Could this affect nude photography?

[Yves Geza]

Thats a terribly biased article written by someone with a clear agenda though - not least because most of the examples mentioned were either dismissed without charge, or relate to an incitement offence.

Of course it is, Pete, and so is your viewpoint! But the point is that even if those cases were dismissed without charge, agents of the State are repeatedly seeing it as their job to detain someone for having the 'wrong' opinion.

 

[big soft moose]

If fictionally depicting violent and horrific crime is illegal you're going to have to throw out half of popular culture.
.

theres still a line drawn on how much violence is permissible, and an age restriction as well

 

[big soft moose]

But the point is that even if those cases were dismissed without charge, agents of the State are repeatedly seeing it as their job to detain someone for having the 'wrong' opinion.

Most of those cases are better summed up as some halfwit gets their knickers in a twist and calls the police over something trivial - once called the police have to investigate , find theres no charge to answer and drop the matter.

also its not having the wrong opinion - you can have whatever opinion you like however disgusting or reppelent - its about expressing the opinion - particularly doing so with the intent to discriminate / incite violence.

hence at the end of the day its not Crimethink , its Crimespeak

Now I agree that bigbrother was ungood (not a sentence thats possible in newspeak ) but i don't agree that the government wanting to put the brakes on the ability of children to see abhorent images , or of nonces to create such images ,iis a bad thing

 

[norters]

The whole proposal is a mess! It will never work. Also, if they do being this in every single adult will opt in anyway because every single adult looks at rude stuff on the Internet. Bar none!

 

[hollis_f]

theres still a line drawn on how much violence is permissible, and an age restriction as well

Really? I don't ever recall seeing any age restrictions on a book?

 

[Yv]

Most of those cases are better summed up as some halfwit gets their knickers in a twist and calls the police over something trivial - once called the police have to investigate , find theres no charge to answer and drop the matter.

also its not having the wrong opinion - you can have whatever opinion you like however disgusting or reppelent - its about expressing the opinion - particularly doing so with the intent to discriminate / incite violence.

hence at the end of the day its not Crimethink , its Crimespeak

Now I agree that bigbrother was ungood (not a sentence thats possible in newspeak ) but i don't agree that the government wanting to put the brakes on the ability of children to see abhorent images , or of nonces to create such images ,iis a bad thing

I don't think anyone thinks that stopping the creation of, of spreading of, such images is a bad thing, but firstly, I seriously doubt children are seeing such images 'accidently' [and if they are, it is the parens that need a metaphorical slapping], they are way too well protected by those generating and using them to just fall over them and secondly, this sabre rattling by the government is utter tripe, none of it will do anything to stop the hardcore users/makers. If the government really wanted to put the brakes on, they wouldn't be pushing for filters and opt ins that are already there anyway - all they are doing is simply making them compulsary and opt out to satisfy the outraged minority too stupid to realise what is happening [or with their own warped political agenda], whilst at the same time, having a pop at Google, probably in retaliation for tax avoidance. Oh and while we are at it, we will sneak through a few paragraphs that allows us to to access ISP info on those that opted out....

Seriously, they need to be tackling the source, it is not an issue that can be covered by a blanket. That would be like using a sea going trawler net in a river to catch a single rogue pike, you take all the other innocent fish with it.

 

[onomatopoeia]

not so - there is a clear line drawn in what meets the acid test (from the CPS website reference sect 62 which deals with cartoons, manage, computer generated images etc)

As all three must be met a quick clip of bart and lisa doing the hokey pokey would not qualify as a prohibited image.

The example I gave could meet all three criteria you listed, the third contains a lot of "or" clauses, at least one of which it fulfills and the second is a subjective rather than objective test.

And yes, I see nothing that need trouble the law in fictional depictions of fictional children having sex. There are plenty of them in literature that one can buy in Waterstones - should these also be banned? This is not an idle question, an attempt was made this year to extend the scope of section 62 to written work, but ran out of parliamentary time. I'm sure it will return.

I see a great deal of wrong in the abuse of children. I am not supporting, apologising for, or in any way justifying child abuse. People that abuse children should go to jail.

I used the Bart and Lisa example as a result of a prosecution in Australia:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technolo...hild-porn-judge/2008/12/08/1228584707575.html

 

[big soft moose]

, I see nothing that need trouble the law in fictional depictions of fictional children having sex.

I see a great deal of wrong in the abuse of children. I am not supporting, apologising for, or in any way justifying child abuse. People that abuse children should go to jail.

I don't understand how you can hold both opinions - the fictionalising of the abuse of children (that is showing it being done for sexual gratification) leads to child abuse

nonces use such images to stoke the fires of their fantasies and subsequently move to actual pictures of actual children being abused and/or to doing it themselves

allowing it in fictionalised form is also a step towards making it acceptable (or rather not allowing it is a clear step away from acceptability)

On the written form I don't hold with allowing graphic descriptions of child abuse either - I've not read lolita , but as i understand it Nabakov didnt write pruruient graphic descriptions either so its something of a red herring here

 

[big soft moose]

. If the government really wanted to put the brakes on, they wouldn't be pushing for filters and opt ins that are already there anyway - .

If they are there already anyway , why is legislating for them such a contentious issue ?

 

[ghoti]

I don't understand how you can hold both opinions - the fictionalising of the abuse of children (that is showing it being done for sexual gratification) leads to child abuse

nonces use such images to stoke the fires of their fantasies and subsequently move to actual pictures of actual children being abused and/or to doing it themselves

allowing it in fictionalised form is also a step towards making it acceptable (or rather not allowing it is a clear step away from acceptability)

On the written form I don't hold with allowing graphic descriptions of child abuse either - I've not read lolita , but as i understand it Nabakov didnt write pruruient graphic descriptions either so its something of a red herring here

It's at the point that they act on it that it should become a crime (I include real child pornography as "acting on it"). There may be a case for monitoring people with expressed interest in paedophilia. But until they act on it, the law should keep well distant.
Otherwise what you are basically endorsing is criminalisation of people based on what they *might* do in the future. And I'm sure none of us want to go down that road.

 

[hollis_f]

nonces use such images to stoke the fires of their fantasies and subsequently move to actual pictures of actual children being abused and/or to doing it themselves

In exactly the same way that certain people use violent video games to 'stoke the fires of their fantasies' and subsequently 'move to doing it themselves'.

Oh, wait. They don't.

 

[Llamaman]

allowing it in fictionalised form is also a step towards making it acceptable (or rather not allowing it is a clear step away from acceptability)

On the written form I don't hold with allowing graphic descriptions of child abuse either - I've not read lolita , but as i understand it Nabakov didnt write pruruient graphic descriptions either so its something of a red herring here

Prurient is a vague term open to interpretation. A deeply conservative person (which many judges and government ministers are) might view any reference to children engaging in sex acts as depraved. It wouldn't be hard to get the public to support such a view with right emotionally-charged speech.

It would, of course, lead to Lolita and Romeo & Juliet being banned.

 

[big soft moose]

In exactly the same way that certain people use violent video games to 'stoke the fires of their fantasies' and subsequently 'move to doing it themselves'.

Oh, wait. They don't.

There's no proof that video games influence or not - personally I'd say they influence those already that way inclined, but not a well adjusted person who happens to play them occasionally

There is however ample evidence that nonces use nonce porn specifically for that purpose (and even if they don't move on to doing it themselves they move on to pictures and video which involve real children being molested)

Equally many violent rapists are known to have stoked their fires with violent pornography before going on to commit offences

(there's no equivalent for video games because no well adjusted person is going to look at sick crap like that occasionally - If you really can't see the difference between someone playing say GTA and someone viewing images of children being raped then there's no point in discussing it further)

 

[big soft moose]

Prurient is a vague term open to interpretation. A deeply conservative person (which many judges and government ministers are) might view any reference to children engaging in sex acts as depraved. It wouldn't be hard to get the public to support such a view with right emotionally-charged speech.

It would, of course, lead to Lolita and Romeo & Juliet being banned.

But what is not acceptable is already clearly defined in law

1. That the image is pornographic and,
2. That the image is grossly offensive, disgusting, or otherwise of an obscene character; and
3. That the image focuses solely or principally on a child's genitals or anal region, or portrays any of the following acts etc

Neither Lolita nor R&J includes graphic descriptions of sex acts, is grossly offensive and disgusting etc etc, they might by a conservative interpretation meet point 3 but not 1 or 2 (hence the point about all the provisos being met not just the one)

 

[DrGed]

All of this is interesting enough but will the law get passed?

I'm not at all sure.

 

[big soft moose]

Prurient is a vague term open to interpretation. A deeply conservative person (which many judges and government ministers are) might view any reference to children engaging in sex acts as depraved. It wouldn't be hard to get the public to support such a view with right emotionally-charged speech.

It would, of course, lead to Lolita and Romeo & Juliet being banned.

I also have to say that I'm really struggling with the idea that any reasonable person seriously thinks that the rights of paedophiles to watch kiddie porn should be protected in case it impacts on their ability to read a book

(which outside of paranoid conspiracy ville it actually won't)

 

[ghoti]

There's no proof that video games influence or not - personally I'd say they influence those already that way inclined, but not a well adjusted person who happens to play them occasionally

There is however ample evidence that nonces use nonce porn specifically for that purpose (and even if they don't move on to doing it themselves they move on to pictures and video which involve real children being molested)

Equally many violent rapists are known to have stoked their fires with violent pornography before going on to commit offences

(there's no equivalent for video games because no well adjusted person is going to look at sick crap like that occasionally - If you really can't see the difference between someone playing say GTA and someone viewing images of children being raped then there's no point in discussing it further)

You're getting the correlative cart before the horse.
While it may be true that many, maybe even most, violent sexual offenders sought out violent pornography before offending, that's not quite the same thing as saying that violent pornography inspires violent sexual offending.
The pertinent statistic you are looking for is not % of violent offenders who watched violent pornography, rather it is the % of those who watched violent pornography who went on to commit violent offences. The former may be very high, but the latter is likely to be very low.

 

[big soft moose]

You're getting the correlative cart before the horse.
While it may be true that many, maybe even most, violent sexual offenders sought out violent pornography before offending, that's not quite the same thing as saying that violent pornography inspires violent sexual offending.
The pertinent tatistic you are looking for is not % of violent offenders who watched violent pornography, rather it is the % of those who watched violent pornography who went on to commit violent offences. The former may be very high, but the latter is likely to be very low.

But a number of people here seem to be arguing that the potential violent offender should have the right to view violent/kiddie porn so long as its drawn

If it inspires one violent offender to molest a child (or to buy a video of someone else doing which is much the same thing) then that's one too many

Personally I'm firmly with the govt that banning all kiddie porn whether its photographed/drawn real or imaginary is the right thing to do - and its not a thoughtcrime because its a real action with real consequences.

(this is not particularly pertinent to the OP it span out of the discussion of whether we have thoughtcrime in the uk)

If the best example someone can come up with for thought crime is that a paedophile might be arrested for possessing vile and disgusting images of a child being abused then that's not much of an argument

 

[ghoti]

But a number of people here seem to be arguing that the potential violent offender should have the right to view violent/kiddie porn so long as its drawn

If it inspires one violent offender to molest a child (or to buy a video of someone else doing which is much the same thing) then that's one too many

Personally I'm firmly with the govt that banning all kiddie porn whether its photographed/drawn real or imaginary is the right thing to do - and its not a thoughtcrime because its a real action with real consequences.

(this is not particularly pertinent to the OP it span out of the discussion of whether we have thoughtcrime in the uk)

If the best example someone can come up with for thought crime is that a paedophile might be arrested for possessing vile and disgusting images of a child being abused then that's not much of an argument

Okay. Let's say that someone publically announces that they have a sexual interest in children. They admit fantasising about sexual scenarios involving children. But they say they have no intention of acting on it. And there is no evidence that they have ever acted on it and the only evidence that they may act on it at some unknown point in the future is the banal statistic that most child abusers have or have had a sexual interest in children.
Should that individual face legal consequences?

 

[hollis_f]

There's no proof that video games influence or not

There is plenty of evidence that it does not. Like Japan.

 

[Phil V]

But what is not acceptable is already clearly defined in law

1. That the image is pornographic and,
2. That the image is grossly offensive, disgusting, or otherwise of an obscene character; and
3. That the image focuses solely or principally on a child's genitals or anal region, or portrays any of the following acts etc

Neither Lolita nor R&J includes graphic descriptions of sex acts, is grossly offensive and disgusting etc etc, they might by a conservative interpretation meet point 3 but not 1 or 2 (hence the point about all the provisos being met not just the one)

Forget the child porn it's too easy a line in the sand :nono::

The current obscenity laws are struggling with what one person sees as offensive disgusting or obscene between consenting adults, another couple might see as good clean fun:nuts:.

That's being tested and is constantly shifting, so where does a new law decide I'm searching for kinky and my next door neighbour is searching for disgusting?

 

[big soft moose]

Okay. Let's say that someone publically announces that they have a sexual interest in children. They admit fantasising about sexual scenarios involving children. But they say they have no intention of acting on it. And there is no evidence that they have ever acted on it and the only evidence that they may act on it at some unknown point in the future is the banal statistic that most child abusers have or have had a sexual interest in children.
Should that individual face legal consequences?

If they said it to me they be facing a firm kick in the nuts for being a sick noncing barstard who ought to seek treatment rather than be bragging about it

But generally they wouldn't face legal sanction, unless they were actively encouraging others to do the same

Of course if they are then caught in possession of a quantity of child pornography that would be a different kettle of fish

 

[big soft moose]

Forget the child porn it's too easy a line in the sand :nono::

True but that discussion span off from the assertion that sect 62 (thou shalt not posses child porn even if its drawn) was a thought crime, which is clearly ball cocks

The current obscenity laws are struggling with what one person sees as offensive disgusting or obscene between consenting adults, another couple might see as good clean fun:nuts:.

That's being tested and is constantly shifting, so where does a new law decide I'm searching for kinky and my next door neighbour is searching for disgusting?

Personally I've no problem with most things being done between consenting (and not coerced etc) adults in the privacy of their own home.

But the new law allows for that - if you want to search for something that is considered pornographic but still legal you just opt in to being able to see it, simples

 

[ghoti]

If they said it to me they be facing a firm kick in the nuts for being a sick noncing barstard who ought to seek treatment rather than be bragging about it

But generally they wouldn't face legal sanction, unless they were actively encouraging others to do the same

Of course if they are then caught in possession of a quantity of child pornography that would be a different kettle of fish

Okay, so you and I agree that while we can't empathise with their feelings at all, they shouldn't face legal sanction.

Now let's say this person now, in the privacy of his own home, sketches some of his fantasies. What has changed in terms of morality?

 

[Phil V]

True but that discussion span off from the assertion that sect 62 (thou shalt not posses child porn even if its drawn) was a thought crime, which is clearly ball cocks

Personally I've no problem with most things being done between consenting (and not coerced etc) adults in the privacy of their own home.

But the new law allows for that - if you want to search for something that is considered pornographic but still legal you just opt in to being able to see it, simples

But my post was about what is considered 'legal' which is far from cut and dried despite your assertions.

 

[big soft moose]

Now let's say this person now, in the privacy of his own home, sketches some of his fantasies. What has changed in terms of morality?

The fact that the next step for most of these scum suckers is to share their sketches with other deviants - that's why its illegal (because an unless you drew it yourself from your imagination loop hole would undermine the convictions of those that didn't)

And lets be honest how many of the people convicted under sect 62 have in fact drawn it themselves, vs bought it commercially (and there's another reason - a lot of this sick crap will be drawn from photographic source material which does involve a real child being abused )

 

[big soft moose]

But my post was about what is considered 'legal' which is far from cut and dried despite your assertions.

So what will change under the new law if what you like doing is actually illegal anyway

You don't have the ability to legally download illegal images anyway so aFAICS you wouldn't be affected at all

 

[Phil V]

So what will change under the new law if what you like doing is actually illegal anyway

You don't have the ability to legally download illegal images anyway so aFAICS you wouldn't be affected at all

My point is that what's 'legal' is shifting sands and regularly tested in court. This act would (like all knee jerk laws) attempt to draw a line in the sand and possibly criminalise people who are currently doing nothing 'illegal'.

So tomorrow you're happily watching 'kinky' porn, and next month, you've ticked 'I do' and you go back to the 'kinky' site and your ISP reports you and you're having your browsing history examined by some pleb who wants to make an example of you.

See the twitter joke trial for what happens when the misguided are left on charge of badly interpreted laws.

 

[Richard King]

this has the potential to be a freekin mess

What happens with a "explicit porn site", a "soft porn site" a site intended for the sexual education of teenagers, an art site, the site of a life model, an anatomy site, most medical sites...

A site that discusses the sex of a puppy or a chicken. A site discussing sexcual politics.

Hell lets sling in page 3 of the sun, Google street view (inc. an adult shop), a holiday brochure (yep those beaches full of half nude women)

The issue here is one mans poison is another normality. I don't want top be dictated to by the religious left, nor the racist right

This for me fairly and squarely ought to land at the feet of parents. Minors just need proper supervision. End of

 

[big soft moose]

My point is that what's 'legal' is shifting sands and regularly tested in court. This act would (like all knee jerk laws) attempt to draw a line in the sand and possibly criminalise people who are currently doing nothing 'illegal'.

So tomorrow you're happily watching 'kinky' porn, and next month, you've ticked 'I do' and you go back to the 'kinky' site and your ISP reports you and you're having your browsing history examined by some pleb who wants to make an example of you.

See the twitter joke trial for what happens when the misguided are left on charge of badly interpreted laws.

If it concerns you my advice is to watch kinky porn on a proxy server in future

To be honest though i'm not sure its as grey an area as you make out - most of us have a fair idea of whether our preferences are legal or not , and most people who get caught watching illegal knew damn well what they were doing

(also if your preference becomes illegal , you've got the same problem of getting reported now - the new legislation makes no odds

 

[cowboy]

If people want to watch/own/view illegal porn they will, just as they do now.

It's only good honest people who will be affected as hubby who likes a bit of porn once the missus has gone to bed (or vice versa ) has to opt in and maybe get a nice E-Mail with a subject PORN OPT IN you dirty little person, or as has been mentioned someone wanting to view photographs (nudes not landscapes ).

 

[Llamaman]

But the proposed legislation doesn't just cover illegal porn!
They are trying to conflate adult porn with child porn to demonise porn users.
Mark my word, the opt-in list will be part of background checks as 'everyone knows porn users are potential paedophiles'.

But horror films are fine, of course!

 

[big soft moose]

If people want to watch/own/view illegal porn they will, just as they do now.

It's only good honest people who will be affected as hubby who likes a bit of porn once the missus has gone to bed (or vice versa ) has to opt in and maybe get a nice E-Mail with a subject PORN OPT IN you dirty little person, or as has been mentioned someone wanting to view photographs (nudes not landscapes ).

good honest people don't sneak crap around behind their partners backs

 

[Llamaman]

good honest people don't sneak crap around behind their partners backs

A fine attempt at a diversionary tactic. We're discussing media censorship, not marital relationships.

Debating fail.

 

[cowboy]

good honest people don't sneak crap around behind their partners backs

Didn't say they sneaking, said they were watching

 

[big soft moose]

But the proposed legislation doesn't just cover illegal porn!
They are trying to conflate adult porn with child porn to demonise porn users.
Mark my word, the opt-in list will be part of background checks as 'everyone knows porn users are potential paedophiles'.

No they aren't - this thread has but that was as a result of a sidetrack

The legislation doesn't mention child porn at all - the legislation concerns legal porn and people having to opt in to see it to stop children being exposed to it.

Now as it happens I agree that that's not an effective solution

I just don't buy into all the "attack on our civil liberties " stuff being spouted

 

[big soft moose]

Didn't say they sneaking, said they were watching

Then if they aren't sneaking it around the partner will know and the email won't be a problem

 

[ghoti]

If it concerns you my advice is to watch kinky porn on a proxy server in future

To be honest though i'm not sure its as grey an area as you make out - most of us have a fair idea of whether our preferences are legal or not , and most people who get caught watching illegal knew damn well what they were doing

I'm actually not so sure. BDSM pornography has, in the last five years, been made illegal in Scotland, and they're looking at enacting similar legislation in England and Wales. It is now categorised in Scotland as "extreme pornography", even if the participants are fully consenting and even if the violence is staged. Any media that depicts or appears to depict harm being done to the breasts, genitals or anus, is effectively outlawed.
This has had the bizarre effect of making something that is perfectly legal to carry out in your own home (indeed BDSM "props" are such a large part of the sex toy industry that they could almost be considered mainstream) illegal to watch on video, or to film.

 

[sponner]

Personally I'm firmly with the govt that banning all kiddie porn whether its photographed/drawn real or imaginary is the right thing to do - and its not a thoughtcrime because its a real action with real consequences.

exactly.

 

[Yves Geza]

The only faintly amusing part of the proposed legislation is that it will apparently become illegal to possess any images of rape. Apart from the difficulties that will cause in uploading any pictures of yellow fields, I don't know how rape, as in non-consensual sexual intercourse, looks different from all sorts of consensual sexual activity.

So I presume the people taking part will have to be filmed, each holding up a signed sheet of paper to the camera, which confirms the terms of their willing participation!!

As everyone, except for Moose has said, it is a typical legislative mess!