Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Jail for downloading 'extreme' sex images

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 19 January 2009
DOWNLOADING images of rape and possessing other forms of "extreme" pornography will be punishable by up to three years in prison under new laws to be unveiled next month, The Scotsman can reveal.
Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, has for the first time revealed details of his proposed crackdown on owning hardcore pornography that he claims is sexually and physically abusive and degrading to women.

The move will be included in a new C
riminal Justice and Licensing Bill to be published in the coming weeks. It has been welcomed by campaigners who say it will offer protection to people exploited in the production of extreme sexual material, particularly on the internet, while challenging violent attitudes towards women.

Currently the law in Scotland only prohibits the importing and supply of extreme pornography and possession with the intention to sell. Possessing child porn is also an offence.

The new ban will be tougher than similar legislation being introduced south of the Border next week.

Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 comes into force next Monday and makes owning offending pictures a criminal offence. Under the English law, an image is deemed to be extreme if it "is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character" and portrays in any way an act which threatens a person's life, or which results or appears likely to result in serious injury to someone's genitals or breasts.

Mr MacAskill told The Scotsman that the proposed Scottish legislation will go further, making it clear that the possession of images of rape – regardless of whether the act could physically injure the victim – will be outlawed.

But precisely how and where ministers draw the line between mainstream and "extreme" pornography is likely to spark a furious civil liberties debate, amid fears unprecedented powers to police people's bedrooms are being created.

Mr MacAskill said the law needed to be made "fit for purpose" in an age where vast amounts of uncensored material can be viewed and downloaded in the privacy of people's homes.

"The way people view and access porn has changed with the explosion of the internet. In the past we were looking to control the supply, centring on bookshops and, to some extent, private houses," he said.

"We are now in an age dominated by DVDs and the internet. We need to update the law in this global age. England already has some of these laws – but our laws will go further. Our laws will be covering matters such as images of rape."

Mr MacAskill said people who mistakenly access extreme pornography, for example by clicking on the wrong computer button, would not be pursued. Equally, it is likely that convictions under the new law will require people actually to download images of "extreme" pornography, rather than by viewing websites alone.

"The legislation will cover some of what is available on the internet, which is frankly horrific and involves criminal offences such as rape," Mr MacAskill said. "With the societal and technological changes that have happened, we need to make sure the law is fit for purpose.

"There are people who participate in this and we need to do something about it. These are not crime-free and cost-free matters. Somebody is suffering, and those who view are encouraging and assisting with the exploitation of these people."

The former lawyer said the maximum penalty for publishing and selling extreme pornography would increase from three to five years.

"We are intending to send out the message that this is frankly totally abhorrent. This is far from a victimless crime. Previously you could close down bookshops; now everybody has access to the internet. What is being portrayed in a number of these sites and DVDs is not erotic art – it's fundamental abuse of an individual and to consort with it is to support it."

Sandy Brindley, national co-ordinator of Rape Crisis Scotland, welcomed the move, but said a wider crackdown on pornography was needed.

"We need to find ways to stop the proliferation of these websites," she said. "There's a real worry that increased access to really extreme pornography, with depictions of women being tortured or raped, is seeping into the wider culture."

The outlawing of extreme porn originally won the backing of the Scottish Executive and Home Office in 2006 after a three-year campaign by Liz Longhurst. Her daughter, Jane, was strangled by Graham Coutts in 2003. During his trial, Coutts, from Fife, said he had a fixation with asphyxiation porn and necrophilia. A petition started to outlaw violent pornography garnered 50,000 signatures.

Baroness Miller, the Liberal Democrat peer, argued that the legislation in England would justify the government "walking into people's bedrooms and turning them into criminals simply for viewing something".

Susan Smith: 'I didn't have to look far for scenes of brutality'

ANYONE who uses the internet regularly knows how easy it is to accidentally find pornography, so I was expecting a direct search for hardcore porn to be easy.

It was. It is, though, disturbing to discover that bestiality, for example, is easily found and that fantasy rape is practically mainstream. A simple Google search reveals a plethora of sites dedicated to pictures and videos of apparent rapes.

These include graphic images with equally graphic titles, depictions of women intimately mutilated, and plenty of bondage under unsavoury titles. One top Google search included in its title "teenage" and "forced sex".

Fortunately for me, to view the majority of these films, you do actually have to pay a subscription fee (often as little as £9) – but there is also a lot that can be easily viewed free. It doesn't take long to find videos of rape scenes, some of which come up on the first page of a Google search.

While the videos I found were clearly not of real rapes, viewing a man apparently violently forcing a young girl to have sex even though she is struggling is horrible.

Many of these sites carry the disclaimer "we do not condone non-consensual sex". They state that the sites are "about role-playing fantasy only" and are performed by models and actresses over the age of 18. However, when I added the word "real" to the start of the search term, there were just as many hits.

A couple of sites implied in the Google brief note that they included real videos but, on a basic look, they mostly carried the same disclaimers as the others, or said the scenes were based on real "chronicles".

Judging from the popularity of the search term, and the content you can see for free, I would be surprised if "real" rape scenes cannot be found.

In reality, though, it doesn't really matter whether they are real or not – there is clearly a huge market for fantasy rape.

Despite disclaimers, this content does glorify rape, and only helps to perpetuate misogynistic attitudes.

Is this Big Brother in the bedroom?

No

Clare McGlynn

Professor of Law, Durham University


PROPOSALS to criminalise the possession of extreme pornography are timely and proportionate; they strike a balance between those wishing to ban all pornography and those who oppose all regulation, some of whom even object to criminalising child pornography.

Only the most extreme, the most violent and the most pernicious pornography will be covered.

The users of extreme pornography are the targets – they must take responsibility for the market they create and for running the risk that they are viewing material in which real people may have been harmed.

While those who view extreme pornography will not necessarily go on to commit sexual offences, their use of such material sustains a culture in which rape and sexual violence is normalised; in which a woman's "no" is not taken seriously; in which equality and dignity are not protected.

Some pro-rape websites revel in the distress of women, enticing viewers with claims that "these girls say no but we say yes"; or "it doesn't matter if they want it or not". Some sites offer "rape photos made by real criminals".

A "public good" defence should be included to ensure that the measures meet their real target and to demonstrate that the target is not the art world, however avant garde.

These measures address the cultural harm of pornography and are part of a package of initiatives which imagine a time when women are not routinely subject to sexual violence.

Yes

Becky Dwyer

Spokeswoman for CAAN (Consenting Adults Action Network) Scotland


WHILST many people will pick up on the civil liberties issues, we are concerned that the government is deceiving the electorate.

This law won't make life safer; if anything, it will do the opposite, and people will die because the Scottish Government is more interested in soundbite politics than evidence. The same happened in England. The government could only "prove" harm came from viewing extreme porn by cobbling together a highly controversial piece of research by three feminists with agendas of their own.

The problem is simple. Every week, tens of thousands of people take part in activities whose images may henceforth be banned. They share their experiences, they spread the gospel on safety. This new law will have a chilling effect. People are going to close down sites "just in case". The BDSM (bondage, domination and sado-masochism) scene will go back underground.

People will still be doing dangerous stuff, but without the safety advice – as though the government decided to let people continue climbing mountains, but banned safety manuals.

There are sites out there depicting real abuse; evidence of real crimes being committed. Instead of going after those, catching the perpetrators and putting an end to real harm, the government has gone for the easy option of criminalising pictures of mostly legal activity and demonising a bunch of adults whose main crime is the desire to interact with one another in the privacy of their own homes.

Rape Crisis to open office in cyberspace world

IT IS a fantasy world in which people can be whoever they want to be at the click of a button.

Second Life has attracted more than 15 million devotees the world over, all drawn to the myriad opportunities to interact with people in a seemingly harmless virtual environment.

But a dark underbelly has emerged within the sophisticated chatroom site, which has started to become abused and exploited by paedophiles, sexual predators and adulterers.

Various sub-sites have been set up catering for the most depraved of tastes, included rape "games" in which players can rape, be raped or hold down someone while they are being raped.

Now Rape Crisis Scotland has become so concerned about the "sickening" activity emerging in Second Life that it has decided to set up its own portal within the virtual world.

"I think there's a lot of concerns about what people are witnessing," said Sandy Brindley, Rape Crisis Scotland's national co-ordinator.

"It's taking pornography to a different level, and people can stumble into it."

Users of Second Life, run by the San Francisco company Linden Lab, design their own "avatars" or characters and travel around the virtual world – on holiday, meeting each other, shopping and buying land.

A high proportion of the avatar characters are slim, large-chested women and enormously well-endowed men, and cyber-sex is one of the most popular activities.

The Rape Crisis site will be open to any avatars who have been preyed upon within Second Life – as well as for their operators who have been sexually assaulted in the real world.

Ms Brindley told The Scotsman that it was time for support groups such as hers to strike back against violence against women portrayed on websites such as Second Life.

"There are places where people participate in what seems to be rape," she said.

Initially, the virtual Rape Crisis centre will not be staffed but will provide people with advice and contact numbers for "actual" support services.

Ms Brindley said she had been shocked by some of the material that she has encountered on Second Life.

"There is really quite extreme pornography on there, so it's important for us to have a presence. It will be well signposted and will help to push our campaign, which is called 'This Is Not An Invitation To Rape Me'. We need to challenge that accessibility of violence against women."

One example of unsavoury material within Second Life is a virtual café where people could rape women. Others include a "hardcore alley" with extreme porn on the walls and rooms, where people's characters can rape someone. The site also contains a human trafficking "mansion", and a torture room.

"There's also a school where pupils are sexually abused and girls can be picked out and passed around men," added Ms Brindley. "It's really shocking."

She said she would "not preclude" the possibility that people who feel they have been assaulted while on Second Life would come to them for help.

There have been cases of police investigating complaints about "crimes" committed on Second Life.

Experts believe that those misusing the site in Britain could be vulnerable under laws prohibiting harassment and the sending of malicious messages.



The full article contains 2200 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 19 January 2009 1:18 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Law and Order
 
1

Rufus-T-Firefly,

18/01/2009 22:24:28
Now I know why Nevsky moved to Moscow.
2

Tris,

19/01/2009 00:10:52
~1 Tasteless mcomment.
3

Evolution in action,

St Andrews 19/01/2009 00:35:49


Can I have a list of what I can do on the Internet, it would be shorter?
4

Matt there,

Somewhere 19/01/2009 00:42:31
"Susan Smith: 'I didn't have to look far for scenes of brutality'

"ANYONE who uses the internet regularly knows how easy it is to accidentally find pornography"

Really?
5

Evolution in action,

St Andrews 19/01/2009 00:48:24

Good news, the same highly trained team who shot the guy boarding a train 21 times will oversee, enforcement of this law.
6

john z,

edinburgh 19/01/2009 00:57:03
This is yet another one of these things that can be called "well it looks like a good idea, but it isn't".

The fact is, the production of evil pictures and videos is global, and locking up 'wee johnny' cause him and his mates thought it was a laugh looking at dirty pictures will do nobody any good.

At the end of the day, all people should be free to view what they want to.

And here's the problem; the real dangerous people, the ones who make and sell the really evil abuse pictures of real rape and child abuse will not get caught as they know every computing security trick around. So, in reality this new legislation will simply have the effect of telling people what they cannot see or read. It is p*ss poor law, of the very worst kind.

Parents need to take charge of what their children look at, instead of sitting on their hands waiting for someone from government to censor the internet for them.

It is a very slippery slope when a 'puritanical' government gets to start dictating to citizens what they can and cannot see or read.

So who decides what kind of porn is ok?? is it strictly one man and one woman?? is gay porn ok, or is that deemed too offensive?? what about lesbians?? and is it strictly missionary position only?? Is some wee council busybody going to check what we do in our own homes??

This country is heading down the totalitarian road at breakneck speed, and nobody seems to care. Did you know the UK has more CCTV watching its own citizens than communist china, Russia, and other oppressive states worldwide. In fact the UK has more CCTV than any other country in the world full stop. Even New York, which suffered 9/11 has not adopted CCTV to the extent that the UK has.

Freedoms and rights which people fought for over hundreds of years, are getting removed from law on an almost daily basis. I like the idea of doing something about the evil producers of 'abuse' pictures of real abuse, but this law will never achieve that and w
7

barrow5,

glasgow 19/01/2009 01:12:18
I thought McAskill was going to reduce the prison population.
8

r1niceboy,

Nebraska 19/01/2009 01:17:00
All that will happen is make those images more glamourous to those who otherwise wouldn't have been that interested. By making it taboo, we'll only heighten the interest.

Tell ten people not to do something is a pretty surefire way ensure one of them will do it. And in order to enforce a law people need to know the law in effect, and they'll have to know what the boundaries are. The government may as well pat a neon sign up saying RAPE RAPE RAPE!!!

Just quietly shutting down servers, and arresting people making the product will be more effective.
9

Nellie Rogers,

19/01/2009 01:21:37
#7 Barrow5
Don't worry McAskill is planning to open a large Alcatraz sytle cyberprison on an island in "Second Life" to sort this out.
10

Deeside,

Scotland 19/01/2009 01:23:00
If you read the draft legislation it means that actions that can be deemed to cause harm or injury to a woman's genetal area or breasts will come under the act........ so I am going to make sure that the M&S bra TV advert for the bra I bought gets dealt with by the Police because the wire in it damn well is causing injury to my breasts today!!

Next we will be having our bedrooms bugged to make sure that we don't do anything other than the missionary position.

So, I take it from the legislation outlined in the story that its ok for us women to view images of mock sexual acts of agression against men??? Mmmm even as a woman I don't think this is right either!


11

Deeside,

Scotland 19/01/2009 01:28:43
Oh, and as for the Scottish Govt - maybe they should concentrate on keeping their own houses in order and vet the material they send out to parents and teenagers....... as a mother of a teenager I received a ten page glossy booklet last year telling me in exact detail and with photographs how to recognise illegal drugs with step by step guides and photographs on how to take them!

If my kids didn't know about it before then - they sure do now........ in fact, I've kept the booklet in a safe place just in case the stress of being a parent gets too much and I need some relief! I'm just waiting on the next installment from the government which tells me where I can get a supply from!!
12

Dark Lochnagar,

Symington 19/01/2009 01:51:13
Can we include anything written by Rufus and his fellow Trolls?
13

Finlang,

Hong Kong 19/01/2009 02:17:37
More hysterical on-the-hoof lawmaking by the one-man battering ram who will surely and single-handedly guide the SNP into a fatal car crash. MacAskill is a proven dunce. A supreme embarrassment of a politician.

Just when we thought the Labour Party's Stasi-style tactics trawled the bottom levels to incriminate innocent people, along comes this idiot - yet again - with more sinister invasions of privacy. What a scary dump Scotland and the greater UK has become.
14

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/01/2009 02:29:01


Deeside ~11,

Good Post!, I enjoy facts, to which are reality and your post, gives us that.

The thing is, the Scottish Government are acting like,...

..."The Apprentice"! the sweeping of floors!

Why Charles?, you ask!

Well let me tell you!

Like the banning of the Booze, unless you are over 21years old, like the cigarette's, lets hide them from children, under the counter, this is the only way for the Scottish Government, to show us all what they are made off!,...

...NOT MUCH HUH?

While HBOS, goes 'down-the-tubes', one is worrying about a packet of cigarette's on the shelf!, like Children, try your best with the abilities you have!,...

...'SPEAKS MOUNTAINS, DON'T IT'!?

Whilst I agree in principle, to get the 'FEW' weird tatties, who download "Hard core Porn" off our streets, this move by the Scottish Government is, in my books, a issue, whilst important to address, it is an issue for, intelligence agency's, to weed-out-the-weirdo's, and not for the Scottish Government, to make rules, on down-loading a couple of double D's (DD) as a screen-saver, while HBOS go under!
15

Julian.,

edinburgh 19/01/2009 03:37:38
Charles,

And what exactly is wrong with a good bit hard porn?

16

Julian.,

edinburgh 19/01/2009 03:39:49
Mr Mackaskill said:-

"These are not crime-free and cost-free matters. Somebody is suffering, and those who view are encouraging and assisting with the exploitation of these people."

Surely this means simulated rape for example would still be OK as there is no suffering and no exploitation.

If this is true then all those crying foul should think again.

17

mark1234,

19/01/2009 03:46:38
Including images of staged rape make this law even more worrying than the English version. How can it be judged if an image is meant to be depicting rape? This risks not just including rape roleplay between consenting adults (including private images made in the bedroom), but images of any kind of "rough" sex, or sex involving gags and bondage.

MacAskill's words make this clear: The Government is worried about what you can now see in your own homes, and wants to police it.

"Equally, it is likely that convictions under the new law will require people actually to download images of "extreme" pornography, rather than by viewing websites alone."

This statement is nonsense, since to view images on a website, you have to download the images. The English law has no defence for people who only view websites - and if it was still okay to view "extreme porn" websites, what would be the point of the law?

"involves criminal offences such as rape" - the Government has not found a single example of adult porn involving such criminal offences. But the law covers staged images, and rape role-play is perfectly legal.

"The former lawyer said the maximum penalty for publishing and selling extreme pornography would increase from three to five years." - There is no law on publishing "extreme pornography", the term didn't even exist before England's CJIA 2008. I presume he means the Obscene Publications Act, which covers material that would "deprave and corrupt" those likely to view it.

Clare McGlynn's claim that this is any kind of "compromise" is absurd. If the Government criminalised gay porn, would that be seen as a compromise between those who want all porn banned, and those who don't? We already have more than enough compromise - there are all sorts of restrctions on what sexual material can be published, and where, far more so than any other kind of material. Telling other people what they can make or view in their own bedroom is not a "compromise".

And trying
18

mark1234,

19/01/2009 03:47:24
And trying to compare opposers of this law on adult porn to those who oppose child porn law is an insult.

She claims it will only be the most "extreme" material - yet the Scottish law is clearly stated as going further, and could criminalise a vast range of consensual BDSM material as I explain above. The law does not distinguish between staged or real, consensual or not. People will be criminalised even if they know, and even if it is proven that no one has been harmed in the images that they possess. I don't understand why McGlynn keeps being quoted on this law - she continues to mislead on this law.

I don't know who Susan Smith is - she acknowledges that the images aren't real, but supports the law because she finds the images "horrible"? She concludes there must be real images, based on the popularity of a Google search - even though she notes that the so-called "real" sites are still just fantasy? (It's unclear if Smith does support the law - it's perfectly fine to find material "horrible", whilst not supporting criminalisation.)

"there is clearly a huge market for fantasy rape" - Yes, yes there is. Which is all the more reason why it is mad to criminalise a large proportion of what consenting adults fantasise about.

What on earth does Second Life have to do with this law?

Julian: It isn't true. The English law clearly covers staged acts, and this is the plan for the Scottish law too. The example sites cited by the Government such as "Necrobabes" are all made with consenting adults, in countries such as the UK and US. Supporters just like to scaremonger and mislead about people being harmed in the production - yet they never, ever, produce a single piece of evidence of this.
19

St Caledonia,

19/01/2009 04:57:09
There are some real monsters out there and it is true that anyone who downloads this sort of filth should be dealt with - but I would like to see more being done to track down the owners of these images, videos and sites.
It is like drugs, you can arrest the users, but until you catch the pushers the problem will persist.
20

Haggis MacBagpipes,

Central Canada - ex Perth & Glesca' 19/01/2009 05:22:24
#14-"Chuckles" Linskaill, Edinburgh.
Here in Canada, for nearly two years, the law is that all tobacco products (Cigarettes, Cigars, and Pipe Tobacco)must be hidden in cabinets which if they have clear glass doors the glass must be white-washed from the inside so the tobacco products cannot be seen from the outside. Whomever buys tobacco products can be asked to prove he or she is 21-years of age and in some cities the age can be 25-years.
Servicemen and Women can buy their tobacco products inside their base as long as they are dressed in their uniforms. It is obvious that you don't approve of these rules, but whether you approve or not they are in place to protect children.
Cheers,
"Haggis MacBagpipes™©"
21

me-here,

at work 19/01/2009 05:27:06
This government is a disgrace.
Have they now got specialists who sit on the internet and decide what images the UK citizen can look at?
They should better give out leaflets with the images we are allowed to look at. Yeah, and movies.
By the way, what kind of people look at these rape images?
How many in westminster?
No, no! They don't do that. No no!
22

me-here,

at work 19/01/2009 05:34:02
"disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character"
What is disgusting? Where does it start?
And who decides where it starts?
If a bunch of people in their 70's like to whip each other is that disgusting? If a 80 year old with a 20 year old.... is that disgusting? If two men....?
Who decides that? Some rightwing idiot? A catholic priest?

They should do their job and catch the criminals in the scene and not decide what sort of sex we are allowed to like.
23

For Scotlands Future,

Vote for the SNP 19/01/2009 06:47:21
Who decides just what is "extreme"? They are saying "as long as you don't do anything wrong, then you'll be ok", but who decides what is wrong? Just remember that the SNP and many Labour activists were the subject of MI5 investigations years ago, simply because what they believed in was deemed "wrong" by someone, somewhere. As usual this is a half-@.r.sed Law.

I agree in part with #6. This will not stop the production of such things, only drive it underground.

Soft-Porn is just a young persons "starter pack". Anyone who has viewed porn, if they are honest with themselves, knows that you don't just view one type, you go on to view something just a little bit "harder", and then a little bit "harder". And the make-up of some people are that they will continue on and on until "extreme" is just ordinary.

#20
I have a lot of agreement with what you say. There was a saying a long time ago. "You can do what you want, as long as it doesn't frighten the Horses or Children". Go onto the Internet and try and find Child-Porn and you will see that all search engines and newsgroups have banned it and actively prevent it being published. So as a society, what is more important: the freedom to beat yourself off in front of your computer, or the protection of our children.

Years ago, in the 60's and 70's, those who promoted the legalisation of pornography said it would lead to a more "healthy" society. Well, is society "healthier" that it was in the 60's and 70's??
24

yockel,

19/01/2009 07:01:10
Mr MacAskill said people who mistakenly access extreme pornography, for example by clicking on the wrong computer button, would not be pursued:

That will be right.
An easy conviction to boost the statisitics is never going to be given the go bye.

Kenny and his Socilaist National Party at it again
25

rodfs,

lothian 19/01/2009 07:12:53
People should stop voting for mcaskgill. He does not represent my view, and i would guess also the majority of the people.

What next, extreme sports will be banned, if they want to prevent people being hurt, start in Iraq by pulling out at least our people will stop being hurt/killed, ban the tv news programs showing dead people and people being shot.
26

Russell M,

Stirling 19/01/2009 07:30:07
To view an image on the internet, whether on purpose or by accident, that image is downloaded on to your computer. And no matter how quickly you move on that image probably continues to reside on your computer in some obscure, so called, temporary file. Now do we, the peaceable and law abiding public of Britain, trust the authorities to make the sophisticated and difficult distinction between what is and is not a temporary file on our "Personal" Computer? The same authorities who have rewarded the banking industry for getting us in this current mess. Isn't trust something that is earned?
27

tomi,

19/01/2009 07:35:00
I have no desire for "extreme pornography", but this could be the thin edge of Big Brother's censorship wedge!
The "Thought Police" at work!
28

Unimpressed one,

19/01/2009 07:48:19
Good to see Kenny 'I'm an angry basta*rd' MacAskill getting his priorities right in protected the Scots from violent crime. What a bamstick!
29

Angoos,

Baku, Azerbaijan 19/01/2009 08:23:06
Does this new law only apply to images downloaded from the Internet ? What about DVD's ? Videos ? What about "home made" porn that's stored on a computer as a video file ? Are they all tabboo now ? BIG BROTHER is watching !!!!
30

paulr,

edinburgh 19/01/2009 08:29:06
While I am against rape and sexual violence in its many forms, victims being both women and men, although many of the voices we hear seem to dismiss any suggetion that men can be victims.
It is obvious from this article and the legisalation being railroaded through that as usual the government are bowing to pressure from minority extreme feminist, religious and pro-censorship groups and ignoring the rest of the population.
It is also obvious that ms. brindley must spend an awfull lot of time in the virtual world second life to know it so intimately.
Statements such as
"Mr MacAskill said people who mistakenly access extreme pornography, for example by clicking on the wrong computer button, would not be pursued."
show that mr macaskill lives in his own little fantasy world.
31

Guy Wersh,

Eccy Byde 19/01/2009 08:37:44
What I don't understand is why the people who 'decide' what we can and cannot see (including at the cinema) don't become dribbling, depraved sex maniacs? 'They' tell us that we will be corrupted by images that are not on the 'approved' list after all.

Could it be that there is exactly no undisputed evidence that people are fundamentally changed by images?

32

an interested party,

19/01/2009 08:57:58
in the Victorian era
showing the ankle was 'risky'
showing the knee was 'porn'
and being naked was 'extreme porn'

its subjective
33

US Graham,

Rhode Island 19/01/2009 09:07:13
What these "morality" cops fail to recognize in their own disgust is that they are actually repulsed by their own kind. The fact that the images they described as abhorrant are so prevalent should tell them something about human nature, not just a select few degenerates. This law pre-supposes that there are not women out there who genuinely and consensually enjoy abusive sexual behavior. Where there is consent there is no crime...period.

If McAskill energized a campaign against actual rape and stricter penalties for spousal abuse there might appear to be some semblence of common sense and genuine concern for the populace, but these measures are the same as saying chocolate sweets with creamy centers are banned because they taste too good.
34

Mallory,

Edinburgh 19/01/2009 09:14:32
Does Kenny MacAskill plan to control and charge internet service providers who may have such images in their 'caches'?

Who will decide on the definitions of 'extreme images'?

Sounds like a typical politicians' knee-jerk reaction. I'd agree with the second paragraph comment from #33 above.
35

Ubi,

Edinburgh 19/01/2009 09:38:25
The government is doing what it knows best. Pick on those least able to defend themselves and hammer them disproportionately. As if that would act as a deterrent.

Meanwhile the producers, distributors and all who profit from this objectionable material will be free to operate without restraint.

Government of the people by the people for the people? Make me laugh.
36

Freshford Fresh,

JJJ 19/01/2009 09:43:12
#10 Deeside. "Next we will be having our bedrooms bugged to make sure that we don't do anything other than the missionary position."

Laughed out loud at this, totally agree with you though.

Considering the sexploits of a large number of our right honourable 'members' this should make for some very intersting tabloid reading in the future.

I wonder how many MSPs exercised their parliamentary privilege to research the finer details of this bill.
37

Donnie Murdo,

Western Isles 19/01/2009 09:47:50
Since this will be a "virtual" crime, I'm assuming that they will send "virtual" police, put you in "virtual" prison and hand out a "virtual" fines?

The police can't even police the laws that have been recently introduced such as the ban on mobiles while driving and smoking in works vehicles so how are they going to police this?

I'd rather they policed the things that people want. Simple things like rape, murder, muggings, theft, vandalism and other crimes against society.
38

Lianachan,

Highlands 19/01/2009 09:50:37
"Obscence" is like "beauty", in that it is in the eye of the beholder. It's incredibly subjective.
39

Andrew Scalloway,

Stirling 19/01/2009 09:52:26
Why restrict it to just the internet, what about literature? The Marquis de Sade had a good line in depraved imagination. It is not government's job to decide for us what we should read or view or enjoy. It is another example of the nanny state interfering. Where is the line to be drawn? Who decides what is acceptable? Is gay sex ok? Or is it only to be officially sanctioned sex? MacAskill ought to have fun deciding what is, or what is not, appropriate for the Scottish people! What does he think about analsex, golden showers, come on Kenny we demand to know. We don't want to break the law. It ought to make for an interesting debate in Holyood when the parameters of this moral crusade are discussed!
40

Jacqueline Hyde ,

On the shelf 19/01/2009 10:01:02
Once upon a time, it was illegal to produce or publish "offensive" or salacious material or to sell it. This censorship was often attacked as being repressive and against freedom of expression and, as a result of changing public and social values, has been relaxed to the point where it has virtually disappeared. Now, the thought police are turning to making it a criminal offence to view material - even though it is widely and apparently legally available.

Similarly it is an offence to download music, games, etc without licence even though, again, this material is also widely and apparently legally available.

This is an excessive and wholly misguided abuse of the law.

By all means, go after those that upload unacceptable or illegitimate material on the internet and also prosecute those that advertise on such websites. It is relatively straightforward to prevent the websites - once identified - from being accessible in, say, the UK and it only requires a reasonable level of international co-operation to render the websites unprofitable. Only a relative handful of publishers are needed to produce material that is viewed by tens of millions of people so it is surely more logical to prosecute the criminal few and not the telatively innocent multitudes.

I, too, agree with much of #33.
41

Curious Yellow,

Edinburgh 19/01/2009 10:01:43
Finlang - "More hysterical on-the-hoof lawmaking by the one-man battering ram who will surely and single-handedly guide the SNP into a fatal car crash. MacAskill is a proven dunce. A supreme embarrassment of a politician"

Never a truer word.......

The man's a balloon.
42

Isonomia,

Lenzie 19/01/2009 10:05:58
This is rediculous. I was looking for a picture to illustrate and article about way plants when damaged grow up shoots through the soil.

I searched for images of "suckers" and then realised my mistake. Technically I have downloaded the images simply by seeing them on a webpage.

Of course the police wouldn't care two hoots whether the download were intentional or coincidental, because they will get their number of arrests for that week. So I've no doubt that a lot of innocent people will be investigated, charged and probably prosecuted simply for using the internet.

Moreover, the ease with which the police could simply plant images on a PC is mind blowing. Put simply, it would be almost impossible to defend yourself against a charge of downloading porn if that porn had been placed on the PC by the police themselves.

Two things are necessary to protect the innocent:

1. The law must require the police to prove intention to download.
2. The law must describe in sufficient clarity what is and what is not covered as otherwise almost anything from muslim showing of ankles to undescrible behaviour may/may not be covered.
43

oder,

Scotland 19/01/2009 10:13:43
and which jails will they be kept in? the ones we have are already full to capacity, and we are not building new ones! shall we release more serious offenders to make way for people who look at "dirty" pictures
will be interesting to see how this will work!`
44

Miss H,

19/01/2009 10:15:42
39 I think the issue is whether it is shown as consensual.

If it’s consensual you can do anything you like but forced sex is a crime.

I think that’s the way most people would see it.

At the end of the say if people here want to say it is OK to download images of young girls being raped they should say that, not bring in issues about gay sex, golden showers etc.

It’s not the specific activity, it’s whether it portrays rape.
45

Miss H,

19/01/2009 10:17:25
6 All people should be free to view whatever they want?

Child porn?




46

The Glasgow Ranger,

Edinburgh 19/01/2009 10:39:47
#42 - willing to share the website addresses you "stumbled upon"?
47

Peekay,

19/01/2009 10:41:57
It's payback time to Souter for the investment he made at the last election.
48

ultravires,

Edinburgh 19/01/2009 10:44:26
Oh well then, Mr MacAskill, as a 'former lawyer' (chuckle) will have to ban this bunch of people too, despite it containing lots of lawyers as members :
http://openscotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/04/24111914/38

Simulated r*ape clubs etc mostly populated by, yes, lawyers, doctors, teachers, Policemen & the like don't really have a place in our society, do they Kenny ?

Actually, come to think of it, what would parents of children or clients of lawyers or a victim of a sex crime have to say about their 'trusted' professional when the find out they are into some of that ?
49

Kipling,

19/01/2009 10:45:48
Sounds like everyone is bored or frustrated enough to get their satisfaction second-hand from the internet.

Who are the kinds of people, particularly women, who enjoy having pictures taken of them as victims of sexual violence for display on the internet (or in any other medium). Abused-as-children women? Alcoholic women? Drug dependent women? Women whose self-esteem comes from indulging in largely male fantasies and obeying probably largely male photographers ?

The only explicit pornography I saw, a sequence stored by someone else on an internet cafe computer a long time ago (and with an innocent label), before these laws came in, certainly did not look as if the woman was freely enacting her positions for the photographer, and this wasn't even a sequence depicting rape, or so it seemed within camera view.

From the comments above, there's obviously no future Alexander Bell or John Logie Baird or another name that is going to show that beavering away in Scotland late into the evenings are the future inventors, composers, writers, film makers, and nobel prize winners. I get the picture of a load of junk heads whose idea about freedom of communication, expression, and freedom to communicate and express are located not simply on page 3 of the 'Sun' but in the images and play-acting of VIOLENCE of whatever mode.

Sure, the ways of implementing this are controversial. The law seems to result from a failure to locate or prevent the web sites themselves. But isn't this how all campaigns work? If you can't stop dolphin killing, try to stop people eating dead dolphins and the former might result. Or if you can't stop the drug dealers, stop people taking the drugs by criminalising this and that'll reduce the drug runs, etc. It has nothing to do with freedom of expression or freedom to watch what you like, this is expressive material which has no other objective other than to give people pleasure in violent sex. Possibly a badly written law but I can see its obj
50

Kipling,

19/01/2009 10:46:07
Possibly a badly written law but I can see its objective as clearly to do with trying to prevent the 'bestialisation' of people who are crammed into a small environment, the earth, and whose sexual priorities involve exploiting vulnerability.
51

moralpanix,

19/01/2009 11:04:06
Yes this stuff can be very graphic and shocking.
Yes children should be protected from it.
No, none of it is of real injury. Or at least, if any is, Mr McAskill or anyone else CANNOT GIVE US A SINGLE EXAMPLE.
No, it does not cause those who view it to be more likely to commit crime. All the real credible evidence points the other way.

Degrading? Yes, in a sense. Those who see this as men oppressing women should find out the number of women who are against this law, and read why.

Laws are made to prevent harm. For reasons above and many that others mentioned here, this one will cause harm.

Not least to the SNP and the English Labour party, who probably still fondly imagine this sort of thing will GAIN them votes.

Politicians live in an isolated community and tend to think what they collectively say must be right, if they say and hear it enough times. Only this can explain the huge disparity between what they they say and appear to believe about this, and what the informed public think.

I hope the writer has gauged public opinion in these comments, and now realises that a balanced article was not what we wrote.
52

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 19/01/2009 11:09:56
Here goes MacAskill on yet another one of his stupid crusades.

For a start, how are you supposed to tell if a picture depicts a real non-consensual rape as opposed to something that has been staged? Unless you can make that distinction, MacAskill's proposals make no sense.

Once again, we have MacAskill trying to sweep away yet more of our rights and freedoms with his non-sensical ideas.

As far as I am aware, they cannot even eradicate child pornography from the web, despite it being illegal almost all over the world. What hope does MacAskill have of being able to enforce his daft ideas? Presumably he plans to monitor everyone's internet connection and have a team of "operatives" with powers to break down your door and sieze your computer?

It is about time MacAskill was sacked. He is an embarrassment to Scotland.

53

ultravires,

Edinburgh 19/01/2009 11:13:29
#52

He can't be sacked otherwise he will chuck his toys out the pram and vote down the govt hence the reason why none of the paid SNP forum stalkers support him much.I hear he's considered a bigger threat to his own party than the opposition !

and I wonder how he gets round issuing licenses to simulated r*pe clubs full of lawyers while drafting up proposals like this ?
54

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 19/01/2009 11:18:30
#30:

"Mr MacAskill said people who mistakenly access extreme pornography, for example by clicking on the wrong computer button, would not be pursued."
show that mr macaskill lives in his own little fantasy world.

Not only that, from the remark above it proves that he knows nothing about either computers, the web, human nature or tactics used by people to cover their tracks.

Just like his stupid ideas about selling knives in DIY stores, this is a patently stupid proposal, based upon fiction and utterly un-enforceable, as well as being needless.
55

daveserviceman,

edinburgh 19/01/2009 11:21:36
Well kenny your lot know there own tricks best, has anyone thought of challenging this in the court of human rights under the UN Charter Freedom of speech and expression Freedom of communication which includes the right to watch and read what you want, and also the right to privacy. anyone of those lot come bursting into my bedroom to see what my wife and I are doing will feel the sharp edge of my Naval Cutless, I do feel that it will be worthwhile moving to North Korea they have more freedom there than we do here.
56

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 19/01/2009 11:27:01
#26:

"And no matter how quickly you move on that image probably continues to reside on your computer in some obscure, so called, temporary file."

Quite. Without going into long and (to many) very boring details, even very basic computer forensics can take an inordinate amount of manpower, time and skill in order to produce evidence of the quality required for a sucessful prosecution. That is one of the reasons why it can take a very long time to get child pornography suspects into court.

MacAskill just simply doesn't understand the cost in time and money of trying to expand the computer forensics net to encompass downloaders of hard porn.
57

Hugh Roscombe,

19/01/2009 11:31:29
The SNP has now lost the w­ankers's vote.
58

moralpanix,

19/01/2009 11:31:41
Kipling wrote in #49
"Who are the kinds of people, particularly women, who enjoy having pictures taken of them as victims of sexual violence for display on the internet (or in any other medium). Abused-as-children women? Alcoholic women? Drug dependent women? Women whose self-esteem comes from indulging in largely male fantasies and obeying probably largely male photographers?"

Not particularly women. I'm told there is more material of men being dominated etc by women than the other way round.
Abused-as-children women? Some. Some find the fantasy therapeutic. Don't ask me why, ask them. But as far as I can see, abuse victims seem to figure in the BDSM world (as close a match as I can find to 'who enjoy having pictures taken...') about as often as in the general public.
Alcoholic women? Drug dependent women? Well, certainly there are some such in prostitution, but I think you'll find that this is less the case in porn and much less in 'extreme' porn, where the performers come from a self-selected group of enthusiasts.
Women whose self-esteem...? Well, maybe you're right here. Certainly many who perform in this material have high self-esteem. If you met sexually submissive men and women you'd find that in real life they are the most opinionated and least door-mat-like group you could ever hope to meet. If they were using it as therapy for something, it seems to work!
59

Hugh Roscombe,

19/01/2009 11:31:49
Sorry for the typo.
60

blair,

North Berwick 19/01/2009 11:36:17
I understand it is possible to download the film "Caligula" starring Peter O'Toole and Dame Helen Mirren. I understand that this film shows scenes of child abuse, rape, sex,and murder. I await with interest the issue of instructions for the arrest of the stars as well as anyone who has downloaded the film.
61

ultravires,

Edinburgh 19/01/2009 11:45:56
#57

not at all,it was that crowd which voted them in and will continue to do so regrdless!
62

Fairfax,

19/01/2009 11:49:40
Miss H (44): "If it’s consensual you can do anything you like but forced sex is a crime."

I find the depiction of rape distasteful also, but cannot accept your argument. After all, murder and torture are also crimes, but are not, presumably, included in this law. To take one example, the films Hostel and Hostel II depict wealthy clients paying to torture abducted tourists. Whilst the market for such films disturbs me, I would object to laws banning them.

63

Observer,,

Glasgow 19/01/2009 11:59:20
60 that is just a silly comment, no one is proposing that people should be arrested for viewing mainstream movies or even mainstream porn. There is some very nasty stuff out there that I don't think you can stumble on by accident,it's like child porn - you need to look for it (for the avoidance of doubt it was a polis who told me that ). I don't think we need any more laws to deal with this Mccaskill is far too fond of passing laws, the kind of stuff we are talking about is probably criminal in all sorts of ways, the people who view it could be charged as accessories if the stuff is bad enough.
64

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 19/01/2009 12:14:46
Supposedly this is the most depressing day of the year and this headlined story just adds to the gloom.

Is it sensationalism to have it on the front page of The Scotsman in order to sell copies or is it, as some have eloquently argued, a matter of personal choice and freedoms?

Couldn't we have had a nice, innocuous newsitem about wildlife or architecture or anything but this to start our workweek? Sigh.
65

mark1234,

19/01/2009 12:16:48
Miss H: "If it’s consensual you can do anything you like but forced sex is a crime."

But pretending to have forced sex is consensual, and not a crime. That's what you are missing: the law is just about what an image looks like, not what actually happened. And there are other aspects to the bill, not just portraying rape. So comparisons to gay sex etc are most certainly valid. Trying to compare to child porn is misleading and insulting: child porn is not made with consenting adults.

Observer: It's not a silly comment - the law makes no exemption for images taken from mainstream films. What is this "nasty stuff" you speak of? And whether or not the images are "mainstream" - are you seriously suggesting it's okay to criminalise images of consenting adults, so long as they're not mainstream?

And again - comparing people to viewing child porn is outright offensive.

Angoos: "What about DVD's ? Videos ? What about "home made" porn that's stored on a computer as a video file ? Are they all tabboo now ?"

These are all covered - and note that MacAskill specifically says "sites and DVDs". With the English law, "classified works" are exempt, but a screenshot from that same legal film can still be illegal! Basically, the only way to be sure your home made porn is to submit it to the BBFC for approval...

me-here: "By the way, what kind of people look at these rape images? How many in westminster?"

Yes indeed - when debating this law, Lord Hunt talked of images at Charing Cross police station ( http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2008-04-21a.1336.2 ). So evidently the police already have examples of these images. But despite it being okay for them to look at these images, they refused to allow anyone else to attend to see these images (which would have been useful, to see exactly what they planned to criminalise, since they refuse to give us much detail at all).

If you or I look at such images, we evidently need to be locked up, because the mere act of
66

mark1234,

19/01/2009 12:17:43
If you or I look at such images, we evidently need to be locked up, because the mere act of looking supposedly turns us into violent criminals. But for some reason, this doesn't apply to Lord Hunt, the policemen (nor the IWF, or the BBFC, come to that).


[Is there a bug on this website? - My posts keep getting truncated...]
67

Dunfesterin,

19/01/2009 12:24:42
Yay! Well done the SNP, you are becoming just as control-freakery as your brothers down South.

You have just cost yourself my vote.

What next? Content filtering like China and (soon to be) in Australia?

I voted for you last election, I won't vote for you again - when I want to be treated like a child, I'll ask you first.

Oh, and how are you supposed to tell from a pornographic image that sex is forced?? By how open her mooth is??

DUNCES
68

The Glasgow Ranger,

Edinburgh. 19/01/2009 12:36:29
What about extreme porn for ones own consumption?,where would the law sit on this one?
69

Allan(handofgod137),

19/01/2009 12:40:22
Another failure from the gnats, the economy's going down the tubes, the banks are failing and the housing markets crashing. Talk about fiddling while rome burns.
70

Kipling,

19/01/2009 12:50:01
58 moralpanix,19/01/2009. And your evidence for what you say ? I don't think you have any as a 51% likelihood even. There may well be gay/male rape material on the internet, but that's the only comment which rings true. You sound very like those who think if a young girl dresses and makes up like an adult female it somehow indicates she has the same sexual desires. One of the problems with police and prostitutes, not unrelated to this, is that a prostitute reporting a rape or violence will get put very low on the priority list. Why ? because the police think she will have asked for it (in more ways than the most obvious).

I'm not in favour of complete censorship, and as indicated above, how do you tell what is real/not real or how do you implement McAskill's extras without obliterating civil rights to privacy, but I find it difficult to see a film made in the last 10 years which isn't dominated by either sex, sexual violence, or blood and gore violence. None of this is creative, it is simply to appeal to shrunken mesmerised brains with reduced literary capacity, and it exists to make money by appealing to the worst in 'human nature' ie, the boredom of present day leisure life. However, the difference between films like Caligula and web porn is that we KNOW or have access to knowing that those participating in distributed films are not suffering the actual abuses. WE DON'T KNOW the situation behind violent web porn, nor the level of consent involved.
71

Brodric,

19/01/2009 13:00:22
I feel very uncomfortable about the idea of trying to make a law out of this one.

Some people have colourful fantasy lives - but they would never dream of living them out in real life. Virtual fantasy is merely an extension of this.

And the uncomfortable fact for the morality brigade is that some people enjoy a bit of rough play during sex. You can't legislate against two consenting adults. That some people are happy to portray this rough play on video is not something that I would be interested in seeing; but most people who do watch this kind of stuff are not about to go out and commit sexual misdemeanours or crimes.

I am totally against these reality-type videos where people are actually harmed. This should be the target for the police. If these are not made, or are unable to be viewed, is a much better option than trying to catch all these who view them - and in the process pick up the many who accidentally download when looking for something innocent.
72

Brodric,

19/01/2009 13:04:40
The fact that the perpetrators of all that is bad on the net are not being targeted is proof positive that it is almost impossible to police the net.

We created this beast, didn't give it any parameters, and the result is a web so intricate that we can't manage it, and the content of which is often unreliable, untrue, defamatory, and with a tendency to operate at the lowest common denominator.

Who would like to pull the plug?
73

watcher,

Edinburgh 19/01/2009 13:26:09
Jail for Pedo`s, unless of course you are an SNP Primary teacher from Whitecraig. The laws an ass.
74

Observer,,

Glasgow 19/01/2009 13:28:04
65 In the real world a lot of porn isn't made with consenting adults , unless you call drugged up junkies being gang raped to pay off a debt consenting. Or sex-slaves smuggled in by gang masters being subjected to worse. Sorry to burst your bubble but that's the kind of material McCaskill is probably talking about.

However in my view the behaviour is criminal in itself and that should be enough to charge anyone who watches it as an accessory.

The comparison with child porn is entirely relevant. Child porn is not a victimless crime, and neither is exploitative extreme porn either. If there wasn't a market for it, it wouldn't be made.
75

moralpanix,

19/01/2009 13:40:10
Kipling #71 and Observer #75
How do you tell what is real? You're suggesting that someone is compelled to perform in acts that involve rape or injury, serious crimes in any country. A detailed record of the crime is made, clearly identifying the victim. It is published widely, and thousands of others are too. NONE of the victims is EVER IDENTIFIED from the published images. Now you tell me what doesn't ring true.

I'm not suggesting that real evil doesn't exist. But I am saying that what you would consider to be 'extreme porn' is something different. In the US where most of this is made, the performers are known, are often involved in real-life and online communities, chat in chatrooms, have Facebook pages. Likewise with submissives. Find them. Read them. They are real, and they are not victims.

76

Andrew Scalloway,

Stirling 19/01/2009 13:47:45
Miss H I agree that the intent is to ban only non-consensual porn. However, how do the powers that be decide whether an action on film is consensual or not? The default position will be that the government will decide what activities by their very nature are non-consensual. Namely those acts that they deem beyond the pale of normal activity. So they will poke their noses in and all sorts of things will be banned. Kinky, rude, fun things that people indulge in to spice up their sex lives. Keep the government out of our sex lives.
77

Kipling,

19/01/2009 13:50:03
#65-66, mark1234.
No bug, just that the alphanumerical field allotted to each posting only runs to a certain number of characters.

One of the reasons for distributed films containing so much violence and sex is that the committee viewing them has been corrupted ! Not unrelated, but a readable literary work, read 'The golden age of censorship' by Paul Hoffman for a fictional account by someone who, I think, worked in real life for the british board of film censors. See
http://www.timeout.com/london/books/review/book/412/the_golden_age_of_censorship_by_paul_hoffman.html
78

Observer,,

Glasgow 19/01/2009 13:52:02
76 A few years ago I worked as part of a team who were working to get prostitutes off the streets and into housing/employment. I got to know quite a few of the girls quite well. I know these things happen because they told me. Any cop will also tell you the same. Do you honestly think that the government want to legislate for this because they want to stop people watching consensual sex ? That's so silly it's laughable. But there are people, mainly women, being forced into doing things which are unacceptable in a civilised country. Ask yourself what could have prompted this legislation (which I have said I don't agree with) moral prudery or knowledge of the things that go on behind closed doors that most (decent) people don't know anything about.
79

GM,

19/01/2009 13:52:42
@75 Observer


Funniest and most hysterical post on this story so far -

"In the real world a lot of porn isn't made with consenting adults"

Proof Please. Given the sheer volume of porn on the internet I would find it hard to believe that more than 0.00000001% of it is as you describe above.


------------------------------------------------------


"drugged up junkies being gang raped to pay off a debt consenting. Or sex-slaves smuggled in by gang masters being subjected to worse"

hahahahaha - thats right... every day thousands, no millions of drug addicts are forced into porn, together with train and planeloads of sex slaves...
I suggest you go away and do some research - particularly about the *real* volume of the sex-slave trade in the UK. From memory, a handfull of cases have ever been investigated and proven in this country.


so, in order to prevent a tiny, tiny, fraction of a thing from heppening, lets just nail the whole population with a law thats unrealistic, unenforceable, not required, hysterical and a complete over-reaction... oh yeh, just like your post at 75.
80

Kipling,

19/01/2009 13:56:16
76 moralpanix. Are you saying that this applies to all those appearing in this kind of download ? Your responses are too much 100%. I'd wager there is a seething swamp of stuff, password / debit card only, which IS NOT by identifiable individuals. It would be an interesting exercise to match up the faces of missing women and children with those in the videos, unless pixellated out.
81

IainGlasgow,

19/01/2009 13:57:58
Alot more could be done by internet service providers to prevent access to this type of material, perhaps by verifiying that the website has some kind of internationally recognised licence to publish this type of material. If they could face indictment as accessories to the distribution of this type of material if it is downloaded through their services they might be more responsive. The technology to do it exists. It is used in China to block internet access to anything the Communist Party doesn't approve of and even here by corporate networks to restrict use of social networking and web-based e-mail sites.

I think also it is time for far greater regulation of the distribution of "mainstream" pornography and certainly for all publishers to require a licence.

Is it appropriate in the 21st century that newspapers like the Sun or the Sport (both available for purchase by under 18s) can still print frontal nudity images?
82

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 19/01/2009 13:58:41
"Or sex-slaves smuggled in by gang masters being subjected to worse. Sorry to burst your bubble but that's the kind of material McCaskill is probably talking about."

And precisely how are you going to distinguish, by simply looking at a picture, the circumstances surrounding it's production? You can't. Plain and simple.

So let's take this a stage further then... Police intelligence locates a source of such images. Images from this source are then deemed to be "illegal" under MacAskill's new law, whilst ones with similar content are deemed "legal" because there is no evidence to suggest that they are anything other than consensual.

Five years down the line, (pictures tend to hang around for quite some time on the internet) someone visits an on-topic web site and downloads some pictures from said source without being any the wiser. The thought police get wind of this and knock the door down at 3am one morning. Next thing you know, the poor bloke (or woman) gets sent to prison for posessing this material, even though they had no possible way of knowing that they had downloaded some illegal material alongside the legal material.

This scheme has all the trademarks of MacAskill... Not thought through, a knee-jerk, unworkable, will not address the issue in hand, will target the innocent.

If there is a problem with sexual slavery, address that problem using existing laws. Let's no invent a whole raft of new ones to criminalise the innocent shall we?

Christ! MacAskill must be a lawyer's nightmare! Imagine trying to draft laws around some of the things he comes out with!
83

IainGlasgow,

19/01/2009 13:59:23
#82

Further to my last post I meant websites should be licenced to produce mainstream pornography vis a vis ISP vetting
84

Miss H,

19/01/2009 14:00:54
62 You can be jailed for downloading images of torture and murder – look at that boy from Clackmannanshire, I forget his name. He got eight years as I recall.

65: That depends how you define child porn. You can get a young-looking 18 year old, shave off all their body hair and successfully produce an image of a 10 or 11 year old being raped. Just a bit of fun?

In a way this story is quite misleading because really it is not about introducing new restrictions but about bringing the law on internet porn into line with the law on printed porn.

I agree the internet is much more difficult to police than the sale of printed porn but that is not actually a reason for not doing anything.

85

Kipling,

19/01/2009 14:01:28
Sorry, should not have read as if 'missing children'. Is there a team that tries to identify these women and/or children and check out the worst scenario for the former and any sex/violence/psychological control scenario for the latter ?
86

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 19/01/2009 14:04:00
"It is used in China to block internet access to anything the Communist Party doesn't approve of..."

So, go live in China then. I'm sure the government would be only too happy to do your thinking for you.

"...and even here by corporate networks to restrict use of social networking and web-based e-mail sites."

Which is done for many good reasons, which are obvious. A company is under no obligation to provide you with internet access at all, therefore it has the right to restrict the content available if it so wishes.

"I think also it is time for far greater regulation of the distribution of "mainstream" pornography and certainly for all publishers to require a licence."

Why? If you don't want to buy it, don't buy it. If you know that a shop has it on sale and don't wish to see it, don't use that shop.

"Is it appropriate in the 21st century that newspapers like the Sun or the Sport (both available for purchase by under 18s) can still print frontal nudity images?"

For a start, they don't print "full frontals", secondly, if you don't like it, don't buy the Sun. simple, isn't it?
87

Few Against Many,

19/01/2009 14:04:52
As a big fan of 'Ghetto Gaggers' this news troubles me.
88

Few Against Many,

19/01/2009 14:16:23
Also look at the seedy picture the Scotsman has used for this article. You must be a fiend if you are wearing sunglasses indoors to look at porn!

Every man in the world rubs one out occasionally. How they do it should be up to them.
89

moralpanix,

19/01/2009 14:20:29
Observer #75
"I got to know quite a few of the girls quite well. I know these things happen because they told me"
So how many resulted in prosecution? You did tell the police to look for the evidence on the internet, didn't you?

Trafficking in prostitution does exist of course, and is serious though mercifully uncommon. According to sex workers' organisations, it's a fraction of one percent of prostitutes, not the 80% that some politicians are saying.

Maybe I'm not being clear enough. You say these things exist in 'extreme porn'. Well then, GIVE ONE REAL EXAMPLE. One real person, one real image they were forced to appear in.

This goes for all of you who claim these things. Put up or shut up. How dare you criminalise up to a million Brits on no evidence?
90

Miss H,

19/01/2009 14:25:19
91 A million Brits get their jollies drooling over stuff like bestiality, rape, necrophilia?

You alarm me!
91

Few Against Many,

19/01/2009 14:34:35
92, there is a very real danger that rough sex and rape may be confused. Pornstars are mostly paid, the sit down interviews at the start of most of humiliation movies lets you know that the girls know what’s in store for them. Some of them appear to get there jollies out of it as well.

If you have never seen any of this kind of thing you shouldn’t really be trying to pass a strong opinion on it. I have never baked a cake so would never try and pass a strong argumentative opinion on the best way to do it.

Also if you can find any necrophilia on the net can you post a link? I feel you have a penchant for the dramatic my dear!
92

moralpanix,

19/01/2009 14:38:03
Kipling #81
"Are you saying that this applies to all those appearing in this kind of download ? Your responses are too much 100%. I'd wager there is a seething swamp of stuff, password / debit card only, which IS NOT by identifiable individuals. It would be an interesting exercise to match up the faces of missing women and children with those in the videos, unless pixellated out."

I don't know of such porn being pixellated. Anything I've seen that might qualify hasn't been. That's because it would have been made in the US and other countries where it's legal. In the US there are federal laws under which every sexually explicit website must give the address of the attorney who holds the details (identification, age, other appearances) of all performers.

I'm not saying that nothing evil of this sort could exist. But I am saying that it must be very rare indeed. I find it a little surprising too, but we're looking at facts, not "what I'd have thought".

As you say, it would be an interesting exercise to match up the faces of missing women and children. In the case of child porn, over 800 abused children have been rescued in just this way, by being identified from published images. For "extreme porn", there are none. I know child porn gets more attention and more resources, but if there was real evidence of serious crime, don't you think the police would be investigating it already?
93

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

19/01/2009 14:52:34
The lunatics seem to have taken over the Holyrood asuylum. Film of a fictional rape scene is no more a rape than a cowboy being shot on TV is murder. Someone needs to get MacAskill the treatment he so badly needs and the government needs to have the police deal with real sex crimes, not imaginary ones.
94

moralpanix,

19/01/2009 14:59:43
"A million Brits get their jollies drooling over stuff like bestiality, rape, necrophilia? You alarm me!"

Don't be alarmed Miss H. I don't know about necrophilia, though there's a lot of gothy 'play-dead' stuff that might get caught. One of the problems as you'll have read is that this does or could cover so much more than the things you seem to have in mind. There seems to be a market for bestiality, and I'm not happy with an activity that most would agree was non-consensual and abusive.

Rape? Well, I'm sure well over a million people fantasise about rape, generally about being raped. If this alarms you, just think that this will include dozens of people you know. None of whom are either rapists or self-destructive in any way. If they look exactly like normal human beings, maybe that's because they are. Fantasy is common, and fantasy is ideal for what you wouldn't want to do in practice. If it wasn't we'd see a lot more sex crime.
95

Neale,

Edinburgh 19/01/2009 15:51:36
It’s all been said above - who actually decides what is and what is not Porn, let alone what is offensive? This is yet another mess in the brew pot. How can they make this work and is it just the start of a new wing of government and bureaucracy and cost to benefit no one.

Any money spent on this would be much better spent in the real world. On catching more real rapists and also on gaining a far higher conviction rate of these real rapists, because they do exist in our living breathing community, unlike the cyber world.
96

argonaut,

east lothian 19/01/2009 15:55:10
scary how clueless some ppl are, all the real dodgy stuff are traded peer to peer or on private forums. impossible to stop and only a headcase would store anything dodgy on their hard drive, anything you dont want ppl to see are kept on an external hidden hard drive or media. most of those rape sites exist to make doe from stupid ppl or infect your pc with mal / spy ware. this new law will change nothing, as long as pc's exist and can communicate with other pc's you cannot stop any of this.
97

Observer,,

Glasgow 19/01/2009 16:16:27
99 Yes you are right. This kind of stuff isn't found by surfing the net. That is the point that I made earlier. It's a very small ''corner'' of the market and very few people are interested in it. That's why I don't think this legislation is either necessary or would be effective. I think Police should use the powers they already have to arrest the makers of these films for the criminal acts they commit when they make them.
98

Observer,,

Glasgow 19/01/2009 16:22:13
80 where did I suggest that kind of porn is on the internet ? It might be there but you would have to look for it as I said in 63. We are not talking about mainstream or even hardcore porn here. They feature people who are willing to perform. The fact that you dismiss the possibility that people, mainly women, can be forced into things or raped on camera by criminal operaters suggests that you are a tad naive.
99

Observer,,

Glasgow 19/01/2009 16:24:21
83 I agree with you sexual slavery and the filming of such should be tackled using existing laws. But people should not deny that it happens. There is some porn which is unacceptable in a civilised society, no matter how libertarian we may be.
100

Observer,,

Glasgow 19/01/2009 16:26:42
91 What do you want- a name? an address ? Your denial that this kind of thing can happen is interesting. I wonder what lies behind it.
101

moralpanix,

19/01/2009 16:31:53
Observer #101
"The fact that you dismiss the possibility that people, mainly women, can be forced into things or raped on camera by criminal operaters suggests that you are a tad naive."

and the fact you're repeating your allegations having ignored my direct challenge to justify them suggests you're a tad at risk of making a laughing stock of yourself.
102

moralpanix,

19/01/2009 16:46:49
OK sorry, I crossed with your reply. No, I don't want a real name or address, neither do I expect you to post up the images. I do want real individual case histories. You and others come over like the priceless English MP Martin Salter and his claims that snuff films really exist. The best he can do to justify them is to say "Oh, Mexico, Guatemala, Florida", as if these are people's names, not just places where he seems to imagine such things might be made.

Do you really think that the anti-porn Dworkinite feminists and the US religious right wouldn't be shouting it out if they had a case of a real person this had happened to?

I don't deny that this sort of thing could happen. As I've said, I'm a bit surprised that it doesn't, or very rarely. I'm talking about what's at issue about here, real rape, injury or worse carried out on a nonconsenting victim.

I have heard of some unscrupulous and manipulative practices in the porn world (and deplore them), but not of unquestionably serious crime.
103

Frobnitz,

EDINBURGH 19/01/2009 16:54:20
To quote the powers that be (from the Register):-

"It is possible that this exemplifies that category mentioned by Lord Hunt in summing up on extreme porn: people whom the police would like to "do something about", but who haven’t actually broken any laws."

Marvellous, eh? And remember, it covers manga and hentai as well now :)
104

Observer,,

Glasgow 19/01/2009 16:54:54
104 I am tired of you. When McCaskill talks about banning material which is ''frankly horrific and involves the criminal offence of rape'' he is being accurate. To depict rape is not a criminal offence, to commit it for real is. Why do you think they want to bring this (flawed) legislation in ?

I don't think you need to worry, you are obviously a big fan of porn, you will still be able to get your end away watching it. Because the vast majority of it is harmless, no matter what it depicts, it isn't for real. It's the very small amount of real stuff that this debate should be about.
105

moralpanix,

19/01/2009 17:09:32
Observer #107
McCaskill will ban the depiction so if I was a big fan of porn, I couldn't get my end away watching it. If it was only known images of real crime the situation would be different. As it is I could know an image of the type to be banned was consensual and fake. I could have taken it myself, of people I know well. I'd still go to jail for it.

But this is drifting off the argument. My challenge stands.
106

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 19/01/2009 17:23:12
#107:

"It's the very small amount of real stuff that this debate should be about."

What? You mean the small amount for which adequate laws already exist to address?

Let's face it, unless your name is "swirl man" you are not likely to take pictures of you or any of your mates committing a serious offence, nor are you likely to allow such photos to be taken.

Because of this, it is unlikely that much of the truely illegal stuff exists in the first place. Yet again, MacAskill has scored another own goal and demonstrated his lack of general knowledge and understanding.

Put it this way, I wouldn't be overly surprised if this whole thing was quietly forgotten about---in the same way that it looks as though 21 year age restrictions on alcohol, separate isles and minimum pricing has been.
107

Observer,,

Glasgow 19/01/2009 17:26:57
109 That's what I said in my original post that I didn't think legislation was needed, we should use the laws we already have to deal with anyone who commits a crime in the course of making a film. But at least McCaskill acknowledges there is a problem, that's more than a lot of people do.
108

Miss H,

19/01/2009 17:44:53
96 But what it covers is the stuff that is already covered by law when it takes the form of printed material. We have regulation of printed porn but internet porn seems to be pretty much unregulated.

I can understand some of the civil liberties objections, but at the end of the day the internet is going to become more subject to regulation though it will probably be an incremental process that takes many years or even decades and will never be completely effective. But you could say the same about any laws.

Having said that, although I have some respect for the civil liberties argument, to argue as some have that introducing laws would be difficult so let’s not bother is not an argument I would ever accept.
109

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 19/01/2009 18:00:47
True enough, MacAskill has acknowledged the problem. Now, if he'd said that as Justice Secretary he was going to provide some or other resource to the police to ensure that none of this material would ever be made in Scotland, then I would applaud him. However, as usual, his ideas are all about hitting the innocent and are in any case, un-workable as has already been explained.

#111:

Whilst it is reasonably easy to police laws concerning printed material, policing the internet is a completely different matter. In fact, I believe that laws already exist regarding normal home users but they are not enforced because of the impracticality of doing so.

The laws to which I refer concern the transmission of pornographic and/or objectionable material via a public telephone system. Seeing as almost every domestic internet connection routes through a public telephone system at some point or other, if any of us downloads pornographic material then we are guilty of an offence.

As I say, the law is not enforced because the sheer magnitude of non-compliance would make the speed camera revenue-raising project look like standing outside Tesco with a charity box. The only other course of action would be to try to prevent people from breaking the law.

As has been mentioned, this could be dne by use of content filtering. However, if this was to be done, then the civil liberties people would rightly be up in arms. Asside from that, it is a simple matter to hook up a proxy server to get round most attempts at filtering.
110

ultravires,

Edinburgh 19/01/2009 18:23:09
It seems the SNP forum hacks have decided to leave their beloved colleague MacAskill to twist in the wind, or are they just too busy downloading porn before the ban comes in ?

Anyway, as I said before, a ban would have intriguing implications for many of Mr MacAskill's own former legal colleagues, who themselves seem addicted to the stuff.
111

Hugh Roscombe,

19/01/2009 18:46:23
"A million Brits get their jollies drooling over stuff like bestiality, rape, necrophilia"

I think you're flogging a dead horse.
112

AbandonAllHope,

19/01/2009 19:23:53
I can kinda get the bit about -

(d) a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive)

Specially if they try and sue Tesco's because they forgot to defrost the chicken first.


113

Observer,,

Glasgow 19/01/2009 19:25:16
112 I agree these plans are un-workable, I'm just posting from my own experience, work-related happily, that some very bad stuff goes on. I don't know how you tackle it to be honest, the kind of victims of this are not exactly the best witnesses in a court are they, but he's identified a problem so I think there is an onus to at least look for a solution, although this isn't it.
114

Calum Crubag,

19/01/2009 19:39:26
And why should general non-sexual violence be treated different? What about those who view images of soccer casual violence, beatings, Islamist beheadings, executions, Israeli refugee bombings etc?

Is this kind of stuff not as bad as necrophilia and other types of 'deviant' sex?

MacAskill and the feminists seem to be treading a Catholic Church type of morality where only sins of the flesh are worthy of our outrage.
115

Calum Crubag,

19/01/2009 19:41:39
It should also be remembered that not long ago, homosexuality and adultery were also on this list of deviance.

If the Wee Free Christians, Catholics and Muslims had their way they still would be.
116

Observer,,

Glasgow 19/01/2009 19:47:13
119 Rape is a deviance, unless you want to argue otherwise ? We are not talking about sex here, we are talking about actual rape and actual violence being filmed. I don't think you have to be a Catholic to object to that.
117

moralpanix,

19/01/2009 20:00:04
Ah, something I can agree with. Yes, real rape and real violence are deviant. Yes, I do object to the filming of real rape and real violence.

But.... what we're objecting to is that this law has got virtually nothing to do with images of real rape and violence. If it was just about that, though it would still be deeply flawed, most of us would have much less concern about it.
118

Observer,,

Glasgow 19/01/2009 20:13:37
121 Yes I said that from the outset too, that I didn't support this legislation. It's too sweeping and it could interfere with people's right to view made up sexual behaviour which mimics rape if that is what turns them on. I don't imagine for a moment that will induce real rape. All I want is that now a problem has been identified, and it's not a huge problem although it is to those caught up in it, we try and find a workable solution.
119

Destroy the Planet,

Can somebody answer this question for me please ? 19/01/2009 20:36:39
Say you had a legit bbfc dvd of Straw Dogs and with permission used an image of one of the the scenes depicting rape to highlight the underlying brutality , which would be in context to an article you where writing on (because thats the subject of the film)would you get prosecuted if your article appeared on the net but not if it appeared in say a film magazine and included the rape image ?
120

Destroy the Planet,

19/01/2009 20:58:16
I should have added if somebody downloaded the article for later reading with said image would they be prosecuted ?

Would you have to bring in Dustin Hoffman and Susan George as defence witnesses ?
121

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 19/01/2009 21:22:25
Don't see anything wrong with this legislation.

People getting their jollies from scenes depicting violent rape are on the same level as paedophiles - so quite frankly anyone whining about this being some kind of 'victorian morality' is simply someone who needs to be removed from society.

Miss H wrote: "to argue as some have that introducing laws would be difficult so let’s not bother is not an argument I would ever accept. "

Agreed. Even if this law is flawed in that it can't be effectively policed, simply saying this is unacceptable in law is useful.

For instance after the murder of Jane Longhurst there weren't laws in place to even block many such violent sites as frequented by her murderer.

122

Quark99,

Chandler's Ford 19/01/2009 21:25:26
Perhaps Mr MacAskill can explain why the pornography industry is up there among the billions of pounds per year turnover with the best of them. His proposal is simply bad law and is quite unenforceable. King Canute comes to mind...
123

moralpanix,

19/01/2009 21:38:00
#125
"People getting their jollies from scenes depicting violent rape are on the same level as paedophiles."
So someone who gets off on the fantasy of rape - maybe of being raped - but would never rape or think rape acceptable is the sort of person who should be jailed for three years.

Why?

READ the posts here, then reply please.
124

Tris,

19/01/2009 21:53:54
I accept the basic ideas that the government are trying to get over in this, but they need to be careful.

First, we don't want to be nannied. We get enough of that from the English/British government who seem to control every breath we take.

And

Second, there is no point in introducing laws that are pretty well unable to be enforced.

Look at it very carefully Kenny. I dont want this sort of stuff on my computer, but I don't want some fuzz coming round poking his nose into my bedroom every week, when he should be out catching burgers and drug dealers... no matter how much more cushie it is bedroom watching!

125

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 19/01/2009 21:56:00
'People getting their jollies from scenes depicting violent rape are on the same level as paedophiles.'

Yes.

So moralpanix what exactly don't you understand about that comment?

Moralpanix wrote:
"So someone who gets off on the fantasy of rape - maybe of being raped - but would never rape or think rape acceptable is the sort of person who should be jailed for three years."

OK lets change it slightly:

"So someone who gets off on the fantasy of child molesting - but would never molest a child is the sort of person who should be jailed for three years"

Yes. Precisely.

Moralpanix wrote:

'Why'

Well if you are downloading and getting off on images depicting child molesting or violent rape then don't kid yourself, you are getting drawn to the act itself. Neither child molesting nor violent rape are consensual - the law should send a clear message that any such images are disallowed in a decent society.
126

Grahamm,

UK 19/01/2009 22:11:36
Being one of the people who fought against this law in England for the last two years, we really hoped that Scotland would realise how nonsensical it was. Unfortunately it's now clear that their neo-puritans not only want to follow England, they want to charge even further down the Nanny State path of "We don't like this stuff and we think it'll make you do bad things, so we're going to lock you up if you look at it!"

But what they are following is a ridiculously subjective and ill-defined law that doesn't even know *what* it is trying to make illegal!

The English law says an image must be "pornographic", but bases this on a viewer's (not the owner's) subjective opinion of whether it's "for sexual arousal" (or if it's with other images which are "for sexual arousal" however it doesn't make clear if that's in the same folder, the same hard drive or even the same house).

It says an image must "life threatening", but doesn't define this. If a woman sits on a man's face, she will probably cut off his air supply until she gets up again. So is this "life threatening"?

Alternatively an image must "result in or be likely to result in serious injury", but what is a "serious injury"? I asked the Ministry of Justice if they meant GBH (which has definitions for this) but they said no! So what is it? Something that requires immediate hospitalisation? "Minor injuries" in an accident are treated at the scene, serious injuries go to hospital, so is that what it means? Nobody knows.

It says an image must be "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene nature", but, again, this is an entirely subjective opinion. The only way you'll know if an image is covered is if you show it to someone else!

Scotland wants to copy a law where you can't even *know* if you've even broken the law until someone else expresses an opinion on a picture!
127

Grahamm,

UK 19/01/2009 22:12:12
Part 2:

So what won't be covered? Well the Execution of Saddam Hussein, Happy Slapping videos or Iraqi hostage takers beheading their victims for a start. Yes, *actual* images of deaths and violence will still be legal because they are not "for sexual arousal", but if a picture of two consenting adults engaged in a legal sexual act should show something that, in a third person's opinion, is an "extreme image", then that will be illegal.

The English law does say that it is "a defence" if you can prove you were a "direct participant" in the act shown, but this means that instead of being Presumed Innocent Unless Proven Guilty, you have to prove your innocence! Even more silly, if you are a photographer and take a picture of these two people, although you are legally the copyright holder of that image, you are not a "direct participant" so you can't own a copy of the picture!

Mr MacAskill, like his English counterparts, wants to ban images which *he* finds "abhorrent" or "horrific" as if his personal tastes should govern what everyone else is allow to view, just in case such images might make someone do something bad.

Naturally *he* won't be affected by these "Dangerous Pictures", but obviously the rest of us are such weak-minded individuals, lacking in morals that WE cannot be trusted to behave sensibly and must, thus, be locked up, "for our own good".

Given he is an ex-lawyer, it seems astonishing that he can ignore the principles of Presumption of Innocence or that a reasonable person should be able to know if they are breaking the law or not (if I steal something, I'm a thief, if I don't I'm not, but if I own this picture I won't know if I'm a criminal until Mr MacAskill tells me), however it appears that now he can make the laws, he wants to make the law what *he* wants, good jurisprudence or requirements of actual evidence of harm be damned.

128

moralpanix,

19/01/2009 22:15:20
#129
I understand your comment. I'd understand you if you said that gays should be publicly flogged. No doubt you do.

"Why" doesn't mean I don't understand. It means I expect you to have reasons. I have a poor opinion of people who condemn out of prejudice and bigotry.

".. you are getting drawn into the act itself"
Oh I see.

How?
129

mark1234,

19/01/2009 22:24:05
It's depressing that people are still talking about this law as if it is just about images made with non-consenting participants, or that the intent of this law is to deal with that.

This is not true at all.

There are large numbers of Government statements that make it clear that the Government makes no distinction between staged or real, consensual or not, because the intent is not to do with protecting participants, it's about the claim that viewing images makes people commit crimes. This was clear from the consultation in 2005. This was made clear in England's published bill in 2007, that passed in 2008. This was clear from the initial "something must have been done" in response to Graham Coutt's conviction, way back in 2004 - the sites he viewed were all staged with consenting actors.

Yet here we are, 2009, and people are still blathering on about it being need to protect people being abused in the production. If the Scottish law is worded to only target images of acts involving unwilling participants, I'll eat my hat - yet nothing that has happened in the 5 year course of this law that suggests otherwise.

And if you really believe that role-playing in the bedroom should be criminalised too, have the decency to say so, rather than conflating the issues with actual acts of rape, not to mention child abuse.
130

mark1234,

19/01/2009 22:26:13
Kipling: "You sound very like those who think if a young girl dresses and makes up like an adult female it somehow indicates she has the same sexual desires." Please refrain from accusing others of being like pedophiles.

Anyhow, you've got it backwards. Supporters of this law are the ones who think that if a girl looks like an adult, she must be treated the same as an adult - they're the ones judging images based on what they appear to show, not what really occurred.

"However, the difference between films like Caligula and web porn is that we KNOW or have access to knowing that those participating in distributed films are not suffering the actual abuses. WE DON'T KNOW the situation behind violent web porn, nor the level of consent involved."

I disagree, since the porn sites the law is targetting come from places like the UK and US, where there are just as much laws for porn as for films.

But if this is what you believe, why not criminalise all pornographic images on the Internet? What's so special about this particular set that the Government chooses to criminalise?

And the law criminalises images even if you *do* know that the participants consented. Even if they can be shown alive and unharmed and in court. Even if they were images made yourself in the bedroom.

Miss H: "it is not about introducing new restrictions but about bringing the law on internet porn into line with the law on printed porn."

No, *that* is misleading. There are no laws on possessing adult porn, printed or otherwise. (And laws on publication already apply to the Internet.)
131

mark1234,

19/01/2009 22:29:56
Cauchy Riemann: Many consenting adults role-play non-consensual acts - whether it's BDSM, or rough sex. Furthermore, even if you think fantasies of non-consensual acts should be criminalised, the law covers other categories of images, including those that appear likely to cause harm, even if they are depicted as consensual, and where no one is harmed.

I would also ask you to stop accusing people of being on the same level of pedophiles. The issue here is consenting adults. But since you bring the idea of children up - do you think that his a husband and wife play dressup, with the wife (or husband, come to that) dressed as a schoolgirl, that makes them pedophiles?

Quark99: The sad thing is that whilst mainstream porn will carry on unstoppable, this law will target a sexual minority. Unlucky individuals will have their lives ruined, placed in prison and put on the Sex Offender Register for viewing an image that isn't approved by the Government. But porn will still be everywhere.

Observer: This law isn't restricted to images that involve the criminal offence of rape. I'm glad we agree that the non-real stuff that is harmless - but it's that material that the Government claims is harmful, and wants criminalised. I mean, you just have to look at this thread to see that people such as Cauchy Riemann are clearly arguing against staged images too...

There may well be issues in the production of porn, but this law does nothing to tackle those issues. For starters, most porn won't come under the pic-and-mix classifications that they've decided to criminalise. A mainstream porn film where they really are forced into it will be entirely legal, just so long as it *looks* like they're not being raped or harmed. Meanwhile, images that look non-consensual (or harmful), but aren't really, get criminalised.
132

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 19/01/2009 22:44:26
mark wrote: "I would also ask you to stop accusing people of being on the same level of pedophiles. "

Nope I will not, so I will repeat it:

'People getting their jollies from scenes depicting violent rape are on the same level as paedophiles.'

mark wrote: "The issue here is consenting adults"

No its not. The issue is porn depicting violent rape. Rape is exactly like child porn. It is non consensual and there is a victim.

Moralpanix:

I explained clearly the 'Why?' I'll repeat it:

Moralpanix wrote:
"So someone who gets off on the fantasy of rape - maybe of being raped - but would never rape or think rape acceptable is the sort of person who should be jailed for three years."

OK lets change it slightly:

"So someone who gets off on the fantasy of child molesting - but would never molest a child is the sort of person who should be jailed for three years"

Yes. Precisely.

Moralpanix wrote:

'Why'

Well if you are downloading and getting off on images depicting child molesting or violent rape then don't kid yourself, you are getting drawn to the act itself. Neither child molesting nor violent rape are consensual - the law should send a clear message that any such images are disallowed in a decent society.

133

moralpanix,

19/01/2009 23:06:40
#136
"you are getting drawn to the act itself"
This is an unfounded statement, not an explanation.

I think people who threaten others with jail based only on their own bigotry deserve jail. Why is my claim stronger than yours?
134

mark1234,

19/01/2009 23:31:58
Cauchy Riemann - so I see you gladly resort to insulting people as being on the same level of pedophiles. I find it interesting that people who call for criminalisation because they are offended by what people do in private, are themselves keen to be explicitly offensive in public to others who do not consent. Keep that up, and I'll give up and just report your comments.

"No its not. The issue is porn depicting violent rape. Rape is exactly like child porn. It is non consensual and there is a victim."

What I mean is, two consenting adults who role-play rape? (Or two consenting adults with one dressed as a school girl, if you prefer?) Perhaps in online porn, or perhaps in the bedroom.

Are these people like pedophiles? Should they be criminalised if they make a photo of it?

You also missed an important part of my post, so I'll repeat it: Furthermore, even if you think fantasies of non-consensual acts should be criminalised, the law covers other categories of images, including those that appear likely to cause harm, even if they are depicted as consensual, and where no one is harmed.

"you are getting drawn to the act itself." - evidence please that rape fantasies - or engaging in any of the other kinds of consensual BDSM acts that this law will criminalise images of - causes people to go and commit the crimes? Given how common rape fantasises are among adults, this seems rather unlikely - but I'm willing to see the evidence.
135

mark1234,

19/01/2009 23:35:02
Question to those in favour of criminalising possession of even images depicting fantasy rape: If I have an image showing me and my partner, with me tied up, and engaging in a bit of kinky sex, how will be determined if this was meant to be depicting rape or not in the first place?

Whatever your views on this law, that question still remains. With actual rape, it's clear - it's whether someone didn't consent. But there is no person to ask, if instead we're going by whether an image merely depicted a fantasy rape. And, if this is anything like the English law, the Act will state that this must be decided solely by looking at the image.

What's the answer? Do you have one that doesn't involve me being arrested, going through a traumatic trial, and hoping the jury decides that it wasn't meant to depict rape?

PS - a correction to the article. The English law is not at all limited to "hardcore" porn (sex doesn't have to be shown - anything that a jury think appears to be intended for arousal), and according to the published information from Scotland so far, this new law will not be either.
136

Grahamm,

UK 19/01/2009 23:37:24
#137 and #138

Cauchy Riemann is clearly a paragon of moral virtue and a protector of innocents, just like the Paedofinder General...!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UvsoVdvtZC4
137

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 20/01/2009 00:23:50
Mark whined:
"Keep that up, and I'll give up and just report your comments."

Mark, please report my comments! Seriously is that meant to be some sort of threat?? I'm literally laughing here. I'm not breaking any rules but expressing an opinion - if you can't take that then don't bother posting. Go to a site where everyone will agree with you. LOL your whining is hilarious!!!

Mark wrote:
"If I have an image showing me and my partner, with me tied up, and engaging in a bit of kinky sex, how will be determined if this was meant to be depicting rape or not in the first place?"

You evidently don't understand what is being criminalised in this legislation if you can construct such a 'straw man'. This legislation isn't about 'role play' but a deliberate depiction that glorifies something.



Mark wrote:
"I find it interesting that people who call for criminalisation because they are offended by what people do in private.."

Perhaps you misunderstand my posts. I've not made any comments about what people do in private. If you want to completely misrepresent what I'm saying then I have to wonder why.

Grahamm: - I've no real idea what you chip on the shoulder is.

I'll repeat it for you.

'People getting their jollies from scenes depicting violent rape are on the same level as paedophiles.'

Why?

Because images deliberately depicting violent rape or child molesting are morally equivalent. Both are non consensual and both involve a victim.
138

thephantom,

Carlisle 20/01/2009 00:33:15
Here is some information that I think is relevant to the whole issue.

The original idea of a extreme pornography law was actually conceived in Scotland.
However what happened next is of some importance to this debate.

The Westminster government seized on the idea (among others) in order to regain a greater share of the female vote (which the pollsters showed were drifting to Cameron).
Thus the Westminster parliamentary majority was oddly enthused about a law it hadn't even conceived.

In Scotland however, the idea was passed to committee. The committee reviewed it and – please note – advised against any further progress on this matter due to substantial human rights concerns.

Scotland thus pulled back, whereas England powered ahead (for purely electoral motives).

I write this on the very day the Westminster administration has effectively conceded that their law is incomprehensible (albeit that they still insist on pressing on).
The law comes into force in a week's time. Until the courts create working definitions the law will thus remain a minefield.

The court cases are bound to centre around the very issues the Scottish committee highlighted. Basic human rights. Scotland would be well advised to at least await the outcome of such contests.
It may well prove that the Scottish parliamentary committee was right. (In fact it may be very likely.)

Unlike Westminster, Scotland will also not have the luxury of claiming ignorance of their own actions. Their previously expressed fears of human rights breaches is a matter of parliamentary record.

We live in interesting times.
139

Grahamm,

UK 20/01/2009 01:49:30
Cauchy Riemann, for someone who uses the expression "Straw Man" as if they claim to understand it, it's more than a little ironic (or, perhaps, hilarious) that you use such blatant Straw Man arguments in your posts (let alone resorting to ad hominem attacks describing someone else's posts as "whining").

Let me try to make it clear to you: If two *CONSENTING ADULTS* pose for a *STAGED* photograph, how is that "morally equivalent" to an act of child abuse?

Don't make any mistake, this sort of image *will* be covered by the law Kenny MacAskill wants.

This legislation is not about "a deliberate depiction that glorifies something", it is about the Government's Precautionary Principle argument saying "we think that if you look at this image it will make you do bad things, even though we have absolutely no evidence or proof. So we're going to ban it anyway, just to be on the safe side."

This is a Thought Crime, pure and simple.

Is that really the sort of thing you wish to support?
140

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 20/01/2009 07:50:20
Grahamm wrote:
"Let me try to make it clear to you: If two *CONSENTING ADULTS* pose for a *STAGED* photograph, how is that "morally equivalent" to an act of child abuse?"

Because we are talking about violent rape.

It is quite possible to have child porn without the use of children. It is possible to create high quality CGI which clearly depicts minors being abused.

According to your argument such should be completely legal?

You can talk all you want about consenting adults. I've no problem with what consenting adults do in their spare time.

But if they wish to post stuff in the public domain that is quite clearly indistinguishable from violent rape - then yes this is another matter entirely. Why? Because the issue is now no longer consenting adults, but material produced that is indistinguishable from violent rape - or kiddie porn.

Video material that is clearly realistic enough to be indistinguishable enough from real violent rape, or real child abuse has no place in society.

We aren't talking about consensus here, or what people do in private. We are talking about the dissemination of material that is indistinguishable from real violent rape, or real child abuse.

Do people on this thread support the dissemination of material like violent rape or kiddie porn which is indistinguishable from the real thing?
141

moralpanix,

20/01/2009 08:28:48
#144
""Let me try to make it clear to you: If two *CONSENTING ADULTS* pose for a *STAGED* photograph, how is that "morally equivalent" to an act of child abuse?"

Because we are talking about violent rape."

Cauchy Riemann, though he may have a mathematical pseudonym, is a cretin as well as a bigot. He refuses to respond to anyone's argument and repeats his own statements without any attempt to justify them. If he persuades himself, he fools nobody with a brain and should be ignored.

His two sentences above are enough to show this.
142

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 20/01/2009 08:45:10
moralpanix - since you seem not to have read my post, I'll repost the relevant part:

>>It is quite possible to have child porn without the use of children. It is possible to create high quality CGI which clearly depicts minors being abused.

According to your argument such should be completely legal?

You can talk all you want about consenting adults. I've no problem with what consenting adults do in their spare time.

But if they wish to post stuff in the public domain that is quite clearly indistinguishable from violent rape - then yes this is another matter entirely. Why? Because the issue is now no longer consenting adults, but material produced that is indistinguishable from violent rape - or kiddie porn.

Video material that is clearly realistic enough to be indistinguishable enough from real violent rape, or real child abuse has no place in society.<<

Sorry I fail to see what is wrong from the above argument and why this is bigoted? LOL do you really think that crying 'bigot' is some sort of intelligent counter-argument?! How amusing!

I'll ask my question again:

"Do people on this thread support the dissemination of material like violent rape or kiddie porn which is indistinguishable from the real thing?"

143

mark1234,

20/01/2009 11:44:09
Cauchy Riemann whined:

"I'm not breaking any rules but expressing an opinion - if you can't take that then don't bother posting. Go to a site where everyone will agree with you. LOL your whining is hilarious!!!"

Says the one whining about this law in the first places "Oh noes, there are nasty wasty images that people look at, please Mr Policeman, lock them all up!"

The double standard is interesting. You are offended what other people do in private, yet you think it acceptable to accuse others of being like pedophiles. In response, I either shrug it off, or report to the mods if there's a problem. You however go whining to the police and the politicians for a new law.

And you confuse disagreement, with insults. I just hope for a little intelligent debate rather than throwing insults.

"You evidently don't understand what is being criminalised in this legislation if you can construct such a 'straw man'. This legislation isn't about 'role play' but a deliberate depiction that glorifies something."

You make a straw man everytime you talk of children, or accuse people here of being pedophiles.

(a) If I intentionally role-play rape, and make an image of it, are you telling me that this *isn't* a deliberate depiction? What is the difference between deliberate depictions of rape, and an image of people acting a rape scene?

(b) You still didn't answer the question. Even if the law doesn't intend to catch wider acts of rough sex, how does one tell the difference, just by looking at the image?

"I've not made any comments about what people do in private."

May I please clarify - if I make an image depicting risk of injury, or a non-consensual act, but make it with consenting adults, in private, do you think that should be criminalised? If I view such an image in private, should that be criminalised?

I don't understand - in one post you claim that you're not concerned with what consenting adults do, and in the next, you whine about realistic image
144

mark1234,

20/01/2009 11:44:31
I don't understand - in one post you claim that you're not concerned with what consenting adults do, and in the next, you whine about realistic images without the use of non-consenting participants. You do realise that if an image is made to depict something, without involving non-consenting participants, this means that any participants must have consented? This is pretty basic logic...
145

mark1234,

20/01/2009 11:54:55
"Do people on this thread support the dissemination of material like violent rape or kiddie porn which is indistinguishable from the real thing?"

Firstly, let's avoid the straw man. This law is not about dissemination, it's about possession. The question of what kinds of regulation should be had for distribution is off-topic for this law.

To answer: I believe that possession of images of staged acts between consenting adults should be legal, no matter what it depicts. There is nothing special about rape - violent scenes can be found in films, after all. Talking of "kiddie porn" is irrelevant when we're talking about adults - I mean, if you had an 18 year old who looked like she could be 17, is that "indistinguishable" from kiddie porn? Technically it is, but this is very misleading.

We're not talking actual rape, we're not talking CGI for that matter - the law covers staged acts even if there is no computer manipulation. I'm still curious by what you mean by "indistinguishable" - since when I talk about role-play with consenting adults, you claim not to mean that. The issue here is things that *look* the same, from the image alone - not that *are* the same.

And it needs repeating yet again: Furthermore, even if you think fantasies of non-consensual acts should be criminalised, the law covers other categories of images, including those that appear likely to cause harm, even if they are depicted as consensual, and where no one is harmed.

What is your view on these things?
146

thephantom,

Carlisle 20/01/2009 12:00:37
Cauchy Riemann

I am little concerned about your evident insistence on equating 'extreme' pornography with child pornography.

It seems merely to serve emotive purposes, as the two are clearly different matters, in the public mind, as well as in law. For example, child pornography is not subject to the Obscene Publications Act, but to a set of statutes all of its own.

There are indeed those who do not like where recent and current amendments to child pornography legislation are going. I include myself among such critics. For where child pornography is not primarily about the protection of children, it ceases to be credible.

The issue at hand here is one of a depicted fantasy. It may be a fantasy that we do not like or condone. But then we do not require non-pornographic material to pass a test of approved fantasies.

The question thus arises why pornography in particular needs to see certain fantasies made subject to approval. It is after all, a subject by adults about adults for adults. It also involves what is referred to as a self-selecting audience.
Also, the same legal scrutiny is not being demanded of non-pornographic material, where violence freely abounds.

The problem, at its most basic, is the proscription of ideas.

Human rights law entitles governments to infringe certain human rights where they see a need to protect 'public morals'.

We have however, several hurdles here. First, the measure must be necessary and proportionate. Second, to argue private possession a public matter of morals seems a somewhat strained argument. (On publication government is excused, as it is invariably 'public'.)

Now, a need for this legislation has not really been demonstrated.

Proportionality also is highly questionable, when we are speaking of incarcerating individuals for looking at a most likely consensually created image.

Meanwhile, seeking to apply 'public morality', to an act which invariably happens within the private sphere may be f
147

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 20/01/2009 12:07:00
Mark - I'm sorry that you are unable to understand what I am saying. Whether this is something deliberate, or whether you genuinely don't understand I really don't know - I've tried to make myself very clear?



As to you not understanding the 'consent' thing. What consenting adults do in private is of no concern. Yes?

However if they disseminate material (like violent rape) which is indistinguishable from the real thing, then yes this should be outlawed - just as realistic cgi child porn is outlawed. The dissemination of such material is a matter very different to just consenting adults now.

It is immaterial whether it was done by consent because of the subject matter itself - same as cgi child porn is outlawed. It is immaterial that no child was actually abused, it is the material itself.

I'll ask again:

"Do people on this thread support the dissemination of material like violent rape or kiddie porn which is indistinguishable from the real thing?"

Simple question. Can you answer it Mark?


148

thephantom,

Carlisle 20/01/2009 12:40:25
Cauchy Riemann

'However if they disseminate material (like violent rape) which is indistinguishable from the real thing, then yes this should be outlawed - just as realistic cgi child porn is outlawed. The dissemination of such material is a matter very different to just consenting adults now.'

The idea of passive and active freedom of expression are separate concepts. Thus, to disseminate or to view what has been disseminated are different matters entirely.
149

Grahamm,

20/01/2009 13:39:49
Cauchy Riemann wrote:

"Because we are talking about violent rape."

No, we are talking about photographs or staged video clips. THAT is what this law is covering, it doesn't even matter whether the images are staged, it is simply a matter of what an image LOOKS like.

And will you please stop with the Straw Man arguments about Child Pornography, this law is dealing with images of ADULTS.

You say "I've no problem with what consenting adults do in their spare time. But if they wish to post stuff in the public domain if they wish to post stuff in the public domain" completely missing the point that PRIVATE POSSESSION of these images will be illegal.

It is not *where* they are published that is relevant, it is possessing them at all which will be illegal, even if they are in your own bedside drawer!

It is clear that you have no real clue about this law, you just want the Government to ban "Dangerous Pictures" that you don't like as if your personal tastes should determine what everyone else can see because you think "it has no place in society".

If you don't like it, don't look at it but unless and until you can prove that images of consenting adults engaged in legal acts *ACTUALLY* cause harm (I won't hold my breath) don't be so arrogant as to insist that everyone else shouldn't be allowed to see them.
150

Grahamm,

20/01/2009 13:51:13
Cauchy Riemann:

"It is immaterial whether it was done by consent because of the subject matter itself - same as cgi child porn is outlawed. It is immaterial that no child was actually abused, it is the material itself."

I suggest you do a little more research, because I think you'll find that cgi child porn is NOT (yet) illegal!

But do you want to emulate the ridiculous situation that happened recently in Australia where a man was convicted of "child pornography" offences because he had drawings of Lisa Simpson performing "sexual acts"?

How many children do you know with yellow skin and three fingers and who have only *ever* appeared in a drawing?!

Doh!

> I'll ask again: "Do people on this thread support the dissemination of material like violent rape or kiddie porn which is indistinguishable from the real thing?"

You can keep asking that until you're blue in the face, but I think the rest of us are clever enough to identify an "Are you still beating your wife?" question and treat it with the contempt it deserves.
151

thephantom,

Carlisle 20/01/2009 14:14:53
I guess this recent Scotsman article is relevant to the debate here.

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Art-will-suffer-under-.4892027.jp

Again, serious concerns raised by the convener of the justice committee. I would add that the Conservatives are hardly known for the love of things porn when it comes to 'public morality'.

As I pointed out in a previous post, this issue has a previous history in connection with the Scottish Parliament. If it is now decided that this law should be introduced, it will have to be answered how previously insurmountable concerns on human rights grounds now are suddenly to be overridden.
152

lulach mac gille coemgain,

20/01/2009 15:22:34
Looks like all internet connected will have one big club then eh? . . . Jail!
153

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 20/01/2009 16:17:26
I wrote previously:

>>I'll ask again: "Do people on this thread support the dissemination of material like violent rape or kiddie porn which is indistinguishable from the real thing?"<<

Grahamm replied:
"You can keep asking that until you're blue in the face,"

Quite frankly that you are unable to answer that simple question speaks volumes. Neither is it some form of trick question - it forms the rational underpinning of this law.

So anyone care to answer it?

Grahamm wrote:
"I suggest you do a little more research, because I think you'll find that cgi child porn is NOT (yet) illegal!"

I'm unaware if specific legislation is around yet, but it would be a prosecutable under existing laws. Here is a quote:

>>A pseudo-photograph is defined as an image, whether made by computer graphics or otherwise, which appears to be a photograph. So, under current law, if an indecent image of a child created by CGI, or for that matter a drawing or cartoon, looks realistic enough to appear to be a photograph, despite not actually depicting a real child or a real event, possession could still be covered by section 160 of the 1988 Act. However, this does not apply to drawings or cartoons.<<

from http://www.teachingexpertise.com/articles/should-non-photographic-visual-depictions-of-child-sexual-abuse-be-outlawed-2092

154

Grahamm,

20/01/2009 17:40:43
Cauchy Riemann:

It is not that I cannot answer that question, it is that I am *not* going to answer it because I can see the fallacious reasoning behind it even if you cannot.

(But, to help you understand this point, consider the following: How many movies have you watched where the violent imagery is "indistinguishable from the real thing"? Shorn of the emotive references to kiddie porn, do *you* support the dissemination of this material?)

And as for the "rational underpinning" of this law, there is *NO* such underpinning, it is, as I've said, based on the Precautionary Principle that "well, we don't know if this will make people do bad things, but we'll ban it anyway, just in case".

If you or anyone can actually show a causal relationship between images and behaviour (and, please, before you try, make sure you're not quoting discredited research from the '70s and '80s) then I'd be happy to support your side, but, again, I won't be holding my breath.

You might like to look, however, at the work of Professor Milton Diamond PhD of the University of Hawai'i who examined the effects of pornography (including "extreme" porn) in the USA and Japan over the course of 20 years and concluded:

"It is certainly clear from the data reviewed, and the new data and analysis presented, that a massive increase in available pornography in Japan, the United States and elsewhere has been correlated with a dramatic decrease in sexual crimes"

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_ovrvw.html

So, put simply, porn (even "extreme porn") does *NOT* cause sexual crime.

Oh, and as regarding you quote about CGI child porn, you are quoting from a Consulatation Document on a *proposed* law and only says that, under existing law, this "could still be covered".
155

moralpanix,

20/01/2009 19:48:57
Cauchy Riemann #156
>>I'll ask again: "Do people on this thread support the dissemination of material like violent rape or kiddie porn which is indistinguishable from the real thing?"

>>Quite frankly that you are unable to answer that simple question speaks volumes. Neither is it some form of trick question - it forms the rational underpinning of this law.

How dare you presume to suggest that your emotive and manipulative question "forms the underpinning of this law".

The prevention of harm forms the underpinning of law.

So, speaking for myself, here's my answer.

To the extent that it's clear that such dissemination reduces the likelihood of real rape and real child abuse, YES.

You've chosen to evade justification in terms of the harm it causes, preferring to play on people's horror and repugnance by deliberately confusing the image and the reality.

I now have a question for you. One that addresses the real justification of any such law.

Would you support the banning of material like violent rape or kiddie porn which is indistinguishable from the real thing, knowing that the balance of evidence shows that this will INCREASE the likelihood of real rape and real child abuse?

Let's see you appeal to emotion and avoid the real issues once again.
156

thephantom,

Carlisle 20/01/2009 20:26:11
Cauchy Riemann,

“Do people on this thread support the dissemination of material like violent rape or kiddie porn which is indistinguishable from the real thing?”

You demand an answer. So, fine.
Though first let me say, that the law deals in possession, not publication.
Thus there is an issue of relevance.

But so be it. My answer is: Yes. I support the dissemination of material of which I do not approve. I do so categorically.

A pretence, a fantasy, an idea should not be illegal in my book, no matter how deplorable it may seem to me.
People must have the liberty to express freely what they feel, think, dream and desire, irrespective of someone else's potential reaction.

This, and not the supposed sending of moral messages, is at the heart of modern secular society today.
We must be tolerant of each other. We must be accepting of the fact that there is and always will be things in the world which offend us. It is not our place to dictate to others how to live their lives, even (or especially) if we believe this to be for their own good.

I may not agree with you. I may in fact disapprove of your opinion. Yet my disapproval should never serve as a reason to see you and your opinions proscribed.

It is true that laws of tolerance are strained where they meet with people who spread hatred. It is hard to argue for the right of fascists to spread their hatred. I know that some of the argument surrounding this proposed prohibition is that it champions misogyny.

Yet we must be careful not to become purveyors of hatred ourselves. When a pretty harmless minority of people who merely view images is suddenly demonised – in your own case even equated with paedophiles – then the question must be who really is inciting hatred.

Are in this case those encouraging disdain and condemnation of a minority not involved in the dissemination of a greater hatred than the misogyny they claim the minority indulges in?

Perhaps the question is whether people ough
157

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 20/01/2009 20:55:12
Grahamm

Wikipedia states:
"Research concerning the effects of pornography is inconclusive. Some studies support the contention that the viewing of pornographic material may increase rates of sexual crimes, while others have shown no effects, or a decrease in the rates of such crimes."

So it seems that the jury is out on pornography. However when it comes to studies involving violent & rape pornography most studies seem to be showing a negative effect.

For instance: Silbert, M. and Pines, A., in "Pornography and Sexual Abuse of Women," published their study involving prostitutes in the international journal Sex Roles, "The comments followed the same pattern: the assailant referred to pornographic materials he had seen or read and then insisted that the victims not only enjoyed rape but also extreme violence."

If you have a look at http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/280907.pdf it looks at various studies with regards to violent rape porn and actual rape against women.

Study after study shows correlation.

For instance:

Cramer and McFarlane (1994) conducted a survey of 87 ‘battered women filing charges against their male partner at the district attorney’s office in a large metropolitan city’ (pp 268-272). Pornographic material involved rape with physical violence. The study found ‘a strong association between men’s use of violent pornography and physical [and sexual] abuse of women’ (p 271)
158

radge dug,

20/01/2009 21:12:29
Rape is disgusting - it IS violence. I've seen violence in my life, both imagined on film and on the streets. It certainly doesn't turn me on.

So, are we gonna ban Hollwood films? Are scenes of rape worse than the mindless violence we get in mainstream film?

And it is worth remembering that homosexuality was considered deviant not so long ago and still is by the religious right - note recent comments by the Pope and executions in Iran.
159

thephantom,

20/01/2009 21:15:09
Cauchy Riemann,

I'm sorry if I chuckled there, but your link points to the deeply flawed rapid evidence assessment which the government commissioned from a known supporter of the policy it was sought to justify.
Also the Home Office part funds the organisation of said academic.
Two of the three academics involved I know to be fervent anti-pornography campaigners.

Suffice to say that a whole host of academics have since vehemently condemned this paper. In fact one doesn't need to be that knowledgeable to unpick it.

Yet it made the rounds at Westminster as the 'research' to back up the need for the law.

This retrospective commission was only commissioned because the government's reasoning for the necessity of the law had so drastically shifted that evidence became necessary.
Thus, some would say it was fabricated.
160

Grahamm,

UK 20/01/2009 21:25:54
Cauchy Riemann:

"it seems that the jury is out on pornography"

Only because those who want to ban pornography are unwilling to accept that, despite years of trying, they have *never* been able to prove any causative link between pornography and rape or other violent sexual crime and they want the Jury to *stay* out until it comes in with a "verdict" that they like or, at least, they can use this as an excuse to push for laws without any proof of harm.

Oh, by the way, I am *very* familar with the Governments "Rapid Evidence Assessment" you cite since it is the Extreme Pornography equivalent of the "Dodgy Dossier"!

Perhaps you should look closer at who the authors are, for instance, to quote Catherine Itzin (a founder of the Campaign Against Pornography!): "pornography plays an important part in contributing to sexual violence against women and to sex discrimination and sexual inequality" and her co-authors are also feminist anti-pornography campaigners.

Note also that three of the five analyses it used were co-authored by the *same* person, so it's hardly balanced or "wide ranging"

The authors cobbled together an "assessment" where they cherry-picked data from sources which agree with their particular prejudices and ignored anything which didn't fit with this and yet you swallow this hook, line and sinker as if it's fair and unbiased. Not by a long chalk it isn't!

Also note that their conclusion in the REA was only that it "did find that there were some harmful effects on some of those who viewed it, particularly men who were predisposed to aggression or had a history of sexual aggression" which is hardly a ringing endorsement of the censorship you support!
161

john z,

edinburgh 20/01/2009 22:50:13
Memo to the SNP Government (who are making a SERIOUS mistake with this).

This is p*ss poor law. It will just criminalise innocent people, and help to drive the really dangerous paedophiles underground. It is Bad, bad, bad.

As people above have clearly pointed out, this will criminalise a great deal of art, and previously produced plays, TV programmes and films. It is mind bogglingly stupid. Mr.McAskills comments above show he has ZERO understanding of technology or the world wide web.

We either live in a free society or we do not.

In short, Mr.McAskill, mind your own freaking business, and sort out some REAL crime.

I thought the SNP were pretty smart up until this point. I am very, very dissapointed.
162

john z,

edinburgh 20/01/2009 23:17:42
Cauchy Reiman;

quote: "However if they disseminate material (like violent rape) which is indistinguishable from the real thing, then yes this should be outlawed - just as realistic cgi child porn is outlawed."

If in law you adopt such a philosophy, then the fully logical conclusion is a ban on many things, and not just violent rape of either a man OR a woman (sadly you think rape only involves women!).

Anything such as a violent beheading in a street (if realistic) should be banned, as it is illegal in the real world or a killing in a brutal and violent way (also illegal in the real world), again would need to be banned. In fact, the list would be almost endless, as any violent crime depicted in a movie or a picture would fall foul of this 'new found' morality.

That is how the law works. You clearly do not understand that concept, and argue from a very, very blinkered standpoint, with false assumptions used to 'back up' your illogical reasoning.

For example, the fact that computer generated images (CGI) of child abuse are banned should not be used as an argument for the proposed new law. Simply because a prior law exists, is simply NOT a valid argument for introducing a different law, dealing with a different subject.

There are maybe thousands of works of art and thousands more movies from mainstream cinema producers in hollywood, that show violent rape (simulated) - should they also be banned??

I abhor violence against anyone, but this law will not help. I do understand what the supporters of this law might want to achieve, but this is not the way to achieve it. It is bad law, of the very worst kind.

What people who support this law want to do is tackle violent rape of men or women, but this law will simply not achieve what they want. That is why it is P*ss poor law.
163

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 20/01/2009 23:36:41
I admit that http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/280907.pdf is a government summary used to promote a certain viewpoint.

However it quotes from study after study that demonstrates a causal link between violent rape pornography & abuse of women.

Why should all those studies be ignored? I've already quoted a couple, lets quote another:

>>Self reported likelihood of rape and likelihood of force were significantly correlated with use of sexually violent pornographic material F(2,195)=12.25, p<.0001 and the acceptance of interpersonal violence against women F(2,195)=10.89,p<.0001. “The final discriminant function, containing the four attitude scales and the sexually violent pornography variable, was highly significant” (p 148). The authors concluded that it is the combination of sex and aggression in pornography and attitudes towards women supportive of violence that produces a proclivity toward sexual violence, ‘a tendency that may interact with other variables to result in actual sexual aggression’<<

To deny a whole raft of various studies sounds like this is a case of 'we don't like all these studies that demonstrate a link between violent rape porn & abuse so we are just going to ignore these studies and continue believing whatever justifies our own conduct'.

That isn't science.
164

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 20/01/2009 23:46:51
So
1) there are a significant number of studies and case histories that show a correlation between violent rape pornography and real abuse

2) And secondly anyone who 'gets off' on porn depicting violence and rape against women is every bit as sick as a paedophile. (Neither is consensual and both have a victim) What is sexually stimulating about being violent and abusive towards a victim?

Consider the recent rape case in the news. Violent rape against a woman which culminated in a caustic soda attack.

Getting off on stuff like that is simply sick. Violent rape is not some 'kinky smack my wifes bottom session' it is abusive and anyone finding pleasure in such images of abuse is on the same level as someone who gets their kicks from kiddie porn.
165

thephantom,

Carlisle 21/01/2009 01:47:50
Cauchy Riemann,

“Why should all those studies be ignored?”

Nobody is advocating that the studies underlying the REA be ignored. But a multitude of academics are challenging the context in which they have been set. As though it were the only evidence available and as though it were, thus, conclusive.

There was a team (apologies but I do not recall the scientists) who published a study indicating a negative effect of violent porn. It was – to their dismay - seized on to score political points in the porn debate.
However, as the same team continued their research they discovered that similar negative effects could be achieved by making the test subjects ride a bike for several minutes.
This shows the danger of drawing conclusions.

“And secondly anyone who 'gets off' on porn depicting violence and rape against women is every bit as sick as a paedophile... What is sexually stimulating about being violent and abusive towards a victim?”

What evidence have you to substantiate that these people are sick? Why are people who do things you disapprove of sick?

What if I asserted that playing cards is sick? Or drinking alcohol? Or homosexuals? All these claims have been made in the past.

What is stimulating about watching staged abuse? I don't know. What is stimulating about suspenders? Or women's shoes? Or rubber?

As such, it appears that sex isn't really rational.
166

Grahamm,

UK 21/01/2009 02:33:07
Cauchy Riemann

"Why should all those studies be ignored? [...] That isn't science"

No, it's not, but nobody is saying that those studies should be ignored.

Of course neither is it "science" to compile a "Rapid Evidence Assessment" which ignores(!) anything that doesn't agree with it, especially when that Assessment is going to be used as the basis for justifying this law!

To paraphrase your comment: "To deny a whole raft of various studies sounds like this is a case of 'we don't like all these studies that demonstrate NO link between violent rape porn & abuse so we are just going to ignore these studies and continue believing whatever justifies our own conduct".
167

Grahamm,

UK 21/01/2009 02:42:04
Cauchy Riemann:

"anyone who 'gets off' on porn depicting violence and rape against women is every bit as sick as a paedophile. (Neither is consensual and both have a victim)"

Tell me, have you ever heard of this strange thing, I think it's called "ACTING"? Apparently it's a sort of "let's pretend" business where someone does something in front of an audience or a camera but (and here's the clever bit) it is NOT REAL!

So someone can, say, PRETEND to be being tied up or attacked or have someone do nasty things to them and then someone else says "Cut!" (No, nobody actually *gets* cut, it's a technical term, you see) and everything stops and they collect their pay cheques and go home.

Of course there are some who wish us to believe that this is the same as a child (who cannot, of course, legally consent) being molested or abused, but I'm sure that you're not someone who's deluded enough to believe that is a reasonable or a rational argument...
168

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 21/01/2009 09:43:42
Grahamm:

CGI child pornography isn't about real children. But it is still sick. People getting off on that type of thing are paedophiles - regardless of whether the images are real or not.

Anyone who 'gets off' on porn depicting violent rape against women (or men) is every bit as sick as a paedophile. (Neither is consensual and both have a victim)

What is sexually stimulating about being violent and abusive towards a victim? Whether it is simulated or not.

Violent rape is not some 'kinky smack my wifes bottom session' it is abusive and anyone finding pleasure in such images of abuse is on the same level as someone who gets their kicks from kiddie porn - whether simulated or not.

If lots of studies point out clear correlation between abuse and violent rape porn (which they do) then to say 'ah well some studies don't show correlation so its all hunky dory' is pathetic.
169

Grahamm,

UK 21/01/2009 12:07:34
@Thephantom

"There was a team (apologies but I do not recall the scientists) who published a study indicating a negative effect of violent porn. It was – to their dismay - seized on to score political points in the porn debate.
However, as the same team continued their research they discovered that similar negative effects could be achieved by making the test subjects ride a bike for several minutes."

You're thinking of Donnerstein and Malamuth.

See http://libertus.net/censor/rdocs/xrhoax7.html "Arousal, Aggression and Bicycles" for more details.

Other posters would do well to read this article too, I'm sure they wouldn't want to deny any reports which don't agree with their views...
170

Grahamm,

UK 21/01/2009 12:13:23
Cauchy Riemann

Repeating the same arguments over and over again does not make them valid, you are not the Bellman from Lewis Carrol's "The Hunting of the Snark" who claimed that "What I tell you three times is true!"

Banging on comparing staged images featuring consenting adults (even if they are doing things you don't like) to child pornography is now just making you look ridiculous.

Those studies which you claim "point out clear correlation between abuse and violent rape porn" have been largely discredited by subsequent research which have shown their methodology to be flawed and their conclusions invalid.

If you want to continue arguing this, I suggest you do a little more research first (for instance see that link I posted to thephantom) because I have little inclination to keep correcting your misunderstandings.
171

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 21/01/2009 15:31:34
"Repeating the same arguments over and over again does not make them valid"

Correct. But repeating valid arguments is fine.

"Banging on comparing staged images featuring consenting adults (even if they are doing things you don't like) to child pornography is now just making you look ridiculous."

No. CGI child porn is staged. No child has been molested. But people getting off on such child porn are still paedophiles.

People getting off on violence and rape done to women (how the hell can pouring caustic soda on a woman be 'enjoyable') are sick whether staged or not.

What exactly is healthy or even sexual about injuring or killing women as a sexual fantasy?

It is simply a perversion like paedophilia.

"Those studies which you claim "point out clear correlation between abuse and violent rape porn" have been largely discredited..."

Liar. They have not. Such violent rape porn has had an effect in justifying rape to abusers of women. This has also been borne out in case studies of abusers.
172

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 21/01/2009 15:37:20
The reality is that abusers, paedophiles quite often are divorced from reality. They actually don't consider their abuse or paedophilia to be wrong. They make excuse after excuse as to why they are somehow 'justified'.

To normal people there is no justification in getting off on women being maimed or killed in some sexual fantasy.

Furthermore normal people recognise that someone who immerses himself in that kind of fantasy (maiming & killing women for sexual enjoyment) - is precisely the kind of person you don't want hanging around vulnerable people.

But abusers and paedophiles genuinely cannot recognise any of this.

Think about it.
173

thephantom,

Carlisle 21/01/2009 21:03:11
But people getting off on such child porn are still paedophiles. 

In law maybe. But a paedophile who keeps his urges to himself and who looks at a computer generated image is not really a danger to society.

There are paedophiles who struggle very much with themselves, knowing about the harm their urges can cause if acted upon. If we allow them a harmless fictional outlet, it seems unclear where harm would to come to society.

We need to understand that child porn law should be primarily designed to protect children. Recent changes have instead shifted the emphasis on proscribing paedophiles.
It is a subtle difference and one many people do not completely appreciate. I believe though that it represents a grave error.

As such I do not care how many people with arsonist urges walk the streets – as long as they're not committing arson. Any law seeking to round them up for the purchase of matches or playing with candles would seem risible. But that appears to be the equivalent of what we entered into with paedophilia.

It appears that you seem fully signed up to every one of these recent changes. Not least as you feel that anyone not subscribed to mainstream sexuality is 'sick'.
But I suspect your motives for such support are more emotive than purely rational.
174

thephantom,

Carlisle 21/01/2009 21:12:27
"To normal people there is no justification in getting off on women being maimed or killed in some sexual fantasy.
Furthermore normal people recognise that someone who immerses himself in that kind of fantasy - is precisely the kind of person you don't want hanging around vulnerable people."

Dare I ask, what are 'normal people'?
I stress, I am not being facetious. But the statement seems heavily tainted. Do 'normal people' vote Labour or Tory? Do they use brown sauce or ketchup?

Surely you must understand that the assumption of normality and abnormality is the product of bias. Was Alexander the Great 'abnormal' for being bisexual? Is Stephen Fry 'abnormal' for being gay?

A norm is merely an average of sorts. Most people are not gay, thus homosexuals would be 'abnormal', no? Unless we do not subscribe to such notions. I would think them pretty unwise.

People may be mainstream, or they may live on the margins. But those who are marginal, have every right to be, unless good reason can be evidenced to show that they must change their ways.

The concept of liberal allows for the protection of minorities. The people you are calling abnormal or just such a minority.

I cannot see why someone into BDSM should prevented from any job due to his interests.
175

thephantom,

21/01/2009 21:20:07
"Those studies which you claim "point out clear correlation between abuse and violent rape porn" have been largely discredited..."

“Liar. They have not. Such violent rape porn has had an effect in justifying rape to abusers of women. This has also been borne out in case studies of abusers.”

I'm sorry, but I don't think it is acceptable to call people liars like this.
I believe that Graham's statement has a certain validity. It is true that the arguments tend to be counterbalanced when it comes to various studies.

And many make claims which are unresolved either way. They may be disputed by the other side, yet they do remain intact.

But where studies have made categoric claims of evidence, they have largely been discredited.

It is also true that the balance of recent studies seems to have been tilting toward the lack of harm recently. That is not to say this won't change again and we can't take such findings as gospel.

But it is true that such studies which made claims of absolute correlation, etc have by and large been found wanting. Things are generally much more nuanced and the 'grown up' studies tend to reflect that these days.

So no, not a liar.
176

Grahamm,

22/01/2009 00:15:29
Cauchy Riemann:

"repeating valid arguments is fine."

I agree. Try coming up with some.

For instance stop equating "paedophile" with "child molester" or "threat to children" or any other such implication and then using that as the basis for accusing anyone who looks at what you call "violent pornography" (even when staged) of being morally equivalent to such a person.

Then stop using words like "healthy" as if anyone who looks at anything you don't like is "unhealthy".

And just calling me a "liar" without any cites or links to back your claim up is just an ad hominem attack. If you can prove this do so, but read those links I supplied first and see where the examples you refer to *have* been discredited.

And as for people being "divorced from reality", comments about pots and kettles come to mind when you start bandying about words like "normal"!

Who is "normal"? Not so long ago, gays were criminalised because they were "abnormal"!

Is this the sort of prejudice you support? It certainly seems so from your "arguments".
177

Had_Enough!,

02/02/2009 12:04:20
High Roscombe, Very funny who ever you are. People take life to serious these days. The problem is nobody know what is truly obscene for all. I find even the thought of a bloke sticking his thingy in another mans bottom one of the most horific shocking things on the planet. But hey I don't want to ban them I just do go typing into search engines botty bashing (be interesting to see the results though) lol. Another interesting point (no pun intended) I think it was hollyf*ck (oaks) depicted a male rape scene a couple of years ago. It was at that point I stopped my children watching TV at that early time of days. Well before the watershed. No doubt some gay guys will find my views offensive well sorry it is just my opinion.
178

Had_Enough!,

02/02/2009 12:05:01
Meant don't go not "do go" lol
179

Had_Enough!,

02/02/2009 12:06:25
Oh and Kenny what are you thinking about just jumping to an English tune. Honestly you are better than that.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.