Lesbian lesbians fight extreme porn law

While hobbits have a stab at freetard lurve

Comments The UK Criminal Justice Bill is quietly making its way into law, and its uncertain scope raises some worrying questions. Clause 63 of the Bill could criminalise viewing or owning "extreme pornography" - whatever that is. It's not made clear. This threat brought a lot of you out of the woodwork, with nearly 200 comments at the time of writing:

I think people always get this backwards. Porn doesn't cause violence, but instead, people who have violent dispositions are more likely to like extreme porn. So:

--Many peaceful people like porn==this does not cause them to do violent acts, but suggestible (weak minded) people seeing dehumanizing images constantly may become desensitized, and think that this is "normal behavior" The same goes for any 'adult' entertainment, whether it be booze, drugs, gambling, violent video games, fundamentalist religions, etc.

--People who are already violent probably like extreme porn==the same angry (and often corrupted sexual) need that feeds violent urges, is perfectly suited to and finds expression in hardcore porn. Perhaps this 'outlet' may even give violent people some release (no pun intended) and actually reduce violence (but this is just my opinion)

So perhaps the answer is that people that are stable adults should be free to do what they want in life, as long as it isn't hurting anyone, but those that have proven to be a hazard to others should be counseled, locked up if need be, but permitted to have all the porn they desire.

Anonymous Coward

There are going to be a lot of people who may wish to engage in or view images of BDSM activity who will now be in serious danger of being imprisoned for up to 3 years.

The act itself seems hypocritical if it's purpose is to prevent copycat violence (which is generally considered to be a minute problem anyway, see Bowling for Columbine) but still allows the very images it wants to prevent so long as they have been classified. Under the act possession of a copy of the particularly eye-watering scene in the new Casino Royal where Bond is tortured by whipping between the legs would be illegal and punishable by 3 years inside if it was in a pornographic context. What's to stop someone watching that film for sexual arousal and the deciding to go out and do the same thing to someone. Just because it isn't on the top shelf doesn't stop anyone getting sexual pleasure.


So, this government creates yet more law that it has no intention of enforcing. This will just be another tick-box charge that will be included should the coppers accidentally come across(!) someone with illegal porn. "OK lad, we've caught you selling nasty porn to kiddies. Have you a computer? Have you a modem? Right we've also got you for extreme porn."

Why does our stupid government think that the internet so different that it needs special laws?

Nomen Publicus

This government in particular has been particularly bad for passing laws where the offences aren't clear - probably in order to give their lawyer chums work drawing the lines later on. When questioned, time and again we hear the relevant minster saying "it is not the intention of this act to ...". So it was with the religious hate crimes act: comedians were worried that they could be hauled up for the sorts of gags which Dave Allen thrived on.

And then, earlier this month, we hear that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers act was being used by councils to spy on parent who had (shock horror) applied for places for their children in popular schools. During the passage of this act, Jack Straw used the "it is not the intention of this act" line whenever criticised for the lack of clarity and limitation in the powers. Repeat after me. It is not the intention of a piece of legislation which matters, it is the specific provisions. If you start talking about the intentions of a piece of law, it is almost certainly bad law.

Anonymous Coward

We ran an analysis of why Radiohead released their latest album for free, and why they won't do it again. Some of you didn't like our use of the word 'freetard', but there was a deeper debate lurking in the comments, for those brave enough to look:

Face facts: Radiohead are not the Stones or Pink Floyd, but they do knock out some good indie-rock stuff.

Nothing to add to this debate really - I appreciated the chance to get In Rainbows on the cheap, but I preferred the NIN release from a purchase standpoint - it was in FLAC, rather than MP3, so worth it IMHO [especially as I am rather enjoying it to kill the commuter hubbub on the tube].

There's definitely a model that can be exploited in here with regards to ultra-low cost 'teasers' in MP3 format, and then paying slightly more [say, min £3] for a FLAC version or going out and getting a hard copy.

And if they only include the 'full' versions [FLAC/high bitrate MP3/hard copy] in the charts, then all the schoolkids paying £1/album of 128kbps Pete Waterman/X-factor toss might not control the top 10 all the time - and that would put a completely irrelevant, but fun, smile back on my face.

Mines the leatehr jacket with "Rock is dead" scrawled on the back in tippex, and the Shure E110s hanging out the collar :-)

Steven R

Even with so called "free" downloads on offer, I preferred the physical product for £8 or less, DRM free with artwork and that I can rip to lossless FLAC at the best quality I can get short of SACD/DVD-A or some HD audio format that no one bothers with (or dare I say even Vinyl!). Stick the FLACs on my server to stream around the house, and convert to MP3 at best quality (way in excess of the usual poor 128kbps downloads) for use on a non-Apple based MP3 player (free from iTunes crud).

Give me downloads at cheaper than £8 CD prices, at FLAC quality, together with some kind of digital packaging to make up for the lack of physical packaging (sleeve notes in PDF format perhaps?), and DRM free then I'll consider it. Until then, it's CDs for me until the iPod sheep get their way and drive all music down the quality bin with low bitrate crud to feed through their crap headphones.

Anonymous Coward

How soon we forget the baby boomers paid upwards of three times for the same piece of music and Jazz lovers paid even more( from old Shellac 78's to Vinyl to Compact Cassette and then the CD version) in those halcyon days before the arrival of powerful home and portable computers could convert the music and transfer it in any form they chose including generating ring tones for their other mobile toys at the mere push of a finger !

And yet still the industry dragon was never sated , forever hungry and kept demanding more then their fair share of blood out of stone whilst figuratively allowing what seems to be cat and dog whipping grunge of singers out of tune or C! Rap to masquerade as the next generation of music to escape from the zoo as if it was a good idea at the time(didn't our parents say the same thing long ago too) ! Little wonder the market for music has declined for a number of well documented reasons reaching well over two thirds less in sales in real terms since the turn of the new century as other forms of amusement have accelerated past these old obsolete dinosaurs unable or unwilling to move with the times controlled by mindless trolls and bean counters and the push to extend copyright term limits and reach into every corner possible for the only source of income left as the lean industry killing winter looms in the closing autumn of their years !

What price a choice indeed ? , when they chose to ignore the only viable option at the close of the last century unable to see beyond their pile of beans or insatiable greed !



Similar topics


Send us news

Other stories you might like