![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dennySo today is 'blogging for Backlash' day*. Backlash are the campaigning organisation trying to inject some sanity into the debate about the proposed violent porn legislation
The proposed legislation is objectionable on three main grounds, as far as I can see. Firstly, it's legislating about consensual activities between adults. That's something I generally object to whether it's to do with kinky sex, euthanasia and suicide legislation, drugs, or any number of other things where the state is trying to protect people from themselves, rather than from other people.
Secondly, the legislation is phrased in that horribly vague opinion-based way that makes anyone experienced with campaigning for civil rights cringe as soon as they see it. If a law is not absolutely 100% clearly defined, then it will at some point be open to being mis-interpreted and re-interpeted by whoever has the best lawyer... and once that's happened, the way English law works means that it will be much harder for the next person to get a fair hearing. Take this phrase for example - the legislation aims 'only' to cover images of activities that "appear to be life threatening or are likely to result in serious, disabling injury". In whose opinion? Will the people being asked to decide this have any practical experience of BDSM? Particularly, of BDSM that has gone right? Or will they be the police and doctors who almost invariably are only aware of BDSM when it goes quite seriously wrong? These people's opinions, their honest misunderstanding, could put someone in jail for quite a few years, just for taking pictures of their boyfriend hogtied and gagged ("He could have choked to death"), or something equally stupid.
Thirdly, the law as currently proposed does not care about consent or authenticity for most of the activities it wants to ban images of. This means that if a bunch of actors and make-up artists convincingly fake up some necrophilia porn - rather than going out and digging up poor old Aunty May and getting the digicam out - it makes no difference... the person who downloads the image (and remember, viewing a webpage the image is on counts as 'downloading it' under UK law) could go to jail for a significant amount of time.
Finally, the aim of this legislation is not to stop the activities happening. As far as I'm aware, there is existing legislation to deal with anyone commiting any of the activities which they plan to ban images of. That's not what they need this legislation for, and it's not what this legislation addresses. This legislation is intended to put people in jail for looking at pictures. That doesn't seem much short of a Thought Crime to me.
"It is not for the State to tell people that they cannot choose a different lifestyle, for example in issues to do with sexuality." -- Tony Blair, September 2006
* http://bloggingforbacklash.blogspot.com/ and http://bloggingforbacklash.blogspot.com/2006/09/what-is-this-about.html
The proposed legislation is objectionable on three main grounds, as far as I can see. Firstly, it's legislating about consensual activities between adults. That's something I generally object to whether it's to do with kinky sex, euthanasia and suicide legislation, drugs, or any number of other things where the state is trying to protect people from themselves, rather than from other people.
Secondly, the legislation is phrased in that horribly vague opinion-based way that makes anyone experienced with campaigning for civil rights cringe as soon as they see it. If a law is not absolutely 100% clearly defined, then it will at some point be open to being mis-interpreted and re-interpeted by whoever has the best lawyer... and once that's happened, the way English law works means that it will be much harder for the next person to get a fair hearing. Take this phrase for example - the legislation aims 'only' to cover images of activities that "appear to be life threatening or are likely to result in serious, disabling injury". In whose opinion? Will the people being asked to decide this have any practical experience of BDSM? Particularly, of BDSM that has gone right? Or will they be the police and doctors who almost invariably are only aware of BDSM when it goes quite seriously wrong? These people's opinions, their honest misunderstanding, could put someone in jail for quite a few years, just for taking pictures of their boyfriend hogtied and gagged ("He could have choked to death"), or something equally stupid.
Thirdly, the law as currently proposed does not care about consent or authenticity for most of the activities it wants to ban images of. This means that if a bunch of actors and make-up artists convincingly fake up some necrophilia porn - rather than going out and digging up poor old Aunty May and getting the digicam out - it makes no difference... the person who downloads the image (and remember, viewing a webpage the image is on counts as 'downloading it' under UK law) could go to jail for a significant amount of time.
Finally, the aim of this legislation is not to stop the activities happening. As far as I'm aware, there is existing legislation to deal with anyone commiting any of the activities which they plan to ban images of. That's not what they need this legislation for, and it's not what this legislation addresses. This legislation is intended to put people in jail for looking at pictures. That doesn't seem much short of a Thought Crime to me.
"It is not for the State to tell people that they cannot choose a different lifestyle, for example in issues to do with sexuality." -- Tony Blair, September 2006
* http://bloggingforbacklash.blogspot.com/ and http://bloggingforbacklash.blogspot.com/2006/09/what-is-this-about.html
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-09 08:34 pm (UTC)One thing I can't help wondering - and tell me if I'm being completely dense here - is, under what circumstances is looking at images of this nature illegal? Surely police investigators, forensic pathologists, and those in the medical and legal professions will be able to look at violent images in the course of their work? Will they be licensed to do this, or will it be up to the discretion of the lawyer as to whether the motivation of any single individual is acceptable or unacceptable? I mean, is it only looking at these images for sexual reasons that's illegal, and if so, who's to decide what counts as "sexual reasons"? Or is it more vague than that? I used to be fascinated with serial killers, cannibalism and vampirism when I was about 11, and several of the books I read on the subject had photos/illustrations. Would reading those books now be illegal?
Which leads, of course, to the question of written material... whether you're talking about Exquisite Corpse or BDSM stories, you can't help but wonder whether that's next.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-09 11:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-10 02:09 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-10 01:20 am (UTC)There was a time when I would have agreed with the Govt. because I am so sick of coming across things that glorify treating women like objects. However, it became apparent to me later that your typical R&B video is much more likely to foster hostile attitudes towards women than BDSM porn, by objectifying women as much as (if not more than) much porn that I've seen, to a much wider, non-age-restricted audience. If they're going to ban anything, it should be misogynistic R&B vids.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-10 03:18 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-10 08:48 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-10 09:12 am (UTC)I guess the main problem with this would be the things that won't grow in our crappy climate.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-10 09:12 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-10 11:27 am (UTC)Antidote: a lit and heated greenhouse.
My answer to that problem is broadly speaking legalisation and regulation all the way up the chain
When I was at school in year nine, I gave a spoken English presentation to that effect. The teacher was actually more receptive of the idea than my fellow pupils were.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-10 09:17 am (UTC)