It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Violent Pornography Outlawed In UK

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   
The UK government has made possession of violent pornography punishable by 3 years in prison. This decision was made after a woman lost her young daughter to a murderer obsessed with violent internet pornography. School teacher Jane Longhurst was strangled to death by Graham Coutts, who is now serving a 26 year sentence for murder. The new law will not target those who accidentally come across this type of material, but rather those who possess images or videos of it.
 



news.bbc.co.uk
A mother whose daughter died at the hands of a man obsessed with violent internet porn has won her fight for a ban on possessing such images.

The government has announced plans to make the possession of violent porn punishable by three years in jail.

It follows a campaign by Berkshire woman Liz Longhurst whose daughter Jane, a Brighton schoolteacher, was allegedly strangled by Graham Coutts.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I believe this to be yet another step in the gradual degradation of our rights. And yes, I believe we have a right to explore individual fetishes, as long as it doesn't harm another. If the material was created by consenting adults, with sound mind and body, then why is it the government's place to criminalize it.

One may say that this type of material leads to violence. I would disagree. I believe any violent tendencies are inherent to the individual. If someone has these tendencies, then banning an outlet will not halt the tendencies. This seems like a classic overreaction that damages rather than helps a situation.

[edit on 30/8/2006 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Don't get me wrong but Violent pornography is the issue.

Now when we talk about violent is usualy when somebody get hurts. How can stopping this type of porhography be a corrosion of rights?

I can take violent movies or programs, I can take pornography also, but when it violent sex in pornography is nothing entertaining on that . . .

Actually in my personal opinion anybody that feels sexual gratification after watching somebody been hurt during a sexal act has some emotional and mental problem.

That is my opinion.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   
I agree. So long as it aint snuff porn where people are getting murdered, and as long as all individuals involved are all adults who willingly participate in its production, then really, a persons kink is their own private biz.


Child porn is one thing. No normal healthy person would be interested in sick pictures of children. BDSM type stuff, however, has loads of njormal, healthy fans whose interest ranges from simple curiosity to hobbiests and pros.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

I believe this to be yet another step in the gradual degradation of our rights. And yes, I believe we have a right to explore individual fetishes, as long as it doesn't harm another. If the material was created by consenting adults, with sound mind and body, then why is it the government's place to criminalize it.


My thoughts too, until I read the article:



It is already a crime to make or publish such images but proposed legislation will outlaw possession of images such as "material featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury".

BBC News


I'm all for personal freedom, and doing what you wanna do with a willing partner, but there is some stuff out there that goes far beyond the pale. Seems to me, as long as you're not a complete psychopath with regards to your sexual tastes, you should have nothing to fear.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Makes you wonder why they call it "Beating your..."

I had always thought there were already pretty well defined laws in place in regards to pornography and the portrayal of bondage of violence? What's so different about this law from those already in place?



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 08:30 PM
link   
seems that the guy that committed this crime was likely the same type of person who as a kid would beat up other kids with stuff he'd see on pro wrestling shows.

these people have difficulty separating reality from fantasy and if it wasnt violent porn that triggered him it would have been MI-3 or Hostel.

seems british govt should be 'acting' not 'reacting'



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Implosion
I'm all for personal freedom, and doing what you wanna do with a willing partner, but there is some stuff out there that goes far beyond the pale. Seems to me, as long as you're not a complete psychopath with regards to your sexual tastes, you should have nothing to fear.


As far as sexual tastes go, everyone's a little crazy, (or boring). But the problem is that it wasn't violent pornography that caused this crime to happen. It was the murderer. The reasoning is completely unjust, and just because it's not for all of us doesn't mean that violent porno should be made illegal. I wonder what percentage of people who watch this type of porn actually commit violent crimes.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I wonder what percentage of people who watch this type of porn actually commit violent crimes.



and what percentage of those would have comitted a violent crime anyway?

it goes deeper than porn IMHO. (NO pun intended there)



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 05:36 AM
link   
Actually, all Serial Killers started early on porn, in genral. (Government funded testing/ interviews on this one.)

In recent cases involving serial homicide, an obsessive addiction to pornography has been associated with the aberrant personality of the killers. It is shocking, therefore, that pornographic magazines, movies and books are widely available in the area surrounding the campus.
...
Dr. Victor Kline of the University of Utah described several stages observed in the addiction process. Kline noted that pornography can be proven to be psychologically addictive with the subject craving harder and harder forms in order to gratify the obsession.

* The first stage usually involves the "soft-core" magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse.

* A second stage involves the addiction becoming more severe with the subject craving harder and more "bizarre" material.

* Third, a stage of addiction to "weird" porn evolves in which the addict views pictures of children, sexual acts involving animals and violent sex.

* A fourth stage of acting out the fantasies, including the extreme forms violent behavior, is the final result of the addiction.
...
With all of the evidence that suggests that the homicidal thoughts of the most notorious serial killers of our day were fueled by pornography, it is baffling why porn is still widely available in our nation. At the University of Florida, where magazine racks in the larger bookstores abound with pornography, a sadistic psychopath has terrorized the campus and the surrounding community.

Here
I s a Christians source, but many of those who did these studies were not
Christians.
Ted Bundy Video

Some of the studies were funded by the USA Government. That may explain why the UK reacted as it did.

But then, think about this: What did Jack the Ripper kill? Hookers.


Dae

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 05:43 AM
link   
From the article:


She had been strangled with a pair of tights and her body kept in storage for weeks before it was found.
[...]
Trial jurors had been told of his obsession with strangulation and how he looked at internet sites connected with the fetish.


I wonder if he had the obsession prior to him having net access, an obsession as opposed to a fleeting thought on the odd occassion or even none at all.

Also, is it not against our laws to not rape or cause violence against each other? What makes it different if its caught on camera and called porn? Our laws even go far as to say we cannot help assist someone to suicide. So why if its called porn is it any different?



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Three problems here.

1. Define pornography.

2. Define violence.

3. Define violent pornography.

To me this law is just a "knee jerk", "feel good" reaction by politicians to try to get a few extra votes. While I agree that the girl's murder was a tragedy, there are already laws in place to deal with these issues. To me this law is just another attempt at censorship. Laws like these start out having good intentions, until the politicians and lawyers get a hold of them, then, they get used in ways that were never thought of when they were enacted. If you are looking for an example of what I mean look up the US's RICO law.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 06:14 AM
link   
For one thing, it's called acting. It's usually bad acting, but it isn't rape. It's entirely consentual, and legal. And although many serial killers have an obsesion with pornography, the same can be said for a lot of people who aren't serial killers.

The next step will of course be to outlaw rap music because some people who commit crimes listen to it. Then we outlaw heavy metal because it causes anti social behavior. Of course these things aren't the cause, but they are the same type of common thread reasoning that has pornography outlawed.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 06:26 AM
link   
So do I get to keep my copies of Strange Days, The Hills Have Eyes, Pulp Fiction, and Boys Don't Cry?

Or do I have to turn those in to the authorities to avoid being charged under the new law? After all, these movies all contain violent sex acts.

Or are films different because the violent images appear within the context of a larger artistic piece?

Wouldn't the type of person we're talking about find these types of scenes sexually gratifying regardless of whether they are stand-alone or part of a larger story?



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
As far as sexual tastes go, everyone's a little crazy, (or boring). But the problem is that it wasn't violent pornography that caused this crime to happen. It was the murderer. The reasoning is completely unjust, and just because it's not for all of us doesn't mean that violent porno should be made illegal. I wonder what percentage of people who watch this type of porn actually commit violent crimes.


In theory I'm inclined to agree with what you say. However, let's remember that where we may be civilised people, there are many out there who are not. Sure acting is one thing, however, anyone can upload anything on to the Internet. Say you pull some of this style of pornography off a p2p file share, how do you know that it is merely acting?



A young woman has told police she escaped a kidnapper after being held for eight years in a sealed garage, apparently resolving a missing child case that shook Austria.

Police said relatives identified her as Natascha Kampusch, who vanished in 1998 aged 10 while walking to school.

Source.


The story above is of a rare type, granted, but who knows what that guy did in the eight years he held that poor woman captive? He could have quite easily filmed himself engaged in acts of abuse, and then shared the footage via p2p. I believe it is this sort of disgusting criminal act that this law is designed to combat, and I have absolutely no problem with that. There is a lot of disgusting material out there, I don't think we are in this case talking about badly acted pornography, but straight up non consensual abuse.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 06:42 AM
link   
the problem with this ban is that the people it is aimed at arn't actually influenced by violent porn, but by the obvious underlying mental conditions they have, secondly most " violent porn" is faked for the camera so wont actually stop any abuse of "actors" as some other comentators have claimed.

The other problem is if they start by banning this where will it stop? eventually anything that is critical of the goverment or say's something that doesnt fit in with their agenda could end up getting banned as well.


Dae

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 07:15 AM
link   
UK Home Office

The Government will legislate to make it an offence to possess pornographic images depicting scenes of extreme sexual violence and other obscene material. This will include, for example, the sort of material featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury.
[...]
The material to be covered by the ban is already illegal to publish and distribute in the UK under the Obscene Publications Act (OPA) 1959.

Bolded mine.

Its simply a law that we already have in place and it is extending to the internet.


The new law is not intended to target those who accidentally come into contact with obscene pornography; nor would it target the mainstream entertainment industry which works within current obscenity laws.


As Implosion already mentioned, to say that all porn, especially violent porn is only acting, is a tad hopeful.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Sorry, but i dont see this as freedoms being taken away.

I see this as something that should have happened a long time ago in order to protect innocent people/kids from harm.

My gosh


Anyone watch "Secret lives of Women" (the real name escapes me)


This is even a little insane airing primetime, i would say. A woman fantacizing about being a "turkey"
Hello? Where does one get such notions? I'm no prude, but some things are just too way out there, even for dgtempe. Where do people come up with this stuff?
If anyone caught this little episode they would know what i mean


Anyway, i think society as a whole would be a lot better off without all this trash available to certain nut cases (which includes most of the population) i would say.

PS...Dont ever go to the "Pussycat Club"....please......



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Anyway, i think society as a whole would be a lot better off without all this trash available to certain nut cases (which includes most of the population) i would say.


You could say that, but you can't be certain. For all anyone knows, having this type of material available could actually help stave off the craving to act on violent tendancies. The fact is that twisted wierdo's were around long before violent pornography, and to blame actions on certain common thread isn't very logical.

As I said before, should we outlaw rap music because people who listen to it sometimes commit crimes? I'm sure there would be some people out there who would say
"society as a whole would be a lot better off without all this trash available to certain nut cases" in regards to rap music.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Wait, so only if you "posses" this type of material are you subject to punishment? No sweat, just stream the stuff daily and call it accidental as the original article stated.


[edit on 31-8-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Well, i'm sure cavemen ran around with evil thoughts and desires too....But i think the promotion of these deeds today contributes to make it worse.

As far as rap music...some of it belongs in the garbage. But i'm a grown woman. What do i care about M&M's latest grim view of the world....

My generation just doesnt consider this music. Just like my parents didnt consider Rock & Roll "real music", i guess.

Are you equating this with cheating...making a marriage stronger? That is something cheaters came up with for an excuse.


[edit on 31-8-2006 by dgtempe]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join