Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Ban on Violent Porn.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/5297600.stm

Clearly images of ACTUAL violence may be banned - but can we really justify banning "simulated" acts of violence in a pornographic context? How far off are we from criminalising basic instinct then?

This seems a worrying restriction on freedom of speech.

Scroll to see replies

Aye, it's a bad move.

OP

The argument "it promotes violence" applies to 90% of tv after the watershed, and about 80% before...

Indeed, I think I best throw away my copy of "Rising Sun"...

Although, it's already illegal to make or distribute this sort of thing. IF it's correct that you shouldn't be allowed to make it, surely, in order for the law to be consistent, you ought not be allowed to possess it.

OP

Yes - but I wasnt even aware about the existing law ... worrying trend Im seeing in the UK.

Golden Maverick

Another quote:

"featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury"

That seems to me more clear and I would probably support such legislation as far as it is enforcable.

OP

Golden Maverick

Another quote:

"featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury"

That seems to me more clear and I would probably support such legislation as far as it is enforcable.

You would support a ban on images that feature simulated violence (ie what "appears to be" violence)?

I'm not saying violent porn is good, but if the violence is simulated and nobody gets hurt, then whats the harm?

In my mind this sort of stuff is no more dangerous than a violent movie. I think this law would contravene our freedom of expression. If this law is passed i see no reason to ban violent, film tv and video games too. What differences does the porn aspect make?

If its real, thats another story. But i think this is a worrying trend.

There is the libertarian viewpoint - some people do consider this to be arousing (however distasteful that may be), some people do consent to make it. The question has to be asked, where's the harm?

(Of course that is provided that the supply of the material is appropriately controlled)

As a side issue, did you know that sexual 'violence' is illegal - a love bite counts as GBH. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Ted Bundy blamed porn for his killing spree. Therefore following the logic of this case, all porn should be banned.

Laws like this are so stupid. What about rape scenes in films? Is my possession of the DVD 'Boys Don't Cry' going to land me in jail now? Stupid vague New Labour laws. Surely this should specifically target acts of actual violence and not the simulation of it. Furthermore it's probably impossible to enforce.

I blame work for making me drink for making me argumentative.

Therefore work should be banned. :wink:

:wink:

...but nothing else does it for me. This is utilitarianism gone too far. What about me?

Renal

As a side issue, did you know that sexual 'violence' is illegal - a love bite counts as GBH. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of an offence and, being convicted therefore, shall be liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years.

So it's malicious? And also - 'grevious': not actual bodily harm, but grevious. I've given and recieved some major love bites in my time, but nothing that caused serious or long-term damage. About the largest side-effect has been a dramatic rise in the wearing of polo shirts.

Find a minicam and a willing girl (or boy or goat, whatever takes your fancy). :wink:

:wink:

Golden Maverick

Lawz-

You would support a ban on images that feature simulated violence (ie what "appears to be" violence)?

"life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury"

If the simulated violence fits the above description, then yes I would support such a ban. I don't think it particularly 'healthy' for someone to find violence that would result in serious and disabling injury arousing, and I don't think it is something to be encouraged or to be supported by the pornography industry.

However I would only ban something that tries to convince the viewer the violence is real. Not really made my mind up on simulated images and how you'd allow them. Might post again later.

OP

Golden Maverick

APPEARS life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury

If the simulated violence fits the above description, then yes I would support such a ban.

So would you ban the strangulation scene in "Rising Sun"? How about the rape Scene in "Rob Roy"?

I don't think it particularly 'healthy' for someone to find violence that would result in serious and disabling injury arousing, and I don't think it is something to be encouraged or to be supported by the pornography industry.

So you would use your notion of what was a "healthy" sexual fetish to criminalise people?

However I would only ban something that tries to convince the viewer the violence is real. Not really made my mind up on simulated images and how you'd allow them. Might post again later.

But even then - who's being harmed? At that point, if all are consenting to it, no one. If the viewer goes on to harm, then we deal with that... I think banning all expression that "appears to show sexual violence that could result in injury" or "promotes violence" is taking the whole "prevention" and "cure" thing way way too far.

Mercer

Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of an offence and, being convicted therefore, shall be liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years.

So it's malicious? And also - 'grevious': not actual bodily harm, but grevious. I've given and recieved some major love bites in my time, but nothing that caused serious or long-term damage. About the largest side-effect has been a dramatic rise in the wearing of polo shirts.

**** knows. But it is way in my housemate's Bizzare so it must be true. :wink:

:wink:

AIUI, the issue is consent, the law does not allow you to give consent to be harmed (hense, no duels, no assisted suicide etc.) so any injuries recieved during sex are assaults.

OP

Renal

AIUI, the issue is consent, the law does not allow you to give consent to be harmed (hense, no duels, no assisted suicide etc.) so any injuries recieved during sex are assaults.

R v Brown as I recall from my Criminal Law class about 5 years ago - Gay S&M case - House of Lords held it was GBH (I think) on the basis that you couldnt consent to such acts and harm.

However the case is rather questionable, and really seemed to have much to do with their Lordships distaste for the practice itself...

Indeed - Boxing is still perfectly legal.

What about the bondage and spanking side of things?

This won't stop me beating my wife.

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you

The Student Room community guidelines

What is an LLM and how could it benefit your career?

What is an LLM and how could it benefit your career?

Powerful questions business students forget to ask their career advisers

Powerful questions business students forget to ask their career advisers

Why I chose a law degree and what studying law was like

Why I chose a law degree and what studying law was like