"Extreme pornography" to be banned in the UK

[Chic Freak]

There's been suggestion in this thread about it causing no harm if it's totally consentual etc, giving me the impression that we should be left to ourselves to decide, and whilst I d agree with that if it is in context a consentual thing, we've no idea whether it truly is or not therefore could potentially be akin to a heinous crime - what I'm saying is, although we all seem to agree that the government shouldn't overly interfere, if they left it to everyone to decide, would we see an influx of extreme porn where people really are victims onscreen? Is the human moral barrier strong enough to self police? I don't think so, no way. I think those who produce "extreme pornography" should be strictly policed, making their operations as transparent as possible, and be required to prove that what they are doing is simulated and not real, e.g. via the American method mentioned above. I'm not suggesting for a moment that people should be left alone and just trusted to do what's nice, I'm just saying that it should only be illegal to actually commit what's nasty- not just pretend to for entertainment purposes!

[SymphonicX]

I don't think so, no way. I think those who produce "extreme pornography" should be strictly policed, making their operations as transparent as possible, and be required to prove that what they are doing is simulated and not real, e.g. via the American method mentioned above. I'm not suggesting for a moment that people should be left alone and just trusted to do what's nice, I'm just saying that it should only be illegal to actually commit what's nasty- not just pretend to for entertainment purposes! Yeah I agree with that...I wonder what's more costly, policing the legal stuff or making it illegal and policing that? Same could be said about weed smoking....**** man...legalise it and it'd blatantly cost less to police.....

[Chic Freak]

Yeah I agree with that...I wonder what's more costly, policing the legal stuff or making it illegal and policing that? Same could be said about weed smoking....**** man...legalise it and it'd blatantly cost less to police..... I would say that it would be cheaper to police the legal stuff, because that way, the majority of porn/ fetish businesses would be coming forward to authorities and letting them know exactly what they are doing, same as with any other business. I think it's comparable to making weed illegal in the sense that: a) people will carry on doing it anyway, thus draining valuable police time b) making it illegal makes it very difficult for users to buy the 'safe' version of whatever it is they're buying as there is no government-regulated version available to them c) making it illegal forces buyers to support criminals d) making it illegal means that these 'businesses' do not pay taxes!

[MinionZombie]

I would say that it would be cheaper to police the legal stuff, because that way, the majority porn/ fetish businesses would be coming forward to authorities and letting them know exactly what they are doing, same as with any other business. It also holds the businesses accountable if they try and funny business with the performers as well surely. It's one of the reasons why I think prostitution should be legalised. If it was turned into a legit business, most importantly those involved on the ... *ahem* receiving end ... would be far safer. Protection would have to be mandatory, it'd be easier to keep tabs on what's going on ... and besides, the gubment could tax it. They make enough cash out of booze and alcohol, why not add minge to the list of vices they make mula out of? Legalising drugs in a similar manner is a bit far though, before anyone goes there from my thoughts on prostitution ... also, I'll state for the record I'd never go to one, I just find the idea quite ... I duno ... unappealing. Some random person you don't know, they've done loads of other people, there's no emotional connection ... it's essentially a really expensive wank, why bother? I'm of the mind that pokery should be between two people with a connection ... anyway, getting off topic here, where were we? And how would they actually find people with the condemned porn anyway? That bit's had me stumped since the thread was started. Now if you excuse me, this thread's making me feel all grotty, lol ... I'm off to the GTA IV thread.

[Dtothe3]

As far as I can tell, you can now get done for having images, that you CANNOT get jailed for performing. IE, my missus makes much more noise then usual during anal sex. This could be depicted as causing her pain/suffering. If we made a film and distrubuted it, we could be arrested for the film, NOT THE ACT. This law change is absolute bollocks and getting closer to the thought police everyday.

[Chic Freak]

It also holds the businesses accountable if they try and funny business with the performers as well surely. Yes. Up until yesterday I could work for reputable bondage photographers/ cinematographers, safe in the knowledge that they were registered businesses who paid taxes, had health and safety precautions, insurance, and were monitored by the government. Anyone involved with heavy rope-tying stuff was professionally trained and anything involving water would have a trained lifeguard present (seriously). I had my driver's license scanned or photographed at every shoot to go in their legal records and signed a model release at the end to help protect myself against my images turning up in places I wouldn't want them to turn up or altered in undesirable ways. Now I can't take bookings from anyone involved in making "extreme" BDSM images because I'll know that the very fact that they exist means that they have slipped under police radar and are not being monitored by anybody at all, so I wouldn't know if I was taking a booking from a normal person running a business or a total creep. I just removed my bondage rates from my site and am feeling quite bitter about all this... losing out on up to £50 per hour (about $100) just to be tied up and put a pained expression on my face (or whatever) with or without another girl to mess about with, just plain sucks If you were stupid enough to believe that all the pictures of me out there on t'interwebs were real, you'd think I'd been tied up, whipped, spanked, asphyxiated in various creative ways, and had in turn done the same to other girls, when of course I have not done anything of the sort. All I was doing was making money and having a laugh. Liam's uploading some "behind-the-scenes" style video footage of me and another model doing a bondage/ spanking shoot onto Youtube soon... it's extremely clear that what we are doing is simulated, mostly because we're cracking up as soon as the camera flashes each time. I guess it's too late now, but it would surely be good if people realised what being at a legit, simulated fetish shoot is actually like! They make enough cash out of booze and alcohol, why not add minge to the list of vices they make mula out of? Totally agree, it's not inherently anti-social but when it's illegal, it can end up that way. The government could blatently make a mint if they legalised and taxed it, but they won't because if they did they'd never get voted in again. /rage I'm off to drown my sorrows in chocolate and go on a massive internet job hunt. xo

[SRP76]

(d) a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal where (in each case) any such act, person or animal depicted in the image is or appears to be real.[/B] So banging stuffed roadkill on-camera is a no-no now....damn, what I am supposed to do with my weekends now?!

[Chic Freak]

IE, my missus makes much more noise then usual during anal sex. This could be depicted as causing her pain/suffering. If we made a film and distrubuted it, we could be arrested for the film, NOT THE ACT. Hmm. I was wondering whether if, in theory, a bondage image was traced back to one of my employers, whether I would automatically be in the sh!t too as conspiring to distribute or something, but perhaps not. *ponders* As you say, it's not illegal to actually do these things in the privacy of your own home, it's just illegal to photograph/ video it.

[MinionZombie]

Although this "law" doesn't come into force until January does it? Is there an official list of what it will properly cover or not yet? Like you're saying, to some people it's their livelihoods the gubment are messing with. It's also stupid for one simple reason - homosexuality used to be illegal and considered extreme and abhorrent ... nuff said really. Who gives a crap if some people like it on the rough side, it's supposed to be a free country, even though it's less free than it used to be, which is a disgusting realisation in and of itself. It's also shocking how rushed this law is, and how anytime anyone has brought forward minor changes or suggestions to wording, it's shot down and seemingly nobody is willing to have a proper discussion about it - like the one we've all been having here. ... Here's an article about it all from The New Statesman: http://www.newstatesman.com/200805100003 One thing to point out - numerous lawyers have pointed out that it's totally against the European Convention of Human Rights. Also of note, the consultation resulted in a majority response that was AGAINST this law, yet it was pushed through regardless. An exceptionally nasty piece of law making in all respects.

[Chic Freak]

Although this "law" doesn't come into force until January does it? No, I just want to have myself covered in advance. Is there an official list of what it will properly cover or not yet? I don't know... let me know if you find one? It's also stupid for one simple reason - homosexuality used to be illegal and considered extreme and abhorrent ... nuff said really. I thought that. I don't agree with that argument applied to everything, but in this case it's definitely comparable. One thing to point out - numerous lawyers have pointed out that it's totally against the European Convention of Human Rights. Really?

[MinionZombie]

Really? Yes really ... it's in that new statesman article. .. now, officially I'm drunk,. so I won't go into it too much, but it's officially against the EC-of-HR, so in other words - LAME. I'm too drunk to continue, laters!

[Neil]

Once again, I can't see any problem with this legislation, and TBH it seems to make some sense for me at least...

[MinionZombie]

You can't see any problem with it? Despite the fact it's been stated that it's contravenes the ECHR, and that the final results of the consultation period were wholly against the legislation even going ahead - so the gubment just blundered on ignoring the wishes of the people. The fact that it combines actually dodgy, illegal acts with stuff that's only caters to minority tastes, but isn't illegal because the material is consensual and paid for. Once again, homosexuality used to be illegal ... and that was clearly wrong. Who cares if someone likes to be tied up, or experiment with breath play, or likes their nuts yanked or their butt spanked ... they want it, it makes them happy, they're all consenting - ergo - law based on taste and no actual evidence of the cause-and-effect the gubment are bleetering on about (which was actually stated in the consultation document, that there was NO EVIDENCE to support this wack-job law). Finally, legislation shouldn't be rushed out based on one case in a million to grab some headlines. How about jailing some real criminals, not that there's any space for them. ... And I don't even like the stuff this law covers! But it's got nothing to do with like or dislike or taste. There's "the big three" (and rightly so), but those are being mixed with completely fake or completely consensual activities by individuals in their own time and the privacy of their own homes, who lead an alternative sex life. The gubment has no place banning or controlling people's freedom of expression, another part of the ECHR that it contravenes so unashamedly. That's why this law is wrong. At the barest, simplest explanation, it's very poor, ill considered, not-thought-through legislation.

[mista_mo]

Why is your government getting so involved in your personal lives?

[Neil]

You can't see any problem with it? Despite the fact it's been stated that it's contravenes the ECHR, and that the final results of the consultation period were wholly against the legislation even going ahead - so the gubment just blundered on ignoring the wishes of the people. The fact that it combines actually dodgy, illegal acts with stuff that's only caters to minority tastes, but isn't illegal because the material is consensual and paid for. Once again, homosexuality used to be illegal ... and that was clearly wrong. Who cares if someone likes to be tied up, or experiment with breath play, or likes their nuts yanked or their butt spanked ... they want it, it makes them happy, they're all consenting - ergo - law based on taste and no actual evidence of the cause-and-effect the gubment are bleetering on about (which was actually stated in the consultation document, that there was NO EVIDENCE to support this wack-job law). Finally, legislation shouldn't be rushed out based on one case in a million to grab some headlines. How about jailing some real criminals, not that there's any space for them. ... And I don't even like the stuff this law covers! But it's got nothing to do with like or dislike or taste. There's "the big three" (and rightly so), but those are being mixed with completely fake or completely consensual activities by individuals in their own time and the privacy of their own homes, who lead an alternative sex life. The gubment has no place banning or controlling people's freedom of expression, another part of the ECHR that it contravenes so unashamedly. That's why this law is wrong. At the barest, simplest explanation, it's very poor, ill considered, not-thought-through legislation. I'll try and put this into personal context. The only things listed in this legislation is pornography that:- a) Threatens life b) Could result in serious injury to genitals etc c) Necrophilia d) Beastiality Now, personally none of those things particularly do it for me, and more importantly could result in rather dangerous activity. Let's cover two points here:- 1) (c) and (d) are just wrong full stop. 2) I can imagine exploitation resulting in (a) and (b). ie: People desperate for money (or drugs) being 'used' in such pornography. And I've already covered that even though something is simulated or consensual, the amount of effort to prove this is the case would be a nightmare, therefore make a blanket ban far easier to enforce. ie: I don't want to see my taxes wasted proving if a video (from some far off country) showing women being strangled until she passes out, raped and then has her nipples sliced in two, is actually consensual or not... Why is your government getting so involved in your personal lives? It's not... If you want your girlfriend to jump up and down on your nutts until they're a bloody pulp, go ahead. Just don't expect to sell video tapes of it... Still can't see the problem in the matter myself, unless you get all 1984 with it. If want to see problems, go to the states and try and watch regular films and TV and behold censorship at work... The UK is far more liberal in such areas I'd suggest...