Letter to local councillor

Ben, 03 Sep 2006 16:03:41

Hi,

Not sure where the best place to put this is, it's an email I sent to a local lib dem councillor who wrote an article criticising the new laws: http://www.stephentall.org.uk/articles/59.html

--------------

Dear Mr Tall,

I read with satisfaction the article on your website about the government proposals to ban violent pornography. I fundamentally agree with your position. I would like to make a suggestion for a factual amendment however. In your article your state:

"...Graham Coutts, ... had spent hours viewing images of women being strangled and raped. These images depicted acts of violence exerted on unwilling victims: it would be illegal to own such material in print or on film, but it is legally available for download from foreign websites. This particularly tragic case is an open-and-shut case of a legal loophole that deserves to be closed without delay.

But will the Government stop there? Not if the pronouncements of its politicians are to be believed. "Violent pornography is abhorrent," says Labour's Scottish Parliament Justice Minister, Cathy Jamieson. "If it is found that the law can be strengthened to cut violent pornography from our society, then we will take action." Such bold statements hang, of course, on the definition of 'violent pornography'. Does this refer to the filming of non-consenting acts of violence causing actual bodily harm or worse (my definition); or might it also encompass consenting adults doing what they please - even though that may displease others - behind closed doors?"



Now, I haven't looked at a transcript of the trial, so I don't know which sites he was looking at for sure, but the sites which are cited in the longhurst petition are: "necrobabes", "deathbyasphyxia", and "hangingbitches".

I can say with certainty, since www.necrobabes.com is still an active site, that it is entirely staged and consensual, i.e. it does not fit your definition of violent pornography. Here are the reasons for my belief:

This is the blurb from the front page of the site (if you go to the link, you won't be plunged straight into the content as there is a page of small print to read first, but in case you don't wish to do that, I'll quote in full here for you):

"These sites deal with very politically incorrect fantasies. If you do not have these sorts of fantasies, you will likely find them shocking, if not offensive -- our sites are not for you, please go away.

Among those who are offended, there are those who would wish us censored. Their assertion is that these web sites inflame the lusts of the viewers, 'normalize' the idea of violence, and thereby drive the viewer to commit acts of violence mimicking what they view on these sites. It is the same sort of theory that drives the forces of censorship everywhere, for all manner of things that people would censor. Yet there is no evidence for such a link between those who commit acts of rape and violence and their consumption of pornography other than the fact that many people who commit acts of violence also consume pornography. Many dentists also consume pornography. Does pornography also lead to dentistry? If the logic applies to one, the same logic must apply to the other. The vast preponderance of people who consume pornography never commit any crime at all.

The material we produce is fanciful, even cartoonish in many regards; there is nothing realistic about it. Our viewers know this. Far from normalizing violence, it relegates it squarely into the realm of fantasy.

Time and time again we harp to our members that as long as you don't harm anyone, as long as you keep things safely in the realm of fantasy, that you use the fiction and imagery found on these sites as a mere virutal realization of a fantasy, you are fine. Harm no one, keep it in fantasy, and you are okay, you are a decent human being.

Unfortunately, there are people in this world, in all walks of life, who value their own pleasure more than they value the well being of other people. Such monstrous individuals will do monstrous things and so, thankfully, are an infinitesimal minority within any gathering of human beings. A person who has these violent fantasies, however, and yet does NOT value their own pleasure more than the life and well being of other people, such a person will NOT harm another person. It is not the absence or presence of such fantasies that drives people to acts of violence or not, it is the absence or presence of a conscience.

In any community of thousands, there are going to be those sorts of people who lack a conscience. It is unfortunate that the actions of those few among us who lack conscience would cause the censors to wish us all harm. I would however ask those who would be tempted to censor to please stop for a moment and think again.

disclaimer
This site is intended for Adults ONLY
If you are not over 18, please leave now
WARNING
This website contains scenes of
simulated violence, nudity, and adult
situations that may offend some viewers.
The content of this website is inappropriate for
viewing by anyone under the age of 18.
Viewer discretion is required

The Necrobabes web sites contain nudity and fantasy violence which some may find to be offensive. If you are offended by such material, or if you are under age, please leave now.

By entering this site, you are making a legal statement that you are an adult, that you want to view this material, and that it is legal for you to do so in your community, state, province or nation. By proceeding you assume full responsibility for your actions.
"I am an adult. Let me in."


protect your children
These webpages are not intended to be viewed by minors.
Labeled by IRCA - http://www.irca.org

Each web page available on this site is self-rated with ICRA labeling, which is built into Microsoft Internet Explorer's Parental Controls. If you are a parent and you want to block this site, please enable MSIE parental controls.
All material copyright © 1997 - 2006 NunYa BizNets, Inc.
* No images may be reproduced or distributed without prior permission *
We do NOT spam e-mail!
If you found this page through a spammed e-mail, please read this.
Our web sites are subscription or pay-per-view entertainment for ADULT audiences ONLY.
Our sites contain nudity and simulated violence intended purely as fantasy entertainment.
No one was harmed during the making of our photo stories and videos.
We do NOT encourage nor condone real-life violence against others.
There is no pornography on these sites."


A few points to note from this:

- the site explicitly states on it's frontpage that it is all fictional and consensual.

- the site admits that its content is not realistic.

-The site is self-censoring - it has registered itself with IRCA to make it very easy for parents to block.

- There is nothing on the site that is 'sexual' by the US definition (I guess they must have a very strict legal equation of sexuality with genitality in the US).

- the site has now been online on this domain for over a year, since this was when the trial took place, I believe. It is very easy to find out who is responsible for the site using www.whois.net, which contains a register of all domain owners. Therefore the US authorities could easily trace the producers if they suspected any violence was taking place.

Finally, if you access the site, you will find that it features various 'performers' who have their own personal websites, and make their living doing this, i.e. they have lived to fight another day!!!

So, in conclusion, necrobabes does not fall under your definition of violent pornography, as: "the filming of non-consenting acts of violence causing actual bodily harm or worse". Thus even role of violent pornography in the case of Graham Coutts in not open-and-shut. It is a symptom of Liz Longhurst and others understandable unwillingness to visit the sites in question that has made them oblivious to this blatant fact.

I won't attempt to discuss the latter two sites, deathbyasphyxia and hanging bitches, because the sites no longer exist under those names. Given the evidence of the most frequently cited example, necrobabes, however, I think that a bit of further investigation (without even recourse to the powers that the us authorities certainly have access to) would yield similar conclusions.

I hope that you will take this into consideration and amend the text of your website accordingly. Moreover, I hope that this will strengthen your already very rational position with respect to the proposed laws and I trust you will oppose them in your capacity as a liberal democrat.

Yours faithfully,
Ben
(apologies for not signing my full name!)


Teddy, 03 Sep 2006 20:54:30

Some good research and arguments here.

Maybe Martin Salter might also be a worthy recipient? After all, as recently as last week he was (falsely) quoting this website as an example of real abuses on the web (actresses smuggled from Guatemala, if you take his word for it!). These lies need to be debunked...

Author wrote:
> Hi,
> Not sure where the best place to put this is, it's an email I sent to a local lib dem councillor who wrote an article criticising the new laws: http://www.stephentall.org.uk/articles/59.html
> --------------
> Dear Mr Tall,
> I read with satisfaction the article on your website about the government proposals to ban violent pornography. I fundamentally agree with your position. I would like to make a suggestion for a factual amendment however. In your article your state:
> "...Graham Coutts, ... had spent hours viewing images of women being strangled and raped. These images depicted acts of violence exerted on unwilling victims: it would be illegal to own such material in print or on film, but it is legally available for download from foreign websites. This particularly tragic case is an open-and-shut case of a legal loophole that deserves to be closed without delay.
> But will the Government stop there? Not if the pronouncements of its politicians are to be believed. "Violent pornography is abhorrent," says Labour's Scottish Parliament Justice Minister, Cathy Jamieson. "If it is found that the law can be strengthened to cut violent pornography from our society, then we will take action." Such bold statements hang, of course, on the definition of 'violent pornography'. Does this refer to the filming of non-consenting acts of violence causing actual bodily harm or worse (my definition); or might it also encompass consenting adults doing what they please - even though that may displease others - behind closed doors?"
> Now, I haven't looked at a transcript of the trial, so I don't know which sites he was looking at for sure, but the sites which are cited in the longhurst petition are: "necrobabes", "deathbyasphyxia", and "hangingbitches".
> I can say with certainty, since www.necrobabes.com is still an active site, that it is entirely staged and consensual, i.e. it does not fit your definition of violent pornography. Here are the reasons for my belief:
> This is the blurb from the front page of the site (if you go to the link, you won't be plunged straight into the content as there is a page of small print to read first, but in case you don't wish to do that, I'll quote in full here for you):
> "These sites deal with very politically incorrect fantasies. If you do not have these sorts of fantasies, you will likely find them shocking, if not offensive -- our sites are not for you, please go away.
> Among those who are offended, there are those who would wish us censored. Their assertion is that these web sites inflame the lusts of the viewers, 'normalize' the idea of violence, and thereby drive the viewer to commit acts of violence mimicking what they view on these sites. It is the same sort of theory that drives the forces of censorship everywhere, for all manner of things that people would censor. Yet there is no evidence for such a link between those who commit acts of rape and violence and their consumption of pornography other than the fact that many people who commit acts of violence also consume pornography. Many dentists also consume pornography. Does pornography also lead to dentistry? If the logic applies to one, the same logic must apply to the other. The vast preponderance of people who consume pornography never commit any crime at all.
> The material we produce is fanciful, even cartoonish in many regards; there is nothing realistic about it. Our viewers know this. Far from normalizing violence, it relegates it squarely into the realm of fantasy.
> Time and time again we harp to our members that as long as you don't harm anyone, as long as you keep things safely in the realm of fantasy, that you use the fiction and imagery found on these sites as a mere virutal realization of a fantasy, you are fine. Harm no one, keep it in fantasy, and you are okay, you are a decent human being.
> Unfortunately, there are people in this world, in all walks of life, who value their own pleasure more than they value the well being of other people. Such monstrous individuals will do monstrous things and so, thankfully, are an infinitesimal minority within any gathering of human beings. A person who has these violent fantasies, however, and yet does NOT value their own pleasure more than the life and well being of other people, such a person will NOT harm another person. It is not the absence or presence of such fantasies that drives people to acts of violence or not, it is the absence or presence of a conscience.
> In any community of thousands, there are going to be those sorts of people who lack a conscience. It is unfortunate that the actions of those few among us who lack conscience would cause the censors to wish us all harm. I would however ask those who would be tempted to censor to please stop for a moment and think again.
> disclaimer
> This site is intended for Adults ONLY
> If you are not over 18, please leave now
> WARNING
> This website contains scenes of
> simulated violence, nudity, and adult
> situations that may offend some viewers.
> The content of this website is inappropriate for
> viewing by anyone under the age of 18.
> Viewer discretion is required
> The Necrobabes web sites contain nudity and fantasy violence which some may find to be offensive. If you are offended by such material, or if you are under age, please leave now.
> By entering this site, you are making a legal statement that you are an adult, that you want to view this material, and that it is legal for you to do so in your community, state, province or nation. By proceeding you assume full responsibility for your actions.
> "I am an adult. Let me in."
> protect your children
> These webpages are not intended to be viewed by minors.
> Labeled by IRCA - http://www.irca.org
> Each web page available on this site is self-rated with ICRA labeling, which is built into Microsoft Internet Explorer's Parental Controls. If you are a parent and you want to block this site, please enable MSIE parental controls.
> All material copyright © 1997 - 2006 NunYa BizNets, Inc.
> * No images may be reproduced or distributed without prior permission *
> We do NOT spam e-mail!
> If you found this page through a spammed e-mail, please read this.
> Our web sites are subscription or pay-per-view entertainment for ADULT audiences ONLY.
> Our sites contain nudity and simulated violence intended purely as fantasy entertainment.
> No one was harmed during the making of our photo stories and videos.
> We do NOT encourage nor condone real-life violence against others.
> There is no pornography on these sites."
> A few points to note from this:
> - the site explicitly states on it's frontpage that it is all fictional and consensual.
> - the site admits that its content is not realistic.
> -The site is self-censoring - it has registered itself with IRCA to make it very easy for parents to block.
> - There is nothing on the site that is 'sexual' by the US definition (I guess they must have a very strict legal equation of sexuality with genitality in the US).
> - the site has now been online on this domain for over a year, since this was when the trial took place, I believe. It is very easy to find out who is responsible for the site using www.whois.net, which contains a register of all domain owners. Therefore the US authorities could easily trace the producers if they suspected any violence was taking place.
> Finally, if you access the site, you will find that it features various 'performers' who have their own personal websites, and make their living doing this, i.e. they have lived to fight another day!!!
> So, in conclusion, necrobabes does not fall under your definition of violent pornography, as: "the filming of non-consenting acts of violence causing actual bodily harm or worse". Thus even role of violent pornography in the case of Graham Coutts in not open-and-shut. It is a symptom of Liz Longhurst and others understandable unwillingness to visit the sites in question that has made them oblivious to this blatant fact.
> I won't attempt to discuss the latter two sites, deathbyasphyxia and hanging bitches, because the sites no longer exist under those names. Given the evidence of the most frequently cited example, necrobabes, however, I think that a bit of further investigation (without even recourse to the powers that the us authorities certainly have access to) would yield similar conclusions.
> I hope that you will take this into consideration and amend the text of your website accordingly. Moreover, I hope that this will strengthen your already very rational position with respect to the proposed laws and I trust you will oppose them in your capacity as a liberal democrat.
> Yours faithfully,
> Ben
> (apologies for not signing my full name!)
>
>


Ben, 03 Sep 2006 22:01:11

"Maybe Martin Salter might also be a worthy recipient? After all, as recently as last week he was (falsely) quoting this website as an example of real abuses on the web (actresses smuggled from Guatemala, if you take his word for it!). These lies need to be debunked..."

Sounds like a good idea, but I can't find a quote about the guatemala thing - could you post a link?


Teddy, 03 Sep 2006 22:23:35

This was on the R5live Anita Anand show at 11pm on Weds; it may still be downloadable.

Author wrote:
> "Maybe Martin Salter might also be a worthy recipient? After all, as recently as last week he was (falsely) quoting this website as an example of real abuses on the web (actresses smuggled from Guatemala, if you take his word for it!). These lies need to be debunked..."
> Sounds like a good idea, but I can't find a quote about the guatemala thing - could you post a link?


rovacs, 03 Sep 2006 22:38:22

Grist to the mill,very good. Goggins made statements about Jane Longhurst still being alive if it wasn't for these sites! I'm sure he had nothing that could justify such a blatant unambiguous claim on which he was going to base serious criminal legislation from the evidence in the case.
Would you let me use some of this in the letter to my mp-frankly I think it's so important-critically pertinent-that the movers and shakers read this,some form of it,it should go to Reid,Blair and the opposition leaders and their Shadow Home Office Ministers. I also think this contains material which must be seen by the relevant amending Committees in Parliament when the time comes-and it should form part of the human rights dossier I have been mentioning often.

Author wrote:
> "Maybe Martin Salter might also be a worthy recipient? After all, as recently as last week he was (falsely) quoting this website as an example of real abuses on the web (actresses smuggled from Guatemala, if you take his word for it!). These lies need to be debunked..."
> Sounds like a good idea, but I can't find a quote about the guatemala thing - could you post a link?


*** This message has been edited by rovacs on 03 Sep 2006 23:04:30 ***


Ben, 03 Sep 2006 23:08:08

No problem - it's all in the public domain anyway.

The anand programme is still online but I can't seem to be able to download it only listen to it.

Would anybody be able to download and/or transcribe it? He very clearly says impoverished people are getting murdered and raped for snuff films in guatemala, and then cites necrobabes as an example - classic!!!

I only listened about 20 seconds further but the guy from index on censorship just let it go, and starts talking about conceptual an logical problems - what a missed opportunity, you'd have thought these people would do some research.

Author wrote:
> Grist to the mill,very good. Goggins made statements about Jane Longhurst still being alive if it wasn't for these sites! I'm sure he had nothing that could justify such a blatant unambiguous claim on which he was going to base serious criminal legislation from the evidence in the case.
> Would you let me use some of this in the letter to my mp-frankly I think it's so important-critically pertinent-that the movers and shakers read this some form of it should go to Reid,Blair and the opposition leaders and their Shadow Home Office Ministers. I also think this contains material which must be seen by the relevant amending Committees in Parliament when the time comes-and it should form part of the human rights dossier I have been mentioning often.
> Author wrote:
> > "Maybe Martin Salter might also be a worthy recipient? After all, as recently as last week he was (falsely) quoting this website as an example of real abuses on the web (actresses smuggled from Guatemala, if you take his word for it!). These lies need to be debunked..."
> > Sounds like a good idea, but I can't find a quote about the guatemala thing - could you post a link?


Graham Marsden, 09 Sep 2006 00:44:10

Hi there,

eleventh.hour@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

> Not sure where the best place to put this is, it's an email I sent
> to a local lib dem councillor who wrote an article criticising the
> new laws: http://www.stephentall.org.uk/articles/59.html

I've just sent the following to him...

* * * * *

Dear Sir,

Although I am not from your part of the country, I have just read your
Blog article on the Government's plans to ban "violent pornography"
after seeing it mentioned in the Backlash discussion forums (a group
comprising members of the BDSM Community, Freedom of Speech supporters
and others set up to oppose these proposals - see
http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ )

You make some good points, but there is one area I would take issue with
where you say: "it would be illegal to own such material in print or on
film, but it is legally available for download from foreign websites.
This particularly tragic case is an open-and-shut case of a legal
loophole that deserves to be closed without delay."

How exactly do you propose that that "loophole" be closed?

Should we monitor all internet content or force it through
state-approved proxy servers as is currently happening in China? Imagine
what other power that would give the Government to control what we are
or are not allowed to see, based solely on a subjective judgement of
what is "acceptable"!

Should we ask the operators of foreign websites to stop UK citizens from
downloading material that our Government considers "abhorrent"? They
would laugh in our faces and say "it's not illegal here, stop being such
a bunch of prudes!"

If, as you point out, "there is still no proof, after half a century's
research, that watching violent films causes people to commit violent
acts. [...] In other words, 'violent pornography' reinforces attitudes,
it doesn't create them", why should this "loophole" be closed at all?

Who exactly would this protect?

Yours Faithfully,
Graham Marsden

Portsmouth.

* * * * *




> "Maybe Martin Salter might also be a worthy recipient? After all, as
> recently as last week he was (falsely) quoting this website as an example
> of real abuses on the web (actresses smuggled from Guatemala, if you take
> his word for it!). These lies need to be debunked..."
>
> Sounds like a good idea, but I can't find a quote about the guatemala
> thing - could you post a link?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D5544
>


Ben, 09 Sep 2006 14:05:42

Hi,

Stephen Tall has published some responses on his blog:

http://oxfordliberal.blogspot.com/

I emailed to thank him and also to ask (a) if he intends to influence other lib dems, i.e. sandra gidley, and (b) whether he would be able to put any oxford university experts in touch with backlash.

Thanks