its been a week and Im still here
Last week bdsm newsgroups and forums were in a total panic atack over the ‘extreme porn’ ban that was going into law. All the usual tales of woe and inpending doom came out. Now that the law actualy has been pased lets examine some of the usual ‘talking points’.
- The evil bush ditcatorship is destroying our first adnment rights.
- The law was passed in the united kingdom. George bush is president of the united states. The first adnment is inapplicabal in the united kingdom.
- This is a plot by the evil right wing extremests to destroy our freedom of speach.
- The law in question is the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill and was introduced by David Hanson of the labor party. The left wind part of the UK.
- The law was pushed through by those homophobic hatemongers who want to destroy all forms of sexual expresion
- The law was pushed mostly by Liz Longhurst. The mother of a woman who was murdered who claims her daughter would still be alive if there were a law againt violent porn. I have yet to find out what religion she is, but her goal seems to be more trying to gain closure for her daughters death than it is trying to force everyone else into her prudish victiorian minded views of sex.
- This is simply a power grab by politicians who want to control every aspect of our lives.
- Extreme pornography was alreadfy iligeal under the Obscene Publications Acts. Taking something already againt the law and making it more againt the law dosent change the amount of control over the population aside from politicians being able to include ‘I voted for public safety’ in their campaign speaches.
- They way the bill defines ‘porn’ is so vague it could apply to things like Ecstasy of St Theresa
- The bill actualy defines porn rather well. American law has been hung up with trying to define porn in terms of the image itself. This is how we wind up in situations like in US vs Knox where an image is considered indecent even though it has no nudity or sexual situaions and Nitke v. Gonzales where an image is not indecent when it does have nudity and sexual situations. The UK law makes a lot more sence by definding an image based on the intent of its distributer. If you market and sell the image as porn, then its porn. Artwork is exempted from the bill, as movies that have porn in them as part of the plot.
- The way the bill defines ‘extreme’ is so vague it could apply to things as mild as an over the knee spanking.
- Again, this is very clearly defined in the legal code. Three of the four points deal with stuff that 1)is 2)was or 3) will be life threatening. (the fourth deals with animals). An over the knee spanking is not life threatning. Now a lot of people get hung up on the ‘or appears to’ clause. However, the same part of the bill spicificly states that the images have to be realistic. Dolcett drawings are not impacted by the bill even though they do often show situations that are life threatrning. Dolcett dosent look real. Likewise furries wouldent be impact because even though there is sex with animals the animals dont look real. What the ‘or apears to’ clause is trying to cover is along the lines of the opening sequence of Saving Private Ryan. No actualy actors were blow to bits in the filming of that movie but they all appear to be. (Note: Saving Private Ryan wouldent be impacted by the law either due to the markiting clause would define it as not being porn.)
- The way the bill defines ’serious injury’ in defining ‘extreme’ is so vague it could apply to things as mild as an over the knee spanking.
- Here is where it gets tricky. Serious injury is not defined spicificly with this bill. But it does have very spicific legal meaning when used in definging assault. Under UK law, assult is divided into 3 catagories. Assault. Actualy Bobily Harm. Grievous Bodily Harm. Now it is true that none of these three terms are spicificly spelled out in the porn law, but neither are they spicificly spelled out in assult law either. The terms come from case law. Theirfore no spicific dividing lines exist between these three but they can be thought of generaly in these terms. Assult is simply beating someoen up. Actualy Bodily Harm is stuff like black eyes, knocked out teath, bleading, knocked unconcious, or a broken nose. Grevious Bodily Harm is stuff like hacked off limbs, compound fractures, knocked into coma, or blood loss to the point of requiring a transfusion. ’serious injury’ is a term used only in Grevious Bodily Har. Most BDSM porn would be in the assault catagory. This is simple economics. The modles used in filming often work for mutiple companys or do mutiple difrent shoots back to back. They dont want bruises left over from a previous shoot showing up in their next shoot. And most BDSM in general (photos people take of themselves for example) would be at max in the actualy bodily harm catagory. Even the most extreme edge players have a personal limit of ‘no wounds that wont heal’ that puts them under the Grevious Bodily harm catagory. With this in mind, the language of the bill where it talks about ’serious injury to the anus’ is not talking about a a regular gay sex buttfuck.
- This law will only drive porn producers underground resulting in unsafe working conditions for the porn modles.
- Porn that shows life threating injury to the model was safe in the first place? Besides, if the Obscene Publications Acts wernt already driving porn productes underground, a law on viewing of images that were already iligeal to make in the first place is unlikely to change anything done by the producers.
- The law will be misused and applied with too wide a scope resulting in people being proscuted who were not the original target of the law.
- Oh will it now? Just like the thousands and thousands of people who were unjustly targeted after the Spanner case ruled that people dont have the right to concent to BDSM activities? Well, not thousands, hundreds is more like it. And by saying hundreds what I mean is dozens. Or was that a couple? Ok, ok, so it wasent any new cases outside of the people originaly charged.
- Even if nobody is proscuted under this new law, it will create a ‘chilling efect’ resultring in people abanding their freedoms because they are afraid they MIGHT be proscuted.
- Mixing up US and UK law again but I will play along. Supose I got it stuck in my head that anyone who dares to claim that the moon landings were fake would be picked up by black helocopters and never be seen from again. This dosent actualy happen, but I am afraid it could. As I dont want to be ‘disapeared’, I keep my mouth shut abotu the moon landing. Is my freedom of speach being blocked by a government climant of fear creating a ‘chillign efect’? Or is it not the government fault at all but rather the fault of me being a paranoid dumbass?
- Bush is hitler!!!!!
- Why do I even waste my time trying to talk sence into the people convinced that we are living in a puriticinal victorian minded theoracy?