Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Britain has outlawed violent pornography on the internet, according to Yahoo News.
Some excerpts from the Yahoo News bit:
"The new laws -- which will cover pornography online and offline -- will ban possession of images depicting "scenes of extreme sexual violence", plus other obscene material like bestiality or necrophilia.
"For example, it would cover violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in 'serious and disabling injury'."
"Under the proposals, the maximum penalty for publication, distribution and possession for gain of obscene pornography would also be increased from three to five years' imprisonment.
"The Home Office said they did not intend to target people who accidentally access obscene pornography nor those working within the mainstream adult entertainment industry, which works within existing obscenity laws.
"The project is in response to a consultation launched last year and comes after a 50,000-signature petition against extreme Internet sites promoting violence against women for sexual gratification was presented to parliament."
Is the Yahoo article accurate? Is this how it really happened? Any thoughts?
and while I realize there's some rather nasty shit out there in the murkier waters of the Internets and underground publications, I really doubt that the image of, say, a woman getting her eyeballs pulled out or cut in half with a chainsaw is one tenth as prevalent in any kind of "porn" as it is in yer basic not-even-NC-17-rated, advertising posters-all-over-the-subway horror movie.
is that article an accurate representation of what went down?
how will this law be enforced?
there was something or other some years back where they (in the UK) went after a group of gay men who were into rather extreme BDSM--consensual, but apparently that wasn't good enough. sorry to be vague, I need to look this up, it was fairly famous.
I dunno. again, if it's concern for actual unconsenting people being made to do horrible things for the delectation of others, I understand (although I don't know how this is being enforced), but -imagery-...
and if it ends up with people going to jail for I don't know distributing imagery of themselves in "depictions of violence", well, hm. Lots of ironic potential here.
Ever see the movie "Quills?"
but when they say "necro porn:"
well, I think it's creepy too, but:
if it's pics of someone lying or hanging "dead" with gallons of fake blood splashed about and it's -obviously- not real (i.e. the actor is alive and well and walking about after the shoot)--yeah, how is this different from your average horror movie? Because in this case the goal is -overtly- to get people to wank to the delicious notion of someone being killed? As opposed to just paying your ten bucks, shoving your gob full of popcorn and watching the lady screaming till the chainsaw silences her with especially bright eyes?
shrug. well and yeah, who's gonna come running to the defense of people who get off on necro-porn? How creepy at best.
I mean, if that -is- what we're talking about--obviously I don't know either.
Is there the equivalent of the ACLU in the UK? that's usually their sort of gig over here.
I think you may be referring to the "Spanner" case, BTW.
i swear i'm getting premature senility or something; every day it's like i forget more, uhhh
words. for what i'd meant to say?
actually i was at one point toying with trying to do my own version of "The Balcony," updated for current events.
maybe someday i'll get my shit together and actually (gasp!) write another play! wouldn't that be something?
But I still find myself a little hesitant to jump on the bandwagon.
gah, i dunno. checks and balances, i think this is a good concept, on the whole.