarth, 22 Oct 2005 18:56:07

I have been looking for relevant images in the mainstream public domain that might demonstrate how the proposed legislation might work – or prove to be unworkable. Unlike the consultation document that refers to images but won’t describe them I think it might be useful to try and be more explicit.

I wonder how members of this group would rate the following description of a 2 minute 30 second video clip in relation to both BDSM erotica and the proposed legislation. I am interested in how people react to it without knowing where it comes from – so if you think you recognise it please hold back from identifying it. I will post the source later.

A gang of four people in “fetish” dress of masks, heavy boots and exaggerated codpieces force there way into the isolated home of middle aged husband and younger wife. There is then a rapid sequence of shots as the husband is kicked in the face and thrown down a short flight of stairs while another gang member is seen picking up the wife and carrying her over his shoulder. His hand is seen to grope her buttock over her clothes with his fingers straying into her genital area as he turns in front of the camera. Then the man’s face is shown with a trickle of blood from his mouth as he struggles against being held down on the floor. A longer shot again clearly shows the gang member’s hand indecently placed as he holds the wife over his shoulder. She is carried across in front of her husband and her breast groped before the gang leader drives his boot viciously into the man’s face. He sings as he turns and gags the woman with several loops of sellotape and then slaps her across the face. Turning back he kicks the man several more times before ramming a ball into his mouth. After overturning a desk and bookcase the leader saunters across to the woman with a pair of scissors. While she is held upright hands behind her back he cuts away her clothes to expose each of her breasts. The man is forced to watch this and we see close up shots of his face with the ball taped in his mouth as his wife’s clothes are cut right away exposing her to the camera. She is held naked facing the gang leader as he removes his codpiece, and then pulls down his trousers and underwear. He kneels down and taunts the man before turning to go back to the woman. The man’s struggling red face is seen before cutting to the woman’s upper torso and face as she too writhes and struggles. The scene ends here.

Morgarth

Graham Marsden, 22 Oct 2005 19:54:18

morgarth@z2bdsm.com wrote:

> A gang of four people in \x{201C}fetish\x{201D} dress of masks, heavy boots and
> exaggerated codpieces force there way into the isolated home of
> middle aged husband and younger wife. There is then a rapid sequence
> of shots as the husband is kicked in the face and thrown down a short
> flight of stairs

To the tune of "Singing in the Rain"...! :-)

Of course "A Clockwork Orange" caused a furore after a tramp was kicked
to death in what seemed like an emulation of a scene in the film with
the result that Stanley Kubrick pulled the film from the UK and wouldn't
let it be shown, even though it was later found that the boy who
committed the attack hadn't even *seen* the film.

* * * * *

'Clockwork Orange' link with boy's crime
The violent film , A Clockwork Orange, was in the mind of a boy aged 16
who beat an elderly tramp to death, it was alleged at Oxford Crown Court
yesterday. The only money the tramp, Mr David McManus, aged 60, had,
1½p, was missing when his body was searched, Mr John Owen, for the
prosecution said. The boy, who comes from Bletchley, Buckinghamshire,
was sentenced to be detained during her Majesty's pleasure for murder.
He had pleaded guilty.

The boy told the police that *his friends had told him about the film*
"and the beating up of an old boy like this one".

[...]

Mr Roger Gray, for the defence, said: "The link between this crime and
sensational literature, particularly A Clockwork Orange, is established
beyond any reasonable doubt". [Comment: Yeah, right! - Graham]

The Times -- 4th July, 1973

http://www.tabula-rasa.info/Horror/ClockworkOrangeFiles.html (almost at
the bottom of the page)

* * * * *

Film an argument for censorship, judge says
From our Correspondent
Manchester, July 23

Judge Bailey at Manchester Crown Court today attacked the film Clockwork
Orange. He said it presented an "unassailable argument" for a form of
censorship.

He had heard of the Sunday afternoon a boy aged 16, dressed like a
character in the film, had attacked a boy aged 15. Sending him to
borstal, the judge said: "Cases like yours present, in my view, an
unassailable argument in favour of the return as quickly as possible of
some sort of censorship to prevent this sort of exhibition being
released on the screen or stage, which is evil in itself.

"If this happens, it will be very salutary in that those salacious
creatures who appear to dominate what is called show business today are
compelled to earn a more respectable and honorable livelihood instead of
inciting young persons to violence at the expense of their victims."

[Comment: So did it? Did the level of violent crime go down or up? - Graham]

He said that it was the second case he had heard in the past three weeks
in which "a dispicable young bully has attributed his wicked behaviour
to having seen this dastardly film".

[Comment: Except the first one *hadn't* he'd only been *told* about it -
Graham]

The boy was convicted at heywood, Lancashire, on June 13 of causing
grievous bodily harm to the boy of 15. He was said to have kicked him
several times while wearing heavy boots.

The Times -- 24th July, 1973

ibid.

* * * * *

Teenager jailed

Pittsburgh -- A teenager was sentenced to life in prison for fatally
stabbing and strangling a friend in a crime he said was influenced by
seeing the film A Clockwork Orange. (AP)

[Comment: I don't recall anyone being stabbed and strangled in the film
and it didn't make *me* want to kill someone, *despite* all the "violent
porn" I've seen! - Graham]

The Times -- 24th August, 1990

ibid.

* * * * *

Concluding comment: So that's, *THREE* cases in around 20 years? One of
which the culprit hadn't even *seen* the film.

Not the most conclusive evidence I've heard of and certainly not "proven
beyond a reasonable doubt" as claimed by Mr Roger Gray!

Cheers,
Graham.

Paul C. Dickie, 22 Oct 2005 20:01:47

In message <6537756.1130003762879.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, morgarth@z2bdsm.com wrote:
>I have been looking for relevant images in the mainstream public domain that
>might demonstrate how the proposed legislation might work \x{2013} or prove to be
>unworkable. Unlike the consultation document that refers to images but won\x{2019}t
>describe them I think it might be useful to try and be more explicit.
>
>I wonder how members of this group would rate the following description of a 2
>minute 30 second video clip in relation to both BDSM erotica and the proposed
>legislation. I am interested in how people react to it without knowing where it
>comes from \x{2013} so if you think you recognise it please hold back from identifying
>it. I will post the source later.

I was not aware that anyone had made a clip of "A Clockwork Orange"...

Have I won the cigar?

Goggins would also like to ban images of coprophagia (scat) but, in the
absence of smelly-vision, how could he tell the difference between crap
and chocolate? Must all people filmed whilst eating chocolate cake be
especially dainty and use their pastry forks, lest Goggins or one of his
minions accuse them of eating turds?

Come to that, though, can he accurately differentiate between shit and
Shinola other than, perhaps, on price?

--
< Paul >

goodghirl, 22 Oct 2005 20:32:05

Did you really really miss the part where he asked you not to identify it?

"Paul C. Dickie" wrote:In message <6537756.1130003762879.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, morgarth@z2bdsm.com wrote:
so if you think you recognise it please hold back from identifying
>it. I will post the source later.

I was not aware that anyone had made a clip of "A Clockwork Orange"...

Have I won the cigar?

Goggins would also like to ban images of coprophagia (scat) but, in the
absence of smelly-vision, how could he tell the difference between crap
and chocolate? Must all people filmed whilst eating chocolate cake be
especially dainty and use their pastry forks, lest Goggins or one of his
minions accuse them of eating turds?

Come to that, though, can he accurately differentiate between shit and
Shinola other than, perhaps, on price?

--
< Paul >

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash

To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com

Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2120

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

Graham Marsden, 22 Oct 2005 21:15:46

goodghirl wrote:

> Did you really really miss the part where he asked you not to identify it?

Well I did :-/

Cheers,
Graham.

SnowdropExplodes, 22 Oct 2005 21:22:44

--- morgarth@z2bdsm.com wrote:

> I have been looking for relevant images in the
> mainstream public domain that might demonstrate how
> the proposed legislation might work – or prove to be
> unworkable. Unlike the consultation document that
> refers to images but won’t describe them I think it
> might be useful to try and be more explicit.
>
> I wonder how members of this group would rate the
> following description of a 2 minute 30 second video
> clip in relation to both BDSM erotica and the
> proposed legislation. I am interested in how people
> react to it without knowing where it comes from – so
> if you think you recognise it please hold back from
> identifying it. I will post the source later.

Okay, looking at the guidelines in the consultation
paper:

We have here an example of "violence in a sexual
context" (which is the third category of material that
they wish to ban).

The other two important criteria are:

a) is it produced primarily for the purposes of sexual
arousal? (here I think "production" will be deemed to
be the process of taking the clip from the film)

and

b) is it "explicit", by which is meant, "the activity
is clearly seen and is not hidden, disguised or
implied".

Part a) would obviously be based on context - were
other similar pieces of footage also found? Does
this person conduct academic research that might
justify the presence? And so on.

Part b): well, we have clear explicit violence, but it
is not in a sexual context at the time we see it.
The brutality shown to the man is casual, but not
related to the sexual molestation of his wife. The
only violence offered in a sexual context on that
reading would be the slap to the woman's face after
she has been gagged, which does not constitute
grievous bodily harm, and therefore does not meet the
criteria given in the consultation paper.

It is worth noting that the only explicit sexual
references are the baring of the woman's breasts and
the placing of a gang member's hands. Everything
else is implied.

Alternatively, can it be argued that the violence
against the husband is in a sexual context? That
violence would certainly be severe enough to qualify.

The argument would probably be that, since the
violence towards the man has no sexual intent behind
it, it is not "violence in a sexual context".

Therefore, possession of this clip, if the law were
introduced as outlined in the consultation paper and
applied properly (rather than by knee-jerk emotive
arguments used to sway a jury), should not result in a
conviction.

The rape scene in "Baise-Moi", if someone made a clip
from the film only of that sequence, *would* (if the
definition of "produced" that I introduced above were
to be applied) result in a conviction, even though the
BBFC gave the whole film an 18 certificate, because it
would be presumed (and most likely argued emotively
and successfully by the prosecution) that the clip was
"produced" primarily or solely for the purpose of
sexual arousal. It clearly shows serious sexual
violence and serious violence in a sexual context.

Incidentally, the BBFC allowed the scene to remain in
the film because they argued that neither the female
nor the male participants were dispayed as taking any
pleasure from the rape. This has been used as their
justification when denying a certificate to other rape
scenes (such as in some anime films).

Ta,
SnowdropExplodes

___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

goodghirl, 22 Oct 2005 22:43:33

should that have made me chuckle as much as it did ?

Carla

graham wrote:

goodghirl wrote:

> Did you really really miss the part where he asked you not to identify it?

Well I did :-/

Cheers,
Graham.

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash

To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com

Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2129

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

Graham Marsden, 23 Oct 2005 00:21:15

goodghirl wrote:

>> Did you really really miss the part where he asked you not to
>> identify it?
>
> Well I did :-/
>
> should that have made me chuckle as much as it did ?

I don't know.

I didn't see that part, but that's because I tend to skim messages
rather than read every word and the rest of it caught my eye more than
the preamble.

Cheers,
Graham.

zak, 23 Oct 2005 10:08:05

Original Message:
-----------------

morgarth@z2bdsm.com, 23 Oct 2005 10:08:05

Morgarth, 23 Oct 2005 11:35:25

zak wrote:

> However, I don't see your
> point. It's a graphic sequence that makes up part of a story: some people
> will find it
> shocking, others will find it a source of masturbatory excitement, others
> will find it
> dull or start muttering about the specifics or camera angles and lighting.
> But whether this image would be found 'criminal' or not would most likely
> depend on how
> good a lawyer its producer oculd af
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

My point is to see how others might view the sequence in isolation without declaring my own position. In saying "some will find it a source of masturbatory excitement" and "would most likely depend on how good a lawyer its producer could afford" you concur with my view that it could fall foul of the new legislation.

So far with SnowdropExplodes thinking it doesn't that's one all.

Morgarth

Manniq, 23 Oct 2005 11:54:46

For what its worth, I am with snowdrop on the logic, but reach an opposite conclusion.

He argues that a clip from somewhere such as Baise-moi, taken out of context, could well fall foul of the law. Totally agree. That is because both the OPA and BBFC are prepared to look at images within the context of a run of images (aka a film!).

Similar happened not that long ago when the West Midlands police seized a book of photos by Mapplethorpe because a couple of the images in the book were deemed to be obscene (by the police).

From memory, they gave up on that one, in part because the images formed such a small part of a larger whole. The thing here, with the web, is that the government seem to wish to treat it very differently from books or films. So whilst you or I might visit a web site, which is a whole experience, the government sees us as just downloading a disjointed series of images, some of which might be 'aberrant'.

Back to the main argument. They are going to have to retain the possibility of deeming the CO clip to be in breach of the law, because the whole point about what we do - esp. the more fetishistic end of the bdsm world - is that ordinary, everyday objects become erotic. Eroticism is in the eye of the beholder, NOT within the image itself.

Just turn the argument the other way around. They are talking about criminalising images that are a) extreme and b) seen in a sexual context. Do you imagine it would be a defence to appear in court and say: yes, _I_ found it sexual; but as the image is so extreme and otherwise offensive, 99% of the population would NOT consider it sexual, therefore you must let me off.

Absolutely implicit in the proposal is that the sexualisation takes place in the eye and mind of the beholder. Otherwise the above argument would hold.

Of course, they may take 'sexual' in different ways. Perhaps they mean that if the scene is played on a site with garish red lettering and XXX all over the place it would be criminal - but not on a more modest display.

But I can't see that, myself.

Many, many years ago I was involved in running the advertising for a well-known shoe company. I was amazed to receive a couple of letters, after one season catalogue went out, from individuals condemning our irresponsibility. Why? We had put out a children's catalogue showing - wait for it - young children wearing shoes!

Pictures in this catalogue, they pointed out, could possibly be attractive to paedophiles. Though how we were meant to sell children's shoes otherwise, I do not know.

This proposal would probably deal with that situation.

Regards,

M

Author wrote:
> zak wrote:
> > However, I don't see your
> > point. It's a graphic sequence that makes up part of a story: some people
> > will find it
> > shocking, others will find it a source of masturbatory excitement, others
> > will find it
> > dull or start muttering about the specifics or camera angles and lighting.
> > But whether this image would be found 'criminal' or not would most likely
> > depend on how
> > good a lawyer its producer oculd af
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> My point is to see how others might view the sequence in isolation without declaring my own position. In saying "some will find it a source of masturbatory excitement" and "would most likely depend on how good a lawyer its producer could afford" you concur with my view that it could fall foul of the new legislation.
> So far with SnowdropExplodes thinking it doesn't that's one all.
> Morgarth

*** This message has been edited by Manniq on 23 Oct 2005 11:59:16 ***