thanks to snowdrop for his synopsis
keith, 09 Sep 2005 12:51:21
My tuppen'orth.
a)I think that protecting children is an admirable goal, but it's frankly impossible unless the web is dismantled totally. Kids can look at 100% sick sites [ try rotten.com] even if this legislation goes ahead- ban one thing and something else crops up. It's time kids were left to grow up by themselves. [I've often thought that politicians sometimes try to pass laws intended to protect their offspring from themselves]
b) depictions of animals in sex- isn't there a 'cruelty to animals act' which gets around that bit ?
c)People being forced to do things in a non-consensual sexual context. Surely this is totally illegal anyway , whether or not violence is depicted? I always thought it was classed as rape ?
d) as (c) but consensual- as the paper says that there are Human Rights issues involved - I agree, and this is obviously the major controversial part [minimally camouflaged by the other bits].
Firstly: the government IMO is not there primarily to pass Laws. it is a necessary evil as society requires that a body exists to protect its citizens from wrongdoers, whether military,physical,or financial.[I realise that the govt does that via legislation but that should be a last resort]. It should have no powers to affect a person's human rights if none of those criteria apply.
Secondly: How can you define Violence? Is a light tap on the buttocks as part of foreplay to be banned ? or someone tweaking a nipple ? Those old enough may remember when the government tried clamping down on this years ago when it tried to stop sex and violence on the box. This was subverted quite well into meaning sex OR violence- if a law is passed about this subject , you can be sure it will be twisted about.
Thirdly: enforcement. How can this be done ? if it cant be fairly applied it should not happen.
Summary : our dear government is trying another Asbo situation- trying legislation before thinking about the subject. Maybe specific items are ok such as SM with a deceased animal , but IMO thats just flogging a dead horse. It's unworkable and would be thrown out of any court of Human Rights if they were to legislate and try to apply it.