Categories of material
Teddy, 02 Sep 2006 03:07:03
A thought about the changing of the former categories iii) and iv) into one; namely "serious violence". This, if anything, makes the law potentially tighter, I would say. Before, the "in a sexual context" bit implied that some nudity, or similar sexualisation of the scene, would be necessary. Now anything that is violent and has notionally been produced (or edited!) for the purpose of pornographic consumption would presumably be included? As an example, would some of the sites featuring gunplay now come into the scope of criminality? I hope that the valid and pertinent points raised by many about "sexual contexts" haven't inadvertently led to even more illiberal legislation!
T.
Alan, 02 Sep 2006 09:52:45
The law is designed to freeze out the whole erotic horror fantasy scene for us Brits not just the rape snuff strangle shit that Couts was into. I note a mention was made in the consultation of "pseudo photos" that will draw in even such old favs as footie beuttel etc. This is why I am so bloody angry about it. The mind set behind the proposal is a spitefull moralising clique who are still dead miffed about their loss of grip on hardcore ie real sex porn. If you read the response to the consultation you will see the contempt for porn users that underpins their whole aim. There is a definate maliciousness about the proposed law and that gives me hope for recourse to HR law.
Al
Author wrote:
> A thought about the changing of the former categories iii) and iv) into one; namely "serious violence". This, if anything, makes the law potentially tighter, I would say. Before, the "in a sexual context" bit implied that some nudity, or similar sexualisation of the scene, would be necessary. Now anything that is violent and has notionally been produced (or edited!) for the purpose of pornographic consumption would presumably be included? As an example, would some of the sites featuring gunplay now come into the scope of criminality? I hope that the valid and pertinent points raised by many about "sexual contexts" haven't inadvertently led to even more illiberal legislation!
> T.
rovacs, 02 Sep 2006 10:11:08
Good point-I noticed this too. It's so stupid and unjustified that any attempt to prosecute over things which are not in fact "sexual situations" would help to further discredit and eventually destroy such legislation to my mind. What they are saying is that if it can be called pornographic it has to be in a "sexual context" anyway so why bother to add this,but I agree that doing this can in theory widen the net further. The idea you could call scantily clad amazons engaging in violence pornographic is so utterly stupid that it would be laughed out of court. It offends against the whole of what is out there as perfectly "allowable" in our mainstream culture-which they say will remain allowable despite the advanced idiocy of these proposals-what next,prosecution for watching "Xena-warrior princess"?. Its such an absurd notion juries would refuse to convict if such an lame prosecution are presented to them . It would strengthen a case to have it declared incompatible on the grounds of human rights-so either a thorough revision of the law is made or it is scrapped totally-unless Bliar blatantly ignores incompatibility judgements.
Author wrote:
> A thought about the changing of the former categories iii) and iv) into one; namely "serious violence". This, if anything, makes the law potentially tighter, I would say. Before, the "in a sexual context" bit implied that some nudity, or similar sexualisation of the scene, would be necessary. Now anything that is violent and has notionally been produced (or edited!) for the purpose of pornographic consumption would presumably be included? As an example, would some of the sites featuring gunplay now come into the scope of criminality? I hope that the valid and pertinent points raised by many about "sexual contexts" haven't inadvertently led to even more illiberal legislation!
> T.
rovacs, 02 Sep 2006 10:16:17
Alan -I do think the HR angle is the "big one"-this stuff is so mind blowingly incompatable that a concerted effort needs to be started to put this before the appropriate court when the time comes.
Author wrote:
> The law is designed to freeze out the whole erotic horror fantasy scene for us Brits not just the rape snuff strangle shit that Couts was into. I note a mention was made in the consultation of "pseudo photos" that will draw in even such old favs as footie beuttel etc. This is why I am so bloody angry about it. The mind set behind the proposal is a spitefull moralising clique who are still dead miffed about their loss of grip on hardcore ie real sex porn. If you read the response to the consultation you will see the contempt for porn users that underpins their whole aim. There is a definate maliciousness about the proposed law and that gives me hope for recourse to HR law.
> Al
> Author wrote:
> > A thought about the changing of the former categories iii) and iv) into one; namely "serious violence". This, if anything, makes the law potentially tighter, I would say. Before, the "in a sexual context" bit implied that some nudity, or similar sexualisation of the scene, would be necessary. Now anything that is violent and has notionally been produced (or edited!) for the purpose of pornographic consumption would presumably be included? As an example, would some of the sites featuring gunplay now come into the scope of criminality? I hope that the valid and pertinent points raised by many about "sexual contexts" haven't inadvertently led to even more illiberal legislation!
> > T.
Alan, 02 Sep 2006 10:38:37
I wonder if the obsene pubilcations act itself could be proved to be incompatible with human rights? Its worth looking into
Al
Author wrote:
> Alan -I do think the HR angle is the "big one"-this stuff is so mind blowingly incompatable that a concerted effort needs to be started to put this before the appropriate court when the time comes.
> Author wrote:
> > The law is designed to freeze out the whole erotic horror fantasy scene for us Brits not just the rape snuff strangle shit that Couts was into. I note a mention was made in the consultation of "pseudo photos" that will draw in even such old favs as footie beuttel etc. This is why I am so bloody angry about it. The mind set behind the proposal is a spitefull moralising clique who are still dead miffed about their loss of grip on hardcore ie real sex porn. If you read the response to the consultation you will see the contempt for porn users that underpins their whole aim. There is a definate maliciousness about the proposed law and that gives me hope for recourse to HR law.
> > Al
> > Author wrote:
> > > A thought about the changing of the former categories iii) and iv) into one; namely "serious violence". This, if anything, makes the law potentially tighter, I would say. Before, the "in a sexual context" bit implied that some nudity, or similar sexualisation of the scene, would be necessary. Now anything that is violent and has notionally been produced (or edited!) for the purpose of pornographic consumption would presumably be included? As an example, would some of the sites featuring gunplay now come into the scope of criminality? I hope that the valid and pertinent points raised by many about "sexual contexts" haven't inadvertently led to even more illiberal legislation!
> > > T.
rovacs, 02 Sep 2006 11:19:51
It's possible-though there is a crucial difference which make this proposal much more obviously incompatible-as they pursue the private individual for doing something in private-if human rights legislation is not there to stop such fascistically constituted laws I don't know what it is for. This makes the incompatability of a law such as this far more glaring than one chasing producers and distributors etc like the OPA. It would certainly be interesting to see what a court would make of a case where someone prosecuted under the OPA asked for an incompatibility judgement on human rights grounds. The unjust victimization is much more obvious though under these new proposals. However,it is not impossible that a successful challenge to this new legislation might help bring down the OPA too! The very dearth of prosecutions made against the material "out there" shows how even officialdom soft peddles when it comes to using the ridiculous old OPA against publishers and distributors. This may be because they doubt juries will convict any more over such prudery-how much more likely is this to be the case with these proposals they have announced. I suggest the material would have to be utterly horrific before you would get a conviction-the idea that anything milder-and is not obviously "porn" would result in a successful conviction seems unlikely to me.
In "bullet points the main case against this on human rights grounds are anchored in the following-
1. Lack of proof of actual harm caused to individuals or society by the material
2.Lack of similar legislation in any other comparable country
3.Lack of clarity in the wording of legislation. What we have now is far too loose. Only if it is considerably tightened as to definitions can there be said to exist a clarity as to what is actually forbidden. The definitions of what constitutes "pornography" as they currently exist in UK law will have to be looked at. If its a case of proving something was designed "wholly or primarily" for sexual arousal that is a subjective judgement,dependent on the opinion of whoever looks at it. It is just such matters which make these proposals an attempt to imprison on the basis of some people's "subjective opinions". This is horrendous as a legal principle and I venture to say incompatable with the human rights requirements which are meant to be observed in legislation.
Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention seem to be the paramount ones to damn such a law. In a nutshell,if they can't establish necessity-and I would say they can't-for goodness sake they admit in their own documents themselves the proofs to support the claims they make does not exist-then there are no means by which such a unique unilateral law existing in a state belonging to the Convention,can be justified as compatible with HR obligations.
Author wrote:
> I wonder if the obsene pubilcations act itself could be proved to be incompatible with human rights? Its worth looking into
> Al
> Author wrote:
> > Alan -I do think the HR angle is the "big one"-this stuff is so mind blowingly incompatable that a concerted effort needs to be started to put this before the appropriate court when the time comes.
> > Author wrote:
> > > The law is designed to freeze out the whole erotic horror fantasy scene for us Brits not just the rape snuff strangle shit that Couts was into. I note a mention was made in the consultation of "pseudo photos" that will draw in even such old favs as footie beuttel etc. This is why I am so bloody angry about it. The mind set behind the proposal is a spitefull moralising clique who are still dead miffed about their loss of grip on hardcore ie real sex porn. If you read the response to the consultation you will see the contempt for porn users that underpins their whole aim. There is a definate maliciousness about the proposed law and that gives me hope for recourse to HR law.
> > > Al
> > > Author wrote:
> > > > A thought about the changing of the former categories iii) and iv) into one; namely "serious violence". This, if anything, makes the law potentially tighter, I would say. Before, the "in a sexual context" bit implied that some nudity, or similar sexualisation of the scene, would be necessary. Now anything that is violent and has notionally been produced (or edited!) for the purpose of pornographic consumption would presumably be included? As an example, would some of the sites featuring gunplay now come into the scope of criminality? I hope that the valid and pertinent points raised by many about "sexual contexts" haven't inadvertently led to even more illiberal legislation!
> > > > T.
*** This message has been edited by rovacs on 02 Sep 2006 11:14:48 ***
Teddy, 02 Sep 2006 14:39:04
"The idea you could call scantily clad amazons engaging in violence pornographic is so utterly stupid that it would be laughed out of court. It offends against the whole of what is out there as perfectly "allowable" in our mainstream culture-which they say will remain allowable despite the advanced idiocy of these proposals-what next,prosecution for watching "Xena-warrior princess"?.
I daresay some folks do find this stuff pornographically enjoyable! It's all in the eye of the beholder, of course...
Author wrote:
> Good point-I noticed this too. It's so stupid and unjustified that any attempt to prosecute over things which are not in fact "sexual situations" would help to further discredit and eventually destroy such legislation to my mind. What they are saying is that if it can be called pornographic it has to be in a "sexual context" anyway so why bother to add this,but I agree that doing this can in theory widen the net further. The idea you could call scantily clad amazons engaging in violence pornographic is so utterly stupid that it would be laughed out of court. It offends against the whole of what is out there as perfectly "allowable" in our mainstream culture-which they say will remain allowable despite the advanced idiocy of these proposals-what next,prosecution for watching "Xena-warrior princess"?. Its such an absurd notion juries would refuse to convict if such an lame prosecution are presented to them . It would strengthen a case to have it declared incompatible on the grounds of human rights-so either a thorough revision of the law is made or it is scrapped totally-unless Bliar blatantly ignores incompatibility judgements.
> Author wrote:
> > A thought about the changing of the former categories iii) and iv) into one; namely "serious violence". This, if anything, makes the law potentially tighter, I would say. Before, the "in a sexual context" bit implied that some nudity, or similar sexualisation of the scene, would be necessary. Now anything that is violent and has notionally been produced (or edited!) for the purpose of pornographic consumption would presumably be included? As an example, would some of the sites featuring gunplay now come into the scope of criminality? I hope that the valid and pertinent points raised by many about "sexual contexts" haven't inadvertently led to even more illiberal legislation!
> > T.
>
>
rovacs, 02 Sep 2006 17:29:55
But if it is permissable in the entertainment mainstream-films tv which are not banned or heavily cut to remove the violence for consumption I can't see a problem. Bliar's mob say this is not what they are after and that can be believed(its not easy to believe them on much of course,but this would be a rational conclusion to come to). I think it's much more "deviant" obviously sexual mega violent material they want-otherwise they will be an even greater laughing stock come object of fury for their unwarrented persecution over nothing-and be jailing most of the population-including kids with violent video games.
We are dealing with a government and political class of smug self righteous inept idiots and the sooner they are removed the better,but the judiciary and juries tend to show more sanity.
When the Bliar fiend(a real life obscenity himself,who needs urgent criminalizing as "unacceptable in our society")declares anyone even suspected of a "crime" will be "asbo'd" and automatically go to jail,juries and judges will cease to matter of course(only half joking here!)
Author wrote:
> "The idea you could call scantily clad amazons engaging in violence pornographic is so utterly stupid that it would be laughed out of court. It offends against the whole of what is out there as perfectly "allowable" in our mainstream culture-which they say will remain allowable despite the advanced idiocy of these proposals-what next,prosecution for watching "Xena-warrior princess"?.
> I daresay some folks do find this stuff pornographically enjoyable! It's all in the eye of the beholder, of course...
> Author wrote:
> > Good point-I noticed this too. It's so stupid and unjustified that any attempt to prosecute over things which are not in fact "sexual situations" would help to further discredit and eventually destroy such legislation to my mind. What they are saying is that if it can be called pornographic it has to be in a "sexual context" anyway so why bother to add this,but I agree that doing this can in theory widen the net further. The idea you could call scantily clad amazons engaging in violence pornographic is so utterly stupid that it would be laughed out of court. It offends against the whole of what is out there as perfectly "allowable" in our mainstream culture-which they say will remain allowable despite the advanced idiocy of these proposals-what next,prosecution for watching "Xena-warrior princess"?. Its such an absurd notion juries would refuse to convict if such an lame prosecution are presented to them . It would strengthen a case to have it declared incompatible on the grounds of human rights-so either a thorough revision of the law is made or it is scrapped totally-unless Bliar blatantly ignores incompatibility judgements.
> > Author wrote:
> > > A thought about the changing of the former categories iii) and iv) into one; namely "serious violence". This, if anything, makes the law potentially tighter, I would say. Before, the "in a sexual context" bit implied that some nudity, or similar sexualisation of the scene, would be necessary. Now anything that is violent and has notionally been produced (or edited!) for the purpose of pornographic consumption would presumably be included? As an example, would some of the sites featuring gunplay now come into the scope of criminality? I hope that the valid and pertinent points raised by many about "sexual contexts" haven't inadvertently led to even more illiberal legislation!
> > > T.
> >
> >
>
>
Paul Tavener, 03 Sep 2006 00:05:07
3.Lack of clarity in the wording of legislation. What we have now is far too loose. Only if it is considerably tightened as to definitions can there be said to exist a clarity as to what is actually forbidden. The definitions of what constitutes "pornography" as they currently exist in UK law will have to be looked at. If its a case of proving something was designed "wholly or primarily" for sexual arousal that is a subjective judgement,dependent on the opinion of whoever looks at it. It is just such matters which make these proposals an attempt to imprison on the basis of some people's "subjective opinions". This is horrendous as a legal principle and I venture to say incompatable with the human rights requirements which are meant to be observed in legislation.
Not only are people expected to make a subjective judgement about pornography, they are expected to make a subjective judgement about what was in someone elses mind (ie the producer of the film)