Britain Seeks to Ban Violent Internet Porn

[CaptainQuantum]

LONDON - Ever since Jane Longhurst was killed two years ago by a man obsessed with violent Internet pornography, her family has campaigned for the British government to outlaw the viewing of extreme sexual material on the Web. On Tuesday the government agreed, announcing plans — the first, it said, by any Western country — to ban the downloading and possession of violent sexual images.

Police and anti-porn campaigners welcomed the proposal but free-speech groups called it censorship, saying there was no proven link between violent imagery and violent behavior.

Home Office Minister Paul Goggins said the government felt a duty to prevent cases such as the murder of Longhurst, a 31-year-old teacher strangled by a friend who was obsessed with violent pornography he found on the Internet.

"This is material which is extremely offensive to the vast majority of people, and it should have no place in our society," Goggins said.

The government's proposals would make it an offense to possess "extreme pornographic material which is graphic and sexually explicit and which contains actual scenes or realistic depictions of serious violence, bestiality or necrophilia."

Viewing such material would constitute possession, although the government said it did not plan to prosecute people who accidentally stumbled across the images.

Such legislation would be a first for any Western nation, the Home Office said. Those convicted would face up to three years in prison.

The Obscene Publications Act already bans publication of images of sexual brutality on the Internet but is all but impossible to enforce unless the material is hosted in Britain.

The Internet Watch Foundation, an industry-funded watchdog that encourages Internet users to report illegal content, says almost none of the obscene material it found on the Net was hosted in Britain; the majority came from the United States.

That makes such matters very difficult to investigate, said Metropolitan Police Commander Dave Johnston, who welcomed the government's proposal.

Chris Evans of the pressure group Internet Freedom said Internet users "should be able to make up their own minds about what they view."

"The idea that you can prevent violent action by banning such images is nonsense," he said.

The government's proposal is a long way from becoming law. Interested parties have until Dec. 2 to comment on the plans, which would then have to be drafted into a bill and passed by Parliament before taking effect.

__

On the Net:

Consultation document: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/inside/consults/

Internet Watch, http://www.iwf.org.uk/

Internet Freedom, http://www.netfreedom.org/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So where do you all fall on this? Good move to ban it, or is it censorship? Personally, I think that if this guy was that messed up in the head, he would've found a way to get in trouble eventually, with or without that particular type of porn. But I don't know: maybe there are people who can't view this type of stuff and not attempt to act it out themselves. But then the old question comes up: where do you draw the line? Do you then ban violent video games or Eminem and Marilyn Manson CDs, because some kid might not be able to separate fiction from reality?

The porn in question that I'm referring to is the rape and necrophelia porn, where it's all actors. The bestiality, being an animal lover, I am totally against. Obviously, the animals aren't acting; they really are being abused.

[drew70]

Since it's such a difficult decision, I would say but it on a referendum and let the people vote on it. Voter outcome will determine whether or not the new law is inacted.

My feeling is that while this kind of violent media does provide an outlet for those given to such tendancies, I believe it also feeds and nourishes the fetish for violence. It's progressive in that as time goes on, they need more outrageous violence to satisfy their cravings. If you cut out all sources of this material, you will experience a brief surge of violent sexual crimes, but they will taper off.

[Newcastle Uni]

I read about this in The Times this morning and from what I can tell, we're ok. They are targeting "violent pornography" where maybe knives, stabbing, hanging etc. is involved or where a corpse is involved. They are seeking to control very violent and disturbing pornography. 'They' have specifically said that they are not targting the submissive and somewhat humiliating behaviour that is an aspect of some porn films. They are also targeting non-consentual porn.
They want to end torture.

Tickling is both humiliating and somewhat tortuous, especially if the guy/girl is restrained, but where full consent of both parties is involved and the tickling is not too tortuous, then things should be ok. I'm taking a particular interest in this story as I'm waiting to set up my own tickling site here in the UK. Nothing big, just a way of making enough money from videos to cover my perverted needs.

[hivoltage]

Why violent "porn" but not other forms of gratuitous violence like slasher films and depraved video games?

Is it better to torture someone who has their clothes on?

[ShadowTklr]

Why violent "porn" but not other forms of gratuitous violence like slasher films and depraved video games?

Is it better to torture someone who has their clothes on?


Excellent point, hivoltage. And, that's what makes this kind of censorship a dangerous precedent for the suppression of other types of media expression.

Those among us who would see nothing wrong with this, are not thinking about the big picture. Firstly, who decides and defines what is to constitute violent pornography. Isn't it possible that ANY depictions of bondage could be defined as the characterization of unwilling restraint by an otherwise vanilla society? Couldn't there be a study done that would prove that people who become aroused by the depictions of women in restraint also have the propensity for violent acts?

How about Tickling? Do you mean to tell me that restraining someone and then tickling them to hysterics while they plead pitifully for the tickling to STOP could not be construed as violence? How many stories are in this forum that describe in detail, helpless women tickled well beyond the point of tolerance? How many images depict torture chambers and tickling as a means of torture?

Do yourselves a favor and maintain a mentality of rights for ALL expression. Compromising someone else's fetish, or rights to view and experience that fetish just because you don't think it will affect tickling is simply opening the barn door for censorship everywhere.

[Newcastle Uni]

Excellent point, hivoltage. And, that's what makes this kind of censorship a dangerous precedent for the suppression of other types of media expression.

Those among us who would see nothing wrong with this, are not thinking about the big picture. Firstly, who decides and defines what is to constitute violent pornography. Isn't it possible that ANY depictions of bondage could be defined as the characterization of unwilling restraint by an otherwise vanilla society? Couldn't there be a study done that would prove that people who become aroused by the depictions of women in restraint also have the propensity for violent acts?

How about Tickling? Do you mean to tell me that restraining someone and then tickling them to hysterics while they plead pitifully for the tickling to STOP could not be construed as violence? How many stories are in this forum that describe in detail, helpless women tickled well beyond the point of tolerance? How many images depict torture chambers and tickling as a means of torture?

Do yourselves a favor and maintain a mentality of rights for ALL expression. Compromising someone else's fetish, or rights to view and experience that fetish just because you don't think it will affect tickling is simply opening the barn door for censorship everywhere.

It'll never pass! Two many members of Parliament would be making criminals out of themselves if they made this law!

[Newcastle Uni]

The day after news of this possible ban, we read this in the newspapers. In summary.

Two men entered the house of a young lady, beat her up and then tied her up so that her movement was restricted. Her baby was asleep in another room. The men then set fire to the house, presumably intending to burn mother and baby alive!!
The woman frantically tried to escpae, calling 999 on her phone with her tongue and screaming frantically. She was eventually freed after attracting attention by screaming through her letterbox. Her baby died.

A badly burned young woman staggered from a blazing house in which her four-month-old son died and claimed she had been attacked and had her wrists bound by two men, witnesses said yesterday.
They said the 21-year-old mother, named by police as Danielle Wails, dialled 999 with her tongue after screaming for help through her letterbox as the fire took hold.

"The fire is being treated as suspicious and a murder investigation is under way," said a Northumbria police spokeswoman. "We need anyone with information about this incident to contact us urgently."

Two girls who ran to help late on Sunday night told how Ms Wails screamed through the letterbox that her son Alexander Lee Gallon was trapped in the blazing house in Cowgate, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. "She was saying that two men had got in and had attacked her and set fire to the house," said Leanne Horspool, 15. "I was telling her to calm down and get away from the door and we would try to find someone to kick it in.
"I stopped a car and a man tried to help and then the fire brigade arrived and they kicked the door in.

"She stumbled out of the front door and was just all black and looked like she was covered in soot. She told me she had managed to dial 999 with her tongue. She was shouting 'My baby, my baby is in there'."

Ms Horspool's friend, Chantelle Stoker, 12, added: "A wire was hanging down from one wrist and looked like it had been pulled tight with a knot in. Danielle was saying that two men had got in, hit her and tied her up then set the house alight. The firemen helped her out of the door and she just fell to the ground.

"When the firemen brought the baby out, they kept him shielded from Danielle and a fireman had him cradled in his jacket. Whoever has done this deserves to be shot."

Alexander was declared dead at Newcastle General hospital, where his mother is now in the intensive care unit.

Ms Horspool said that she had spent the evening in the garden chatting to a friend. "I had just gone into the house and was getting ready to go to bed and just locking the front door when I heard someone crying 'Help! Help! My baby!'

"I ran to the window and heard someone shout, 'My house is on fire, my baby is in the house.' Danielle was shouting through the letterbox and saying she couldn't get out."

She called her uncle Richard Robertson to help. "He ran outside and was kicking the door but he couldn't get it open. We were yelling at Danielle to step back from the door and she was saying she couldn't move.

"Then the firemen arrived and five of them started kicking the door. It burst open and Danielle came out."

Ms Horspool said she had seen Danielle earlier in the evening but had seen no one else enter or leave the house.

Neighbour Richie Carmichael, 25, said Ms Wails had been living in the area for a short time. The house was owned by a Catholic charity and used as a refuge for women who had suffered domestic violence. "It's basically a halfway house before they can be found a proper address." he said. "The lass was in there because she had been having difficulties. Why wasn't there an intercom or even a smoke alarm? The fire was at the back of the house near to where the baby was sleeping."

Dawn English, 29, who lives in the flat next door to the house, also heard screams.

"I had just finished work and got back into the house when I started to hear lots of banging and screaming," she said. "I could heard Danielle bashing about in the house next door. Then on the street outside we heard people screaming that there was a fire and that there was a baby in the house.

"I ran downstairs to help. Our front door opens right next to hers and there were loads of people outside and masses of smoke. Everyone was screaming and people were kicking the door trying to break it down.

"[Firefighters] kept kicking it but the door wouldn't budge. On about the fourth attempt they kicked it in and Danielle staggered out and collapsed on the floor."

Neighbours said they knew nothing about Ms Wails's family. Police said they could not comment about the incident or confirm any details but will hold a news conference today.

[MrMacphisto]

Since it's such a difficult decision, I would say but it on a referendum and let the people vote on it. Voter outcome will determine whether or not the new law is inacted.

My feeling is that while this kind of violent media does provide an outlet for those given to such tendancies, I believe it also feeds and nourishes the fetish for violence. It's progressive in that as time goes on, they need more outrageous violence to satisfy their cravings. If you cut out all sources of this material, you will experience a brief surge of violent sexual crimes, but they will taper off.

See... I have a different theory. Censoring violence in porn will do absolutely NOTHING when it comes to crime. People that kill others to satisfy sexual desires will do so whether or not they see images of it on the internet. You could have the cleanest internet media in the world, and someone will inevitably kill somebody.

It's simply a matter of statistics. If enough people live in the same area, a certain percentage of them will become psychotic. The right circumstances occur and an opportunity for murder presents itself. Censorship does not increase or decrease crime, it merely limits what can be expressed.

[drew70]

You may well be right. I don't have any data to support what I said, it's basically a speculation at best, but still one that makes sense to me.