No Porn Please, We're British

Post Reply
User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: No Porn Please, We're British

Post by mistermack » Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:26 am

Beatsong wrote:
mistermack wrote: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. :lol:
God no. That WOULD be obscene.

But not because of the sex.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60982
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: No Porn Please, We're British

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:46 am

Beatsong wrote:
mistermack wrote: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. :lol:
He thought about it. And consequently we did too. That's the next frontier for the moral crusaders to take on. In 20 years we'll be locked up for simply having this conversation.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Pappa
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Posts: 56488
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:42 am
About me: I am sacrificing a turnip as I type.
Location: Le sud du Pays de Galles.
Contact:

Re: No Porn Please, We're British

Post by Pappa » Tue Jul 23, 2013 12:04 pm

ronmcd wrote:
Beatsong wrote:
mistermack wrote: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?
Here's an outline of the Extreme Pornography Act:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/extreme_pornography/

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: No Porn Please, We're British

Post by mistermack » Tue Jul 23, 2013 12:27 pm

Pappa wrote: Here's an outline of the Extreme Pornography Act:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/extreme_pornography/
Without reading through all of it, it seems obvious that simulation isn't covered. They go to lengths to make it clear that the
image has to be clear and very explicit, with no opportunity for miss-interpretation.

It would be a HUGE extension to include simulation, as all of that seems to be aimed at the real, graphic, explicit, injurious porn.

That's not saying I wouldn't LIKE better porn laws. I'm just doubtful about the practicality of doing it, or doing it fairly.
It would be a lot more work for the courts.

I think, if there was an element included in the offence, of PAYING to download or view it, it would help.
After all, it's money that mainly motivates and enables the worst porn. If you pay, you are colluding in it's production. Retrospectively. So if you make a payment, having been informed what it is you are buying, it should massively increase the seriousness of the offence.

I would certainly vote for that.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: No Porn Please, We're British

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Jul 23, 2013 12:48 pm

What offense, though? The offense of looking at dirty movies?

Meh. We've had wide open porn availability on the internet for the last 20 years, almost, far more access than when I was a kid. When I was a kid, we had to hunt for our porn, finding magazines and whatnot, hiding, skulking, stashing. We had to figure ways to see the softcore porn on the new technology of "cable television" or figure a way to rent a VHS tape underage.

Has society gotten worse in the last 20 years? Are people more fucked up in the head? What is really the difference between now and 1993, other than lower violent crime rates including lower rates of rape and other sex offenses?

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60982
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: No Porn Please, We're British

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Jul 23, 2013 12:58 pm

We're all married to goats.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

Beatsong
Posts: 444
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:33 am
Contact:

Re: No Porn Please, We're British

Post by Beatsong » Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:22 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:Meh. We've had wide open porn availability on the internet for the last 20 years, almost, far more access than when I was a kid. When I was a kid, we had to hunt for our porn, finding magazines and whatnot, hiding, skulking, stashing. We had to figure ways to see the softcore porn on the new technology of "cable television" or figure a way to rent a VHS tape underage.

Has society gotten worse in the last 20 years? Are people more fucked up in the head? What is really the difference between now and 1993, other than lower violent crime rates including lower rates of rape and other sex offenses?
Indeed. That's a pretty strong argument against the idea that watching porn makes people more likely to commit sex crimes.

User avatar
Mysturji
Clint Eastwood
Posts: 5005
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:08 pm
About me: Downloading an app to my necktop
Location: http://tinyurl.com/c9o35ny
Contact:

Re: No Porn Please, We're British

Post by Mysturji » Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:31 pm

Beatsong wrote:... properly thought out legislation...
:funny:

Sorry. :lol: :hehe: :shifty:
Sir Figg Newton wrote:If I have seen further than others, it is only because I am surrounded by midgets.
Cormac wrote:Doom predictors have been with humans right through our history. They are like the proverbial stopped clock - right twice a day, but not due to the efficacy of their prescience.
IDMD2
I am a twit.

ronmcd
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:13 pm
Location: Sunny Scotland
Contact:

Re: No Porn Please, We're British

Post by ronmcd » Tue Jul 23, 2013 4:57 pm

Beatsong wrote:
ronmcd wrote: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."

:D

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.
I did a little checking, and this is the Scottish govt article on the law in Scotland, from 2011 when it was enacted:
Summary of the new offence

The new offence, which is contained at section 42 of the Act, criminalises the possession of obscene, pornographic images which explicitly and realistically depict:

an act which takes or threatens a person's life
an act which results or is likely to result in a person's severe injury
rape or other non-consensual penetrative sexual activity
Sexual activity involving (directly or indirectly) a human corpse
An act which involves sexual activity between a person and an animal (or the carcase of an animal)

The maximum penalty for the new offence will be three years imprisonment.

The new offence is similar to that at section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which applies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Scottish offence goes further than that offence, however, in that it covers all images of rape and non-consensual penetrative sexual activity, whereas the English offence only covers violent rape.

The offence will not catch those who accidently come into contact with this type of material and the provisions contain a defence to this effect. There is also a defence for those who can prove that they participated in the act depicted, that the extreme nature of the act was apparent and not real and there is no intention to distribute the material.
Now, I'm confused, as that suggests it's already illegal in England & Wales where it's "violent rape" being depicted. So that suggests currently it's already a crime, although I suspect no one has ever been charged for possessing such material.

I agree with your comment that censors have been making these sorts of judgements for decades, but all they are doing is deciding what is certified, not whether someone is possessing illegal material. I suspect in practical terms a porn-watcher online in UK will be prosecuted or not based more on how they FOUND the material, rather than whats IN the material. If they searched for a rape related search term, even if the material would be the same as an arthouse 18rated movie, they will be prosecuted. If they stumbled across it without appearing to search for it, and use a defense of not realising, even if it turns out to be at the extreme end of the scale, they might well get off going by the Scottish example.

Grey areas everywhere.

ronmcd
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:13 pm
Location: Sunny Scotland
Contact:

Re: No Porn Please, We're British

Post by ronmcd » Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:02 pm

mistermack wrote:
Pappa wrote: Here's an outline of the Extreme Pornography Act:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/extreme_pornography/
Without reading through all of it, it seems obvious that simulation isn't covered. They go to lengths to make it clear that the
image has to be clear and very explicit, with no opportunity for miss-interpretation.

It would be a HUGE extension to include simulation, as all of that seems to be aimed at the real, graphic, explicit, injurious porn.
I get what you are saying, but to all intents and purposes simulated hard-core porn rape is rape, in the sense of the sexual act even if the force & violence is simulated. The intent is presumably to prevent those who might rape from looking for this sort of material, in which case "simulated" hard-core porn will do the job just fine for the sicko.

Unless you are talking about the sexual act being simulated, ie no actual penetration, then I am sure simulated hard-core rape porn is exactly what they want to ban.

I hope that makes sense, not sure I'm explaining what I mean very well.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: No Porn Please, We're British

Post by mistermack » Tue Jul 23, 2013 9:34 pm

No, I think that's quite wrong. What's illegal, is clear graphic depiction of actual rape.
There's a big difference between rape, and simulated rape. And the difference is consent.
The wording above clearly doesn't cover simulated rape.

You say that to all intents and purposes, simulated hard-core porn rape is rape. That's not true.
To all intents and purposes, simulated hard-core porn rape LOOKS LIKE rape.

The difference between looks like, and is, is fundamental.
It says at the bottom, " There is also a defence for those who can prove that they participated in the act depicted, that the extreme nature of the act was apparent and not real and there is no intention to distribute the material."

So there is a clear exception there for simulation.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

Beatsong
Posts: 444
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:33 am
Contact:

Re: No Porn Please, We're British

Post by Beatsong » Tue Jul 23, 2013 9:45 pm

ronmcd wrote:I did a little checking, and this is the Scottish govt article on the law in Scotland, from 2011 when it was enacted:
Summary of the new offence

The new offence, which is contained at section 42 of the Act, criminalises the possession of obscene, pornographic images which explicitly and realistically depict:

an act which takes or threatens a person's life
an act which results or is likely to result in a person's severe injury
rape or other non-consensual penetrative sexual activity
Sexual activity involving (directly or indirectly) a human corpse
An act which involves sexual activity between a person and an animal (or the carcase of an animal)

The maximum penalty for the new offence will be three years imprisonment.

The new offence is similar to that at section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which applies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Scottish offence goes further than that offence, however, in that it covers all images of rape and non-consensual penetrative sexual activity, whereas the English offence only covers violent rape.

The offence will not catch those who accidently come into contact with this type of material and the provisions contain a defence to this effect. There is also a defence for those who can prove that they participated in the act depicted, that the extreme nature of the act was apparent and not real and there is no intention to distribute the material.
Now, I'm confused, as that suggests it's already illegal in England & Wales where it's "violent rape" being depicted. So that suggests currently it's already a crime, although I suspect no one has ever been charged for possessing such material.
My understanding is that the first, second, fourth and fifth points in your quote are already crimes in England, but the fourth not. I don't believe there's anything in the English law about (simulated) non-consent being relevant, and it's more specific than banning "violent" pornography. It specifically bans pornography depicting acts causing serious physical injury.
I agree with your comment that censors have been making these sorts of judgements for decades, but all they are doing is deciding what is certified, not whether someone is possessing illegal material. I suspect in practical terms a porn-watcher online in UK will be prosecuted or not based more on how they FOUND the material, rather than whats IN the material. If they searched for a rape related search term, even if the material would be the same as an arthouse 18rated movie, they will be prosecuted. If they stumbled across it without appearing to search for it, and use a defense of not realising, even if it turns out to be at the extreme end of the scale, they might well get off going by the Scottish example.
Yeah, that may be part of it. But I notice your quote also specifies "obscene, pornographic images which explicitly and realistically depict..."

That seems like a pretty obvious way of distinguishing between rape in porn and rape in mainstream cinema to me. When rape is depicted in mainstream films, you don't actually see a penis forcibly entering a vagina (well, none that I've ever seen, anyway).

ronmcd
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:13 pm
Location: Sunny Scotland
Contact:

Re: No Porn Please, We're British

Post by ronmcd » Tue Jul 23, 2013 9:59 pm

mistermack wrote:No, I think that's quite wrong. What's illegal, is clear graphic depiction of actual rape.
There's a big difference between rape, and simulated rape. And the difference is consent.
The wording above clearly doesn't cover simulated rape.

You say that to all intents and purposes, simulated hard-core porn rape is rape. That's not true.
To all intents and purposes, simulated hard-core porn rape LOOKS LIKE rape.

The difference between looks like, and is, is fundamental.
It says at the bottom, " There is also a defence for those who can prove that they participated in the act depicted, that the extreme nature of the act was apparent and not real and there is no intention to distribute the material."

So there is a clear exception there for simulation.
Hmm. There is a defence for those in the movie (say) who can prove they were just acting, sure. but the last part says "and there is no intention to distribute the material". If the material APPEARS to be completely real, ie violent rape, and it was created for pornographic distribution, then possessing it (ie downloading it) will be illegal.

I'm not trying to wind you up here, as I may well do on certain other topics :ask: . I genuinely believe the law both in Scotland and now to be brought in in England and Wales will cover both actual rape (quite right) and "simulated" hard-core rape pornography.

Put it this way: the intent of the law is not to prevent people finding REAL videos of rape. I am sure such things exist, but most of that sort of porn will be "simulated", but who would know if it was real or not? I feel sick just thinking about this, but I would guess the production values might be an indicator. The point is widely viewed and popular porn sites are about rape, and those taking part are simulating the intent - violent rape - but the sexual acts are real. That is what is being banned.

ronmcd
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:13 pm
Location: Sunny Scotland
Contact:

Re: No Porn Please, We're British

Post by ronmcd » Tue Jul 23, 2013 10:00 pm

Beatsong wrote:
That seems like a pretty obvious way of distinguishing between rape in porn and rape in mainstream cinema to me. When rape is depicted in mainstream films, you don't actually see a penis forcibly entering a vagina (well, none that I've ever seen, anyway).
True.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: No Porn Please, We're British

Post by mistermack » Tue Jul 23, 2013 10:19 pm

ronmcd wrote: If the material APPEARS to be completely real, ie violent rape, and it was created for pornographic distribution, then possessing it (ie downloading it) will be illegal.
I honestly don't see where you are getting that from. There's nothing in the excerpt that you posted that indicates that.
How do you come to that conclusion, when the defence of apparent and not real is so clearly stated?

What's the difference between simulated, and "apparent and not real" ? It seems clear to me that the two have exactly the same meaning.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests