No Porn Please, We're British

[pErvinalia]

Ok, well this was the question I asked earlier and no one answered. Originally, it was intended that one would have to opt-out of the filter daily (or whenever you wanted to get porn). That's just fucking ridiculous. But if you could opt-out as a one time thing, then that's fine. I still think it makes more sense to have people opt-in for the filter, but it's not that big a deal, I guess.

[mistermack]

They are talking about making it a criminal offence to view a rape scene.
That's all very good in theory, but how can you tell if it's genuine, or simulated? There are lots of videos online where some degree of force is simulated. And it's not black and white, it's every possible shade of grey, from obvious and very bad acting, to stuff that looks quite convincing.
You would have no way of knowing, before you clicked on a link, what was actually in it. And then, no way of knowing if it was real, or just acted.

Can't see anybody not getting the benefit of the doubt in court. Unless the site advertised genuine rape scenes, and you paid up front to view it. Not very likely.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If it's a criminal offense to view a rape scene, by extension would it then be criminal to view a murder scene? This would make a lot of movies illegal, and the news would be reduced to reporting some broad shitting out a kid.

Oh, wait...

[pErvinalia]

They are talking about making it a criminal offence to view a rape scene.
That's all very good in theory, but how can you tell if it's genuine, or simulated? There are lots of videos online where some degree of force is simulated. And it's not black and white, it's every possible shade of grey, from obvious and very bad acting, to stuff that looks quite convincing.
You would have no way of knowing, before you clicked on a link, what was actually in it. And then, no way of knowing if it was real, or just acted.

Can't see anybody not getting the benefit of the doubt in court. Unless the site advertised genuine rape scenes, and you paid up front to view it. Not very likely.

Australia has made it an offence to view simulated child porn. There was that case a year or so ago of someone getting done for viewing that cartoon of Lisa Simpson giving Bart a blowjob. What a fucking joke.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yeah, Lisa is totally lesbian.

[Beatsong]

They are talking about making it a criminal offence to view a rape scene.
That's all very good in theory, but how can you tell if it's genuine, or simulated?

In principle that doesn't matter because it will be a criminal offense to watch simulated rape porn - even if very obviously simulated. (It's already an offense to watch actual rape footage, AFAIK).

There are lots of videos online where some degree of force is simulated. And it's not black and white, it's every possible shade of grey, from obvious and very bad acting, to stuff that looks quite convincing.

Yes, that strikes me as an impossibly grey area.

Another one is what "possession" means - since the reports all seem to say that it will be an offense to "possess" simulated rape porn. How does this relate to live streaming? Do you "possess" something when streams over your internet connection, or only when you save it on your hard drive?

I suppose these things will become clearer as the idea moves from vote-winning soundbite to properly thought out legislation. Mind you, it wouldn't be the first time this government announced a bold attention grabbing idea that turned out impossible to implement in practice.

[Beatsong]

If it's a criminal offense to view a rape scene, by extension would it then be criminal to view a murder scene?

No.

And there's no real reason why it should. The issue of the difference between reality and fantasy is somewhat different in simulated rape and simulated murder.

[ronmcd]

They are talking about making it a criminal offence to view a rape scene.
That's all very good in theory, but how can you tell if it's genuine, or simulated?

In principle that doesn't matter because it will be a criminal offense to watch simulated rape porn - even if very obviously simulated. (It's already an offense to watch actual rape footage, AFAIK).

Exactly, it's simulated rape porn that's being outlawed. (I believe it's already illegal here in Scotland, actually). The difficulty is surely how that is applied, who decides that a shitty online video badly acted is bad but an 18 rated explicit commercial movie is ok?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If it's a criminal offense to view a rape scene, by extension would it then be criminal to view a murder scene?

No.

And there's no real reason why it should. The issue of the difference between reality and fantasy is somewhat different in simulated rape and simulated murder.

Strange, all those movies ...

[mistermack]

I'm not sure, I have no legal knowledge on the subject.
But are you sure that it's simulated rape that is to be made illegal? What about the numerous perfectly legal hollywood films where rape has been depicted? What about crimewatch, which re-enacts real crimes, including rapes?

They don't go into the detail of porn, but they ARE simulating rape.
How the hell would they word a law? It's obviously impossible to just put a blanket ban on simulated rape.

[Beatsong]

Exactly, it's simulated rape porn that's being outlawed. (I believe it's already illegal here in Scotland, actually). The difficulty is surely how that is applied, who decides that a shitty online video badly acted is bad but an 18 rated explicit commercial movie is ok?

To be fair, the distinction between media produced entirely or primarily for the purposes of sexual gratification, and one produced for other purposes but happening to contain some sexual content, is an old one with a lot of precedent behind it. What was it Tom Lehrer said:

"To be smut,
It must be ut-
-terly without redeeming social importance."



I don't think it's really going to be that difficult to distinguish between a rape porn flick and a film that happens to have a rape scene in it. Censors have been making those judgments for donkeys years, and adapting them to changing ideas about obscenity and what society deems acceptable.

[Beatsong]

I'm not sure, I have no legal knowledge on the subject.
But are you sure that it's simulated rape that is to be made illegal?

Yes, that's what the reports have said, anyway. In fact some have been even broader than that and said there it will be an offense to possess "violent" porn.

What about the numerous perfectly legal hollywood films where rape has been depicted? What about crimewatch, which re-enacts real crimes, including rapes?

They don't go into the detail of porn, but they ARE simulating rape.
How the hell would they word a law? It's obviously impossible to just put a blanket ban on simulated rape.

I think the key might be the initial judgment whether the film is "porn" or not. It's simulated rape porn that will be illegal, not simulated rape. As I said above there is a long established precedent for making that distinction, and in the vast majority of cases I can't see it being very difficult.

As ronmcd has pointed out, this law already exists in Scotland. So maybe one could address your questions by enquiring whether it's been problematic to implement there.

[mistermack]

I still don't think it can be done.
Rape is sex without consent. How do you prove a negative without finding the "actors" and taking a statement?
Otherwise, you might be just simulating dominance/submission, which a lot of people indulge in for fun.

Will it be illegal to simulate rape simulation?

I've simulated rape with more than one girlfriend in the past. It wasn't my idea, I don't like it. But I'm happy to oblige a lady.

[pErvinalia]

Exactly, it's simulated rape porn that's being outlawed. (I believe it's already illegal here in Scotland, actually). The difficulty is surely how that is applied, who decides that a shitty online video badly acted is bad but an 18 rated explicit commercial movie is ok?

To be fair, the distinction between media produced entirely or primarily for the purposes of sexual gratification, and one produced for other purposes but happening to contain some sexual content, is an old one with a lot of precedent behind it. What was it Tom Lehrer said:

"To be smut,
It must be ut-
-terly without redeeming social importance."



I don't think it's really going to be that difficult to distinguish between a rape porn flick and a film that happens to have a rape scene in it. Censors have been making those judgments for donkeys years, and adapting them to changing ideas about obscenity and what society deems acceptable.

But as the Simpson's case here in Oz showed, they seemed to have had a lot of trouble coming to terms with the new law.

[Beatsong]

I've simulated rape with more than one girlfriend in the past. It wasn't my idea, I don't like it. But I'm happy to oblige a lady.

I just hope you didn't film and upload it. Not sure if the law will be retrospective.