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: 3
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Implosion
How about thinking about those who are abused for the production of such material?


then arrest the people making it and abusing the people and filming it etc. don't arrest the people sitting home on their computers.



You make the ownership of such material illegal, then hopefully, you take away at least a proportion of the audience. If the audience drops, then hopefully, so would the production of such material.


yeah because since heroin, crack, weed, ecstasy and all other drugs were made illegal.. no one does those anymore


just because something is illegal, it won't stop people doing it.

they need to start arresting the people who 'make' and 'supply' this type of material.

also exactly how they're going to monitor this law, that's a whole other arguement. because obviously they're going to be invading your privacy and somehow find the sites you've been on. which means they can find out a whole host of other information about you.

the whole law stinks. the uk has gone mad.

don't get me wrong, i don't support what this pornographic material represents. but arresting the people watching it isn't going to stop it. stop the suppliers, and stop the makers. quit harassing innocent people. the internet was supposed to be the one free place, where there are no rules or boundaries.. but hey.. not anymore i guess.

[edit on 31-8-2006 by shaunybaby]




posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 07:48 PM
link   
IMO, you're found with footage of someone being abused that you view for your own pleasure, again, I'm not talking consenting adults here, but real abuse, than you need locking up, if not in prison, in a secure ward. Comparing drug abuse, to the abuse of non consenting victims is frankly absurd. Do you feel the same way about those who watch child pornography, or snuff movies for kicks?



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Implosion
IMO, you're found with footage of someone being abused that you view for your own pleasure, again, I'm not talking consenting adults here, but real abuse, than you need locking up, if not in prison, in a secure ward.


well there's other unconsenting violent material on the internet, why just ban the sexual violence? so i can watch someone being decapicated, but if someone's being abused sexualy then i can't and i may even get arrested and put in jail for 3 years as i 'might' commit a crime because i've been watching violent porn. i don't get the hypocrisy, allowing one type of violence but not another.



Comparing drug abuse, to the abuse of non consenting victims is frankly absurd.


the only aspect i compared was that just because something is made illegal, it doesn't mean people won't carry on doing. rather than going after the people in their homes, they should be cracking down on the people who supply and make this type of material.



Do you feel the same way about those who watch child pornography, or snuff movies for kicks?


not sure what a snuff movie is.

not sure what you mean by 'do i feel the same about those who watch child pornography'.. do i feel the same as what?

the thing with child pornography is that the people who download are also 'supplying' it to some extent as they share it with others. that's why they want to crack down on those people as they also share it. however, violent porn is different, the problem isn't that people share it, it's that they think they'll go out and commit a violent crime because of watching violent porn.

but i still think they need to sort out the people that are making and supplying this material. that's the only way to truely stop it.

[edit on 31-8-2006 by shaunybaby]



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby

not sure what you mean by 'do i feel the same about those who watch child pornography'.. do i feel the same as what?



What I mean is, do you think those who watch child pornography are blameless, just as you seem to think those who watch recordings of non consenting adults getting abused are? I see little difference. If you look back to the first page of this thread you will see not only a definition of this law, but a story about a girl who was kidnapped and held for 8 years. In that time, say she was subject to sexual abuse, the abuse filmed and posted on the Internet for people to get their kicks over. This is the sort of action I feel this law is designed to combat. Not a little bit of harmless BDSM.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Implosion
What I mean is, do you think those who watch child pornography are blameless, just as you seem to think those who watch recordings of non consenting adults getting abused are?


i didn't say they were 'blameless'. however to assume they're going to go out and commit a crime because of violent 'porn' not videos of torture, decapitation, death, but violent sexual acts is just absurd.

one person blames violent porn for his crime, and it therefore becomes illegal. no no, that's wrong in itself. there's no link or correlation or study been made to prove this. and there's also other violent material out there, so why just sexual violence.

as for child pornography, it's not that they might go out and commit rape on a child, it's the fact that such photos and videos of underage children is illegal, hence why you can't watch or share such material.

in both cases they still need to stop the people who make and supply the materials. going after the people who watch it is neccesary, but it doesn't solve the problem.



a story about a girl who was kidnapped and held for 8 years. In that time, say she was subject to sexual abuse, the abuse filmed and posted on the Internet for people to get their kicks over. This is the sort of action I feel this law is designed to combat.


then combat it. going after the people on the internet who get their kicks from it is not combating it. go after the people who held her for 8 years.. that would actually be useful.

i'm not 'for' violent pornography, and i definatly don't agree with holding someone captive for 8 years.. i just fail to see how arresting people in their homes for downloading such material is 'solving' the problem. the issue is not with the abuse in the videos and pictures, as the fake material is also now illegal to download. the issue is that they believe you will become a murderer yourself if you watch this material, whether it's fake or real. that's the insane part of this law, the assumption that you'll become crazy and start murdering people.

so you're arresting somewhat 'innocent' people because they 'might' becoming criminals, yet the real problem lies with the people who supply and make such material.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   
If you enjoy violent sexual perversion, then find an individual who is interested in the same and practice such things in your own home. do not create an industry out of it, because the industry will find people to use for profit whether they want it or not. Is people want to practice such blasphemy in their own homes, thye are free to do so. They should damn well not be free to supprot an industry that victimizes others for peoples personal viewing pleasures, nor should such material be available to the masses whos minds can be slowly altered as a result of gradual exposure to such perverse devilish actions.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
They should damn well not be free to supprot an industry that victimizes others for peoples personal viewing pleasures, nor should such material be available to the masses whos minds can be slowly altered as a result of gradual exposure to such perverse devilish actions.


Dyepes,
Ok so this materal should not be avaible, but have you ever read Farenheight 451? If not you maby should take a look at it.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   
I saw the movie, and I do not think banning something that is blasphemous is equivalant to the burning of all them books to suppress free thinking and such. Noone is bannign erotic books here. Videos require live people to record. Books can be written with only your imagination.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
I saw the movie, and I do not think banning something that is blasphemous is equivalant to the burning of all them books to suppress free thinking and such. Noone is bannign erotic books here. Videos require live people to record. Books can be written with only your imagination.


Dyepes,
Ok the banning is just videos, but that was not the point I was trying to make. All those books got burned because some one or some groop found the ofensive, and the solution to it was simple enuff, ban them. So it this case some one has found violent porn ofensive, so simple solution, ban it. If one groop who is against rough sex porn has been apeased any other groop can be treated the same way. I know a balence must always be maintained between free speach and protection. But baning graphic materal because some people find it ofensive, that is a little to close to the world in Farenheight 451.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
If you enjoy violent sexual perversion, then find an individual who is interested in the same and practice such things in your own home. do not create an industry out of it, because the industry will find people to use for profit whether they want it or not. Is people want to practice such blasphemy in their own homes, thye are free to do so. They should damn well not be free to supprot an industry that victimizes others for peoples personal viewing pleasures, nor should such material be available to the masses whos minds can be slowly altered as a result of gradual exposure to such perverse devilish actions.


I take by the blashpemy, and develish comments that you are a Christian. If you mean to say that this material should be outlawed because it isn't Christian, then you've got a lot of work ahead of you, because there are a lot of 'blasphemous' and 'develish' things out there, and the vast majority is still legal.

If you are saying that there is a population of people who have a 'perversion' for violent sex porn, and this needs to be stopped, then why not outlaw horror movies? I can guarentee that some people have a perversion for watching horror flicks. Since they are all actors playing a part, I see no difference, except for the sexual aspect, but I've definately seen violent rape scenes outside of the porn industry. I've been watching Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street since I was about 6 years old, and the 'gradual exposure to the perverse and devilish actions' haven't gotten me out killing people .... yet.

The problem is that the wording so far hasn't specified whether the violent material needs to be consentual on the production end, and there is no real way to tell for that matter. So, one could be arrested for owning a film that was made by a company, that paid a legitimate actress for legitimate work. If you think that taking part in this work is exploitation, then take it up with the people consenting to do the work.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
If you enjoy violent sexual perversion, then find an individual who is interested in the same and practice such things in your own home. do not create an industry out of it, because the industry will find people to use for profit whether they want it or not. Is people want to practice such blasphemy in their own homes, thye are free to do so. They should damn well not be free to supprot an industry that victimizes others for peoples personal viewing pleasures, nor should such material be available to the masses whos minds can be slowly altered as a result of gradual exposure to such perverse devilish actions.


Check the tags on your clothing! If you are wearing anything made in China, Taiwan, Singapore, or the other myriad of countries that allow underage workers/sweat shops, then you are supporting an industry that victimizes others for people's personal wearing pleasures. Run to Saks and get something that isn't made in a sweat shop. Oh wait they do that, too. Phone Donatella and tell her what you need. If you have the funds, she will be more than happy to supply you with something that does not support the blasphemous industry.

It's only S&M. I mean, if both parties are cool with it, then why not? Also, btw, some people like being the victim. You can't have two masters and no slave, the relationship would never be fulfilling, nor would it be of any interest on video.

Actually a video of two dominatrixes knocking each other out and KO-ing at the same time would be slightly humorous, but I have a sick sense of humor. It's not like we're talking about beating chickens here, it's consenting adults.




posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Yes we should be banning violent movies as well. Most of my clothes say Made in America, but I probably will never know because they could have just been told to make that tag in China and sew it on.

See, its like, all this filth is what is tearing our society apart. God is punsihing us by letting down his protection over our nation and allowing terrorists to strike, and sending us these massive hurricanes. It will not be long before the big Earthquakes begin to arrive again, and then the fire from the sky.

Please people, for ours and everyones own sake, lets help each other remove all this filth from the world.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   
And while we're at it let's capture and convert or imprison all of those who disaree.


-


Posted Via ATSmobile (BETA v0.3)


-



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Yea sure why not. The more the merrier. Cheers



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Yep - we're also going to ban religious fundamentalists, particularly those that use selective quotes from books of fairy stories to justify their extreme beliefs.


It's all completely justified, as any true scholar of the prohet Enid Blyton (Blessed be Enid) knows, once you've had instruction in the true meaning of Noddy Goes To Town (May His Holy Bell Never Lose Its Ring) you'll see it's the only hope for the good of Toytown.

Any chance we could just debate this without bring arcane belief systems into this?



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   
You have your opinions, and I got my opinion, and that brings in my beliefs. I am entitled to that right. So I will state my opinions based on my religous beliefs.

But of course we can go deeper without citing my "Arcane beliefs" so I will go that route with a question.

What beneficial purpose does general pornography serve? As in, how does it entertain the human brain? And in what other ways can that purpose be filled?



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Ah the issue is in the definitions - at one time many great artists' work were considered pornographic (covering up the statues with fig leaves etc).

Who was right? The artist or those who sought to prevent moral harm & destroyed a piece of art?

That's the key issue when you get into moral / value judgements.

I'd agree 100% that child pornography is wrong but recently in an art gallery somewhere in Europe (Madrid?) I was confronted with an anatomically perfect statue of a naked young girl - it left nothing to the imagination.

My reaction to it was shock, surprise and some discomfort. No doubt some perve would have found it stimulating. It's not for me to decide what that gallery / society deem acceptable.

Two people looking at the same thing can have completely different reactions - that's the purpose of art (and porn) to stimulate thought and debate.

I'm in no way defending scenes of actual rape etc but human sensuality is a very broad church and some people do act out such scenes. I think any legislation that seeks to proscibe the former will inevitable impact on the latter criminalising many innocent harmless people .



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   
I think we can agree that a statue depicting the anatomical point of a human body in a pose is strikingly dissimilar to a recorded video of oh I don't know, one human being shoving a fist up anothers ones anal cavity? Or perhaps a baseball bat? Or someone hanging from chains being whipped naked until blood is drawn?

Granted if that is those people's fetish, they are very well entitled to the right and freedom to practice such, unusual hobbies in the privacy of their home. However to record these actions and disperse it across a population IMO shows an intent to coerce others to their beliefs? I would like to believe that all humans are unimpressionable, unfortunatey I also believe we can both agree many are not. This is where peoples line of thinking can be changed for the bad.

for example, perhaps a newly married and confused young adult has a pregnant wife. This young man can be a little tempted due to a lack of sexual activity with the partner due to the pregnancy. It could be for religious beliefs, or it could simply be an agreement between the two. Maybe, just maybe though this kid begins watching porn to aleviate his tensions.

After awhile he may be interested to experiment with someone on the side, thus comitting adultery. Do you not agree cheating on your pregnant wife is a bad thing? And that perhaps all this recent tension, with pornagraphy as a trigger helped this young man to believe it would be ok until the baby came due. Of course imagine the dismay and hardship the discovery of thre affair will have on the relationship, not to mention the future of the child.

Now that is only one example. And it could be anyone, a newlywed, a middle-aged wife with a family of four, a preacher, an unmarried couple, anyone.

We can argue the stabiltiy of such a young marriage for days, but the fact remains pornography was the tirgger that shot the bullet of adultery in that family.

Any thoughts?



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Blaming the pornography for being a trigger is akin to designating marijuana a gateway drug. If a person is prone to addiction, be it sexual or alcohol, drug or gambling, it isn't the outlet that is the problem. Would you outlaw scratch tickets for being the trigger that ruins the same man's family through his gambling addiction? Out lawing it would do no good because right down the street are some gangsta's shootin' dice, and would welcome his money.

As for spreading it around the globe in hopes to convert the masses, you've spent too much time in church. Not everyone's goal is worldwide conversion to one's own belief (that's just a Christian thing as far as I can see). As a matter of fact, unless you're looking, you're unlikely to find violent porn on the net.

These people have an audience, and there are likely as many priests into it as there are murderers. Who knows, you're local pastor may be one of them, but you'd never know it because he gives great advice, has moving sermons, and loves the lord as much, if not more than you do.



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 12:22 AM
link   
And the british think they are free.....



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join