Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Don't really know if it's good news or bad news, but it's certainly news.
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?

I'm curious as to how this will be enforced, and what determines the "appearance" of life-threatening violence.
yes, I am curious as well.
Let me see if I understand the dress code correctly. Life-threatening violence doesn't count if you're wearing a bustier and leather pants a la Angelina Jolie. But if you're wearing a bustier and no leather pants, suddenly it counts? So it's not really the violence that's at issue but nudity and sex?
It would be interesting to see an example of what the Home Office considers 'the appearance of life-threatening violence' in porn to then compare it against what happens on-screen in action or horror movies where there's no (overt) sexual element. Ten dolla says they aren't all that dissimilar.
yeah, I was just talking about the irony of how incredibly violent and/or misogynistic horror movies that don't have actual genitalia or intercourse are apparently A-OK, or at least more so, I forget where.

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 there a way to concern oneself with a more specific definition without looking like one is sticking up for the rights of monsters?
oh, they finally did it. This has been in the works for more than a year.
Hi soopermouse! it's good to see you again!

is that article an accurate representation of what went down?

how will this law be enforced?
I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

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?"
I mean look, o.k. I get that "rape porn" with actual intercourse could potentially be damn tricky to determine whether it's real or not.

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.
and that is some terrible syntax up there, I realize. just try to ignore the chainsaw with especially bright eyes. or chalk it up to imagery worthy of a horror movie and assume "I meant to do that..."
What gets to me is that this is the same government that argues its own right to be a consumer of intelligence gathered under the reality (not just appearance of) life-threatening violence. Hypocritical much?
BD- loved "Quills". but I'm a monster that way.

I think you may be referring to the "Spanner" case, BTW.
yes! thank you.

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?

iacb: I had been thinking for a while now that Genet could make much out of the whole BushWorld (and Friends) Approach to Morality 'N Torture, right down to Lynndie England.

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?
well, if the law came from the bottom up, that process is pretty cool, I gotta admit.

But I still find myself a little hesitant to jump on the bandwagon.
yeah, I don't know about that. in California a lot of godawful laws come theoretically from 'the bottom up' i forget why exactly, too tired to explain the political whatnot that made this likelier there than elsewhere i think? or, not. but, you know, sign the petition, three strikes and you're out (in jail for life). sign the petition, deport the immigrants. sign the petition, no more money for public schools. sign the petition, no gay marriage for us, thanks. yadda, yadda. yeah i don't know, call me an elitist or just call me a cynic, but i don't think "Grassroots" are always all they're cracked up to be. could be simply because in fact as it turns out many "grassroots" campaigns are in fact as much astroturf as not at least.

gah, i dunno. checks and balances, i think this is a good concept, on the whole.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?