Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Art will suffer under porn ban, warns MSP

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: 20 January 2009
A CRACKDOWN on extreme pornography by the Scottish Government will be difficult to enforce and could end up banning art, critics said yesterday.
Downloading images of rape and other extreme material will be punishable by up to three years in prison under laws to be unveiled next month, The Scotsman yesterday revealed.

But Conservative MSP Bill Aitken, the convener of the Justice Committee,
which will have to scrutinise the proposed Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill, said he had grave concerns over how a new law might work, especially as the new laws on downloading images of rape and serious assault could include simulations between consenting adults.

The proposal has raised the prospect of films such as A Clockwork Orange or American Psycho being made illegal if they are downloaded from the internet, but not if they are bought on a DVD.

Mr Aitken said: "Any site showing the actual rape or serious injury being imposed upon a victim is utterly unacceptable and must be acted upon. But we do have to recognise that simulated acts do sometimes occur in dramatic productions."

He suggested the law could mean banning drama, including works by Shakespeare, in which simulated violent and sexual scenes form part of the storyline.

"While I would prefer that they were not too explicit, any proposal to make the watching of such scenes illegal could be seen as an attack on artistic freedom and an illiberal move," he said. He added that questions had to be addressed over how the law could be policed.

"You have to question how it is going to be policed with the availability of material on the worldwide web and the fact that the police will have to obtain warrants for people's home computers," he said.

Concerns were also raised by libertarian organisations.

Simon Richards, director of the Freedom Association, said that, while the issue was not black and white, it could lead to unwanted restrictions on individual liberties.

"This could set a dangerous precedent," he said. "We also have to question why something could be illegal if it is downloaded and not in other forms."

However, the Scottish Government has insisted that there is unlikely to be any confusion over what is legal and illegal. There is already a law which prevents selling or distributing extreme pornography.

"This means that there is already a definition over what extreme pornography is," a Scottish Government spokesman said. "Essentially, we will be extending the law to downloading these images from the current position of selling or distributing them."

He said that full details of the bill will be revealed when it is published later this year.

However, Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, has made it clear he wants prison sentences for people who download extreme pornography and he wants to extend the current maximum of three years in jail for selling this material to five years.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 19 January 2009 9:35 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Rufus-T-Firefly,

19/01/2009 22:25:20
We dont want any art banned.

That would be a ridiculous situation.

Here is some art examples that should be available to all (not pornographic content).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gnatter/3118739847/





2

Rufus-T-Firefly,

19/01/2009 22:25:33
And another.

http://bigrab.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/separated-at-birth-4/
3

,

20/01/2009 00:02:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
4

Wardog™,

wardogblog.blogspot.com 20/01/2009 01:17:54

1/2. Cowardly Rufus punching the air with one fist,......
5

mark1234,

20/01/2009 02:19:29
Thank you for an informative article, this explains some of the problems with the law. And good to see that at least some MSPs see the problem here. No one is objecting to criminalising actual images of abuse, the problem is that the law targets images whether or not what they appear to show is real.

"However, the Scottish Government has insisted that there is unlikely to be any confusion over what is legal and illegal."

They'd better to a better job than the rest of the UK then. It's 6 days until the law comes into force, and the Government has yet to provide any clarity on what will or won't be illegal. In fact, they've explicitly stated that it's up to the courts to decide, and meanwhile, anything which you merely think should be illegal should be destroyed ( http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/extreme-pornographic-images.pdf ).

"There is already a law which prevents selling or distributing extreme pornography."

No, there is not. Or if there is, which law is it? And why do they need to debate definitions of "extreme porn" - if there really was a law, this would already be defined. The Government is conflating this with the Obscene Publications Act, which is a different law, requiring that images "deprave and corrupt" those who are likely to view the material.

Leaving that aside, changing a law from publication to possession is an entirely new thing. It might make some notional sense to have laws about corrupting other people, but how does one deprave yourself by choosing to look at an image, and how does putting you in prison for "depraving yourself" make sense?

And whilst it is perhaps reasonable to require published films to be classified by the BBFC, this does not apply to elsewhere. Recently MP Andy Burnham suggested that Internet sites be classified, and there was an uproar - rightly so, due to the fundamentally different nature of the Internet. But requiring someone to subject every image they might view on the Internet, or might make in privat
6

mark1234,

20/01/2009 02:19:53
And whilst it is perhaps reasonable to require published films to be classified by the BBFC, this does not apply to elsewhere. Recently MP Andy Burnham suggested that Internet sites be classified, and there was an uproar - rightly so, due to the fundamentally different nature of the Internet. But requiring someone to subject every image they might view on the Internet, or might make in private, to classification?

It might be reasonable for commercial filmmakers to know what is and isn't legal, but will viewers, and consenting adults in the bedroom, need to have lawyers looking over their shoulder?

A law on distribution merely means that the image can't be distributed. A law on possession means that the material must be destroyed. Imagine if the Obscene Publications Acts had always covered possession - large numbers of works would have been lost forever. Extending publication laws to possession is not "closing a loophole" - it means that even temporary restrictions imposed by a prudish Government will have permanent effects.
7

Liam,

20/01/2009 07:57:08
Yet again the illiberal nanny-state Nats trying to tell the people of Scotland what to do and think. Scots will not allow their own Government to police their private activities, especially when they cause no harm to others or to wider society. Time to boots these jokers out of power. We have a tradition of liberty and freedom in this country with which the SNP are clearly out of touch.
8

Gussie Fink-Nottle,

20/01/2009 08:13:36
Who would have thought pro-hanging libertarian Bill Aitken was a defender of the arts/snuff flickers.

#8 Tell me Liam is it forced sex or asphyxiation movies that get's your mojo grooving?
9

Donnie Murdo,

Western Isles 20/01/2009 08:29:59
Hmm. Is it Art imitating life or life imitating art?

Or is it life imitating art, imitating life?

Since the powers at be do not have the intellectual capacity for such philosophical thoughts, they solved the problem by banning whatever confuses them.
10

,

20/01/2009 09:13:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
11

Miss H,

20/01/2009 10:09:56
I can't understand the point he is making. If a film was considered to breach legislation it would be banned in all formats. Those films are not banned so it wouldn't apply.

I don't see how a situation could arise where it was allowed to buy a DVD but not to download the same film from the internet (unless obviously it was a breach of copyright scenario) because the same legislation would apply.

Or that's the way I read the proposal anyway. As sometimes happens the Scotsman seems to be making matters more obscure!
12

drunken proffet,

Tassy 20/01/2009 10:14:03
Well that is the local art gallery gone for a burton, just have to rely on perving the magazines out of the local newsagents.
13

dredcat,

20/01/2009 10:28:51
@Miss H

If the law is the same as the one south of the border...

A film in its entirety would be exempt from this law wherever you get it from... but a scene taken from the film or a series of stills would not be covered by the BBFC exemption. That could include scenes on youtube for example.

This means two people could watch the same piece of film and one could be arrested and labelled a sex offender and the other would be seen as totally innocent.

Thought crime anybody?
14

Observer,,

Glasgow 20/01/2009 10:28:55
This is completely hilarious Bill Aitken of all people defending ''liberty''.

BTW what country is he talking about, because it isn't this one. The last time I looked filming actual rape and actual violence wasn't considered art. That is the type of material the Government are talking about, not your average porn. Or indeed art.


15

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 20/01/2009 10:40:11
Would someone mind telling us all how they propose to enforce these daft new laws?

16

brownlie,

20/01/2009 11:13:05
16 Alternative

Flogging for the sadists and refusal to flog for the masochists.
17

katie_may,

scotland 20/01/2009 11:13:20

the stupidity of it all

we have a legal system, that is from start to finish of any given case, completely swamped to the point of saturation, both north and south of the border

this system can't cope now, the resources we have are having to let real nasty people back on the streets because they dont have the resources to deal with them properly

if you take child porn alone, just trying to keep up with this one aspect is taking a lot of the resources we do have, and rightly so, this scurge needs obliterating!

add on to that child abuse, and i think these guys have enough to deal with right now without them having to search someones private collection of pictures to work out if they offensive or not

i'm not saying there should never, ever be a law, i havnt found enough evidence yet to say that porn is or is not causing problems, its something that needs to be looked at properly

in the meantime, i would much prefer it if the precious good we do have in these systems is used to the best of it's ability, and NOT for governments to score brownie points with jo public
18

,

20/01/2009 11:20:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
19

mark1234,

20/01/2009 11:26:08
Miss H: "I don't see how a situation could arise where it was allowed to buy a DVD but not to download the same film from the internet (unless obviously it was a breach of copyright scenario) because the same legislation would apply."

You are correct, but I'm not sure where they got this criticism from. It's unquoted, and I suspect they are misinterpretting the real criticism. At least with the English law, there is an exemption for classified films, so there is the possibility that scenes are legal in films, even if the same scenes are illegal elsewhere. Furthermore, the law has a clause that says that extracts are not exempt. So a film can be illegal, whilst a screenshot from it is illegal! Recent Government guidance confirms that this situation was their intent. So a film in its entirely is okay, whereever you obtain it, but may not be if not in its entirety.
20

mark1234,

20/01/2009 11:30:21
Observer: Please read what he actually said. He clearly states "Any site showing the actual rape or serious injury being imposed upon a victim is utterly unacceptable and must be acted upon. But we do have to recognise that simulated acts do sometimes occur in dramatic productions."

As has been pointed out, no one is trying to defend actual rape, the issue is staged images. A vast range of bondage sexual acts will appear non-consensual on an image, and risk being caught by this law - even if the intent wasn't to depict rape, because how is it decided if an image is meant to depict rape or not?

Have you read the proposal? As with the English law, the actual proposals talk about "realistic" depictions of staged images, whilst in the press, they scaremongering about allegedly "real" images. Don't go by what they say in the press, read it yourself at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/09/24132838/4

"images which realistically depict" - this is the wording in the English law, and means any image which depicts it, so long as it looks "realistic", but doesn't have to be real. Also see the consultation documents, where they say it will include real images or realistic depictions.
21

Miss H,

20/01/2009 11:54:52
14 Well that seems rather stupid but such anomolies can surely be ironed out.

22

mark1234,

20/01/2009 12:12:25
Miss H: "Well that seems rather stupid but such anomolies can surely be ironed out."

Well you'd think so, but that doesn't mean they will.

Moreover, note that this clause was specifically added in. To the Government, it's not an anomaly, it's intentional. It seems they specifically added it in in order to "fix" the criticisms that the law might criminalise possession of currently legal films. Everytime they try to fix an anomaly, rather than fixing the problem, they just make it even more stupid...

The way I'd fix the anomaly is to scrap this law, and, if it's deemed necessary, start with a law that targets abuse in production of porn (with any porn, not just the pic-and-mix set they've decided to target), rather than criminalising fictional images for what they depict.
23

Observer,,

Glasgow 20/01/2009 12:55:13
21 I am not in favour of this law. However, neither am I in favour of hysterical headlines and hysterical comments about ''banning porn''. That is not what is being suggested.
24

Andrew Horton,

20/01/2009 13:43:27
This is about internet sites such as necrobabes and hangingb*tches -- both of which are deplorable, neither of which are defensible to any right thinking individual. This is not about p*rn, masochism, nor sadism. And frankly Bill Aitken is being deliberately misleading or is more ignorant than I had previously given him credit for.
25

Grahamm,

UK 20/01/2009 14:06:07
"the Scottish Government has insisted that there is unlikely to be any confusion over what is legal and illegal."

Have they not read the pig's ear of the law that the English Parliament has produced? Even the Ministry of Justice has admitted that it's incomprehensible and they want the Courts to waste their time sorting out the mess!

"There is already a law which prevents selling or distributing extreme pornography."

Oh dear, the same old nonsense. The Obscene Publications Act does not deal with "extreme pornography", it deals with that which is "liable to corrupt and deprave" (a definition the Government deliberately excluded from the English law). It also does NOT deal with possession of material, even that which is illegal to publish!

It's good to see, however, that at least some MSPs have realised that this law is nothing more than an assault on the rights of adults to make up their own minds what they can or cannot see, without being dictated to by the Nanny State.

#9 Dear Gussie, let me explain, snuff movies are a MYTH! Despite over 30 years of the British and American authorities looking for them, they have NEVER found a single example of anyone being killed for a porn film, let alone anyone being charged of convicted of such a crime, so please, stop peddling this tired nonsense.

#26 Andrew Horton, if you'd ever bothered to look at those sites you'd have seen that their images are, frankly, obviously posed and staged, still why let your ignorance spoil a good rant about them being "deplorable" and "not defensible"?

And, of course, the definition of a "right thinking individual" is someone who agrees with you...!
26

Andrew Horton,

20/01/2009 14:36:38
Both sites are (or was for hangingb*tches) fake snuff and designed to sexually arouse people with images of (poorly staged or otherwise) dead women. People m*sturbate over the idea of women being tortured, abused, raped and murdered.

"Coutts had logged on to the site (hangingb*tches.com], which featured an image of a screaming woman with a clear plastic bag pulled tightly over her head on its homepage, the day before killing 31-year-old Miss Longhurst."

Your own rant reveals you as an individual clearly not of right thinking.
27

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

20/01/2009 16:52:49
Can it really be the case that in Scotland the police have so effectively put a stop to real sex crimes that they now have the time to police fictional ones?
28

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

20/01/2009 16:58:15
"As has been pointed out, no one is trying to defend actual rape, the issue is staged images. A vast range of bondage sexual acts will appear non-consensual on an image, and risk being caught by this law - even if the intent wasn't to depict rape, because how is it decided if an image is meant to depict rape or not?"

They could follow the lead of the US porn industry. To avoid underage actors and actresses apearing in films, the producers are required to lodge the credentials of all those appearing with the authorities and to publish details at the start of each movie.

Similarly a requirement could be made of film on the web to publish the names and ages of those appearing and a statement by each that they have consented to what follows. The producers and publishers could hold paper copy to prove to any interested authorities that no non-consensual activity has taken place.

If the intent really is to prevent rape, rather than simply to censor films that someone or other dislikes, then that should be sufficent.
29

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

20/01/2009 17:03:21
Mark1234 helpfully informs:

"Recent Government guidance confirms that this situation was their intent. So a film in its entirely is okay, whereever you obtain it, but may not be if not in its entirety"

I doubt there's an adult alive (at least outside of the pay of a government quango) who has watched any single porn film in its entirety.
30

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

20/01/2009 17:03:56
....except perhaps if we include watching on fast-Forward.
31

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 20/01/2009 17:12:50
Why are some of you getting so wound up about this? We all KNOW that this is a stupid law dreamed up by an idiot, designed to address a non-existant problem and is effectively un-enforcable.

Can't we just leave it at that?
32

Grahamm,

UK 20/01/2009 17:27:23
Andrew Horton:

"Both sites are [...] fake snuff"

Exactly, they are *FAKE*. Neither of them say "hey, why not go out and do this!" any more than the Charles Bronson "Death Wish" films say "why not go out and be a vigilante!"

How many people do you think have looked at those images and *NOT* gone on to kill someone? Should we all be treated as dangerous individuals who cannot act responsibly because of *ONE* single case?

The fact that Graham Coutts had looked at that site before the death of Jane Longhurst is irrelevant or circumstantial at best, given that he had been using felt-tipped pens to draw nooses on images of models in magazines long before the advent of the internet and had been playing consensual asphyxiation games with partners (*including* Jane Longhurst) for years before.

Your argument has the fallacy of "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" (after this, therefore because of this) attempting to make a connection where none exists, as any "right thinking" person should know.

PS @#33

"Can't we just leave it at that?"

Unfortunately, no, because:

a) this law means that some poor sod is eventually going to get hauled up in Court and have their reputation and perhaps their career and their family destroyed as the Police leak all sorts of private information about them to a Media interested in publishing salacious tittle-tattle and

b) because it will set a precedent that allows the Government to decide (based on no evidence) that since they consider certain imagery to be "abhorrent" or "unacceptable", they can then expand it into other areas (what's next? Cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed? Remember the Race and Religious Hatred Bill?) and ban anything else they don't like.

That way Big Brother lies...
33

Andrew Horton,

20/01/2009 18:10:25
And what thoughts, erection in hand, do you think goes through the minds of men who are aroused by such ideas? Are they thinking "These images aren't real." Or are they thinking, as they ejaculate, depraved thoughts such as "Die b*tch, I'll cut your f*cking throat." Anyone who thinks that the death, torture and suffering of women is sexually arousing needs help. They don't need images which fuel such fantasies, and these images are provided especially for those fantasies.

Circumstantial at best? It's not a courtroom, use some sense. The man was sick and that sickness was not helped by the site. Do you consider it wrong that fake kiddy porn is illegal (i.e. kids face plastered on nude model's body)? Surely adults are able to "make up their own minds what they can and cannot see." It's all fake after all, and I'm sure most of it is clearly fake. Or can you understand that most of us accept that society expects boundaries, and the majority of us are taught those boundaries as children, and we welcome those boundaries. I don't like a nanny state, I don't like the so called "anti-terror legislation" (which scares me more than a few nutters with a bag of fertilizer) or the surveillance society Labour is spending billions on creating. But there are limits, and these sites and images go far beyond them.

Argue, if you wish, that the law is poorly defined. It is, and the Scottish parliament should address that (as should Westminster for England and Wales). "Extreme pornography" is far too open to interpretation and left as it is someone will abuse it. Argue, if you wish, that our liberties are being eroded. They are, and something needs to be done about that because we are heading towards Big Brother (if we are not there already). But society must have rules when they are the right rules to have.

People are wrong to suggest this law is effectively making Clockwork Orange and American Psyhco illegal though, and I am certain the majority of people would
34

The Tin Man,

20/01/2009 18:17:22
Looks like McAskill's off on another one. Will we still get images of rape on TV?...

Undoubtedly.
35

Miss H,

20/01/2009 18:59:57
35 I think the reality is that most people have never seen any of that stuff. I don't ever want to. I would like to see the people who download that kind of material identified and if found guilty put on the sex offenders register. Not jailed - but I don't want someone who is into that kind of thing teaching my kids.

I think it will be technically and logistically very difficult to do that but they should give it a go.
36

Observer,,

Glasgow 20/01/2009 19:36:38
37 You can't put people on a sex offender register for thought crime. Yes these sites are disgusting, but in principle there is no difference between placing a voyuer on a register, and labelling someone a terrorist because they have viewed extremist material on a web-site. That is a step too far.
37

katie_may,

scotland 20/01/2009 20:05:00
why should a teacher looking at porn be any different from a builder looking at porn?

what about a parent who looks at porn? is that any different?



38

Andrew Horton,

20/01/2009 20:31:41
Miss H that's why I posted, because I think most people think this law applies to porn or a bit of sadism or masochism. I imagine most people don't realise what warped stuff some people enjoy.

Conspiracy to commit a crime is illegal, as is incitement. Neither of which requires any attempt to break the law so might be considered thought crimes. For example making videos available (online or otherwise) to tempt someone to begin Jihad is incitement, planning that attempt with one or more people without any action is conspiracy, beginning perpetration of Jihad without completing the act (whether or not of one's own choosing) is attempt. All of which are illegal, but neither of which did an act of physical crime take place. (Jihad probably isn't a good example because of "anti-terror legislation" but it's typed now and will have to do.) It might be argued that incitement and conspiracy require two or more people, but they're still thought crimes.
39

Observer,,

Glasgow 20/01/2009 21:05:35
40 Well that's my problem Andrew, I don't think any of these anti-terrorist laws allowing the state to lock you up for what is in essence thought crime should be on the statute books. So no matter how much I may agree that these sites are disgusting and the people who look at them freaks, I don't think you can realistically put them on a sex offenders register because they haven't commited an actual offence.
40

Observer,,

20/01/2009 21:08:34
39 Teachers and other people who work with young people and vulnerable adults are put through disclosure checks to make sure they are fit to be placed in positions of responsibility and trust. That is why a teacher is different from a builder. I wouldn't want any person who gains sexual satisfaction from looking at images of women being cut up and mutilated teaching my kids either to be honest, and I find it very surprising that you would.
41

Andrew Horton,

20/01/2009 21:27:28
41 That was why I said it was a bad example (I too am very concerned about anti-terror legislation). A better example: if I try to convince you that holding up a bank would be a good idea I've committed incitement. If you agree and we discuss how to hold the bank up we have committed conspiracy. Almost impossible to prove but if we pick up our guns and then immediately change our minds, put the guns down and laugh at what a silly idea it was we can still technically be convicted for attempt to hold the bank up. The point being that it is useless to argue the law in question is wrong because it is a thought crime, and such crimes already exist.

Until there is a world law (long away may that be) we need to cope as best we can. We can introduce laws such as this one, or we can introduce a firewall akin to China's. Because sites such as these, Jihad sites, paedophile sites, and other sites the majority of us wish wouldn't exist will exist. And this law does need clarification on what is considered extreme, but once that clarification is made it gives away very little power whereas a firewall (for example) would give away too many liberties.
42

Andrew Horton,

20/01/2009 21:30:34
And on the subject of anti-terror legislation and the (inappropriate) use of: http://www.indefence.is/Petition
43

Grahamm,

UK 20/01/2009 21:40:42
Andrew Horton:

I don't know what thoughts go through the minds of anyone who watches those films "erection in hand" or not, but it seems that you are in favour of a Thought Crime because you believe that, by banning this material, it will *stop* these putative thoughts going through someone's mind!

Obviously in your perfect world, even the contents of our own heads are not sacrosanct!

"Anyone who thinks that the death, torture and suffering of women is sexually arousing needs help. They don't need images which fuel such fantasies"

Err, hang on a minute! You're now saying that these people don't neve *NEED* these images, so how, exactly will banning them make a damn bit of difference if they can have these thoughts *without* those images?!

"It's not a courtroom, use some sense."

But the courtroom is where this *will* be decided! And simply because *you* believe that "The man was sick and that sickness was not helped by the site" is no proof of anything apart from your bigotry.

Oh, and please, stop bringing in irrelevant references to child pornography. Graham Coutts was not charged with, nor convicted of, any offences to do with children. All his images were of *adults*, so I'm not going to chase that red herring.

I also find it odd that, whilst there are some limits that you are in favour of, there are others you object to, yet you seem to want everyone else to accept your opinions of what those limits should be as a basis for law. I'm sure that's what Saint Tony, the Vicar of St Albions also thought...
44

Grahamm,

UK 20/01/2009 21:52:05
Observer:

"Teachers and other people who work with young people and vulnerable adults are put through disclosure checks to make sure they are fit to be placed in positions of responsibility and trust."

You are probably not aware that the "Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act" (which was introduced before the so-called "extreme pornography" law was even codified!) allows for the creation of an "Independent Barring Board" which could block someone from working with "vulnerable groups" (ie children or the elderly) for certain forms of conduct including:

"conduct involving sexually explicit images depicting violence against human beings (including possession of such images), if it appears to IBB that the conduct is inappropriate;"

So this IBB will want to know what sort of pornography you look at before you can get a job working with these groups and decide whether it is "inappropriate"!

Unfortunately, if they are like some of the other posters on here, they may already have a bigoted position and consider that anyone who looks at this "inappropriate" material is *obviously* a threat to the vulnerable and shouldn't be allowed to work with them.

"Fine", you may say, but then I'll remind you that, not so long ago, homosexuals were considered to be a "threat" to children (without ever there being any evidence or proof that they were more of a danger than anyone else).

Is that the sort of bigotry you wish to emulate?
45

Andrew Horton,

20/01/2009 22:00:26
You don't know what thoughts go through their mind? Are you naive, or just stupid?

Don't deliberately mince my words around the word "need".

No, this thread wont be decided in a courtroom. Clearly it's stupidity that is your problem.

If despising people who find the idea of torturing or murdering women is bigoted, then yes I'm a bigot. In the same way that if (yes, if) you hate racists, Nazis, rapists, muggers, war-criminals, wife-beaters and other low life with alternative lifestyles then you also are a bigot.

Fake child pornography sites clearly are relevant to this discussion and your defence that images on sites such as those previously posted are clearly fake. Also relevant to the argument of thought crimes, "contents of our own heads" and other such arguments.

Boundaries. I did mention them.

And I think you're one of the sick individuals I'm "bigoted" against so really don't want to converse with you anymore. You're disturbed. Get help (seriously, get help). Your kind disgust me.
46

Horrible Cankers @Cyber Shebeen,

21/01/2009 00:58:50
45...Get a grip!...how can you possibly equate homosexuality with the pervs that like to knock one out to child abuse, violence and bestiality?

This is not "Bigotry" as you name it..who are the victims here?

Or perhaps you think it thoroughly acceptable that men get off on these (sometimes appalingly violent) images and that in 'Real life' they are totally decent chaps who should be allowed to work with; children who have been the victims of rape, violence or coercion..women and men likewise..or even be coppers or nurses who tend to the victims of the crimes that have been enacted for their carnal pleasure?

Of course they should cos hey...they really are decent chaps after all!

Like hell they are..they are the scum who continue to fund the b*astards that profit from their perversions...who continue to make the pseudo films that feed the imaginations of saddos throughout the world...and yes these images DO fuel the drive and needs of dysfunctional men that can only get off on violence, abuse and control...and ANYONE with half a feckin brain knows that.

46...Clearly some individuals on this forum think that "Boundaries" are control..something that we (?) do not need...unfortunately the internet has opened up a whole new world to the sexual saddos and this means that their demands have to be met..by way of shrieks of "Nanny state control" and "No victims, harms no one!"...

Any decent civilised human being knows what is going on here.
47

Grahamm,

UK 21/01/2009 02:14:26
Andrew Horton:

Am I naive, or just stupid? Neither. Neither am I arrogant enough to presume I know what goes through *anyone's* mind, not even yours.

I am especially not arrogant enough to think that a law based on what I *think* might go through someone's mind is a good enough reason to pass that law!

And, please, calling people names such as "stupid" or "sick" or assuming that because I believe in the rights of adults not to be told by the Nanny State what is or isn't good for them to view means that I am "disturbed" or "need help" isn't exactly a good way of making a convincing or even sensible argument.

You might like to consider the actual definition of the word "bigot": a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his own - Chambers.

QED.
48

Grahamm,

UK 21/01/2009 02:22:05
#47

You miss my point. It is not me who is equating homosexuality with what you mention, it is, however, the same attitude that bigots(!) used to claim that homosexuals were a "threat" to children which is now being used to claim that *anyone* who looks at images of CONSENTING ADULTS engaged in STAGED IMAGES is some sort of deranged lunatic who only needs one glimpse of these picture to go on a killing frenzy.

As for the rest of your rant, I think you need to calm down, take a deep breath and (oh yes) "get a grip!" instead of claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is not a "decent civilised human being"...
49

Andrew Horton,

21/01/2009 08:21:45
48

"Andrew Horton: Am I naive, or just stupid?"

Stupid, you sick b*stard.
50

Grahamm,

UK 21/01/2009 12:14:54
Andrew Horton:

Ah, the ad hominem attack, calling someone names because you've lost the argument.

Goodbye.
51

Dunfesterin,

21/01/2009 14:08:24
This stupid law means you can watch "The Accused" on a DVD player on the train while in England, but as soon as you cross the border you're liable to get nicked!!

WTF!!!

SALMOND - FFS CONSULT EXPERTS BEFORE YOU THINK OF HALF-ARSED LAWS!
52

barrow5,

glasgow 22/01/2009 20:32:52
44 & 45,why do people's opinions which differ from yours make them a bigot.I learned at school never mind university that it was no argument to impune the integrity of one's opponent,in short to respect others' opinions.
53

Grahamm,

UK 23/01/2009 00:33:06
#53 barrow5:

"It was not argument to impugn the integrity of one's opponent".

I suggest you read post #50...!
54

thephantom,

Carlisle 25/01/2009 21:51:33
Andrew Horton:
"Anyone who thinks that the death, torture and suffering of women is sexually arousing needs help. They don't need images which fuel such fantasies"

Sadomasochism is not a psychological condition. More so it is a sexual archetype of sorts. Psychology therefore recognises it as a perfectly normal form of sexual expression.

Furthermore any claim that images fuel such fantasies would need to be substantiated.

Can you substantiate, or will you merely claim it to be 'common sense'?
The latter would mean that it merely appears obvious to your mind and those of a similar mindset.

Thus the flaw may lie in the mindset, rather than in the images, so to speak.

It is unlikely that you can be 'made' sadomasochistic. Just as it is unlikely that you can be rendered gay by looking at pictures.

In short, the notion seems to defy logic. But then this is being proposed by politicians.
Thus, logic has very little to do with it. :)

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


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.