|
Britain might ban Violent Porn
|
View this Thread in Original format
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Britain Seeks to Ban Violent Internet Porn 29 minutes ago
LONDON - Ever since Jane Longhurst was killed two years ago by a man obsessed with violent Internet pornography, her family has campaigned for the British government to outlaw the viewing of extreme sexual material on the Web. On Tuesday the government agreed, announcing plans — the first, it said, by any Western country — to ban the downloading and possession of violent sexual images.
ADVERTISEMENT
Police and anti-porn campaigners welcomed the proposal but free-speech groups called it censorship, saying there was no proven link between violent imagery and violent behavior.
Home Office Minister Paul Goggins said the government felt a duty to prevent cases such as the murder of Longhurst, a 31-year-old teacher strangled by a friend who was obsessed with violent pornography he found on the Internet.
"This is material which is extremely offensive to the vast majority of people, and it should have no place in our society," Goggins said.
The government's proposals would make it an offense to possess "extreme pornographic material which is graphic and sexually explicit and which contains actual scenes or realistic depictions of serious violence, bestiality or necrophilia."
Viewing such material would constitute possession, although the government said it did not plan to prosecute people who accidentally stumbled across the images.
Such legislation would be a first for any Western nation, the Home Office said. Those convicted would face up to three years in prison.
The Obscene Publications Act already bans publication of images of sexual brutality on the Internet but is all but impossible to enforce unless the material is hosted in Britain.
The Internet Watch Foundation, an industry-funded watchdog that encourages Internet users to report illegal content, says almost none of the obscene material it found on the Net was hosted in Britain; the majority came from the United States.
That makes such matters very difficult to investigate, said Metropolitan Police Commander Dave Johnston, who welcomed the government's proposal.
Chris Evans of the pressure group Internet Freedom said Internet users "should be able to make up their own minds about what they view."
"The idea that you can prevent violent action by banning such images is nonsense," he said.
The government's proposal is a long way from becoming law. Interested parties have until Dec. 2 to comment on the plans, which would then have to be drafted into a bill and passed by Parliament before taking effect.
|
__
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050830...n_internet_porn |
|
|
| Lira |
| Odd, but I'd support such ban. |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Odd, but I'd support such ban. |
Yes well I am sure you support many bans that will make the resistance strengthen. Basically I see this as an infrigment on a persons right to do and show whatever they want. I mean it is only the internet and the people viewing it are doing it without a gun pointed to thier head. Besides they are not going to succeed they said it that most of the porn was coming from the USA and they can't regulate what is being done in the US. |
|
|
| THE_Chris |
Utter bull.
If you dont like it, dont look at it. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
Yes well I am sure you support many bans that will make the resistance strengthen. |
You're actually right. It's incredible that once you have a rule set, some people will blindly disobey, often just for the sake of it. I'm for it because it could lead to two main scenarios:
- It could succeed. Given the nature of internet and how it works, simply banning the sites in the United Kingdom would be no use. If anything, users seeing some "rape porn" could be sued, for example.
- It could fail, and the ban would end up becoming as pathetic as censorship on computer games and whatnot.
These being two ideal consequences, the result would eventually be in-between. Most likely, there would be some success (if any) and some failure. Some would defend either the status quo or the ban, acting mainly on emotion, but there would be discussion, which matters more than just leaving it untouched.
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
Basically I see this as an infrigment on a persons right to do and show whatever they want. |
Now that's a utopian vision. Being a social being, it's absurd to believe that any individual would have the plain right to do (and show) whatever they want. There are limits to this liberty, such as a common well-being. That's why crimes exist, for example. Once a person engages on an act that might harm another individual, the right of doing such thing is open to dispute.
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
I mean it is only the internet and the people viewing it are doing it without a gun pointed to thier head. |
However, in order to come to such conclusion, you're taking in cosideration that:
- All visitors have plain control of all their doings.
- All visitors are mentally sound.
- The visitors are aware of the fact that fiction should not be always brought into reality.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work in such idealistic way. There are several studies on this field, both being for and against this sort of censorship but unless there is enough material to come to a conclusion, a more cautious policy would be better than a "not guilty until proven" policy. If the person needs those violent sexual stimuli that bad, they could look for other people with the same need and engage on these acts among themselves and keeping it from the public.
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
Besides they are not going to succeed they said it that most of the porn was coming from the USA and they can't regulate what is being done in the US. |
The US, often being a puritan country, would likely follow the steps of United Kingdom but, even if it didn't it doesn't contradict with the arguments. |
|
|
| Lepanto |
banning anything is retarded since it just gets even more popular. look at anything that's been banned
Lolita
Dr.Zhavago
Fahrenheit 451 |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
Let's ban Eminem and Marylin Manson too. Oh, and get rid of Hollywood.
Seriously. Get rid of Hollywood. |
|
|
| CONNERMAN2000 |
| quote: | | Seriously. Get rid of Hollywood. |
+1 |
|
|
| Pariah Cleric |
| It's the violent pornography, choking chicks and sodomyyyy... the kind of you get on your TV. |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Pariah Cleric
It's the violent pornography, choking chicks and sodomyyyy... the kind of you get on your TV. |
please no system of a down lyrics. But I do see the point.
| quote: | You're actually right. It's incredible that once you have a rule set, some people will blindly disobey, often just for the sake of it. I'm for it because it could lead to two main scenarios:
It could succeed. Given the nature of internet and how it works, simply banning the sites in the United Kingdom would be no use. If anything, users seeing some "rape porn" could be sued, for example.
It could fail, and the ban would end up becoming as pathetic as censorship on computer games and whatnot.
These being two ideal consequences, the result would eventually be in-between. Most likely, there would be some success (if any) and some failure. Some would defend either the status quo or the ban, acting mainly on emotion, but there would be discussion, which matters more than just leaving it untouched. |
You see some of that "rape porn" is not real so it can't bother you that two individuals agreed to do this. There might be some out there that is real and that as it is; is illegal and must be dealt with. Like this one time I dl a video on Emule and it was of this girl who looked to have been drugged and she was having intercourse with this guy and his wife. You could tell she was drugged due to the fact that the wife was moving the girl around so that her husband could stick his pennis in her mouth etc.
| quote: | | Now that's a utopian vision. Being a social being, it's absurd to believe that any individual would have the plain right to do (and show) whatever they want. There are limits to this liberty, such as a common well-being. That's why crimes exist, for example. Once a person engages on an act that might harm another individual, the right of doing such thing is open to dispute. |
Yes you are correct there are limits. Obviously you wouldn't want to be raped or murdered so stop that if that is what you are doing. Now if you really want to go far out you should ban making fun of people. It offends the person being made fun of and it might have dire consequences when the childl is older. Such as he might become a drug addict because all his life people made fun of him and he didn't have any friends so he had no one he could rely on. You see about this ban is that most of it is being done by willing participants, kinda like prositution where is the harm in that.
| quote: | However, in order to come to such conclusion, you're taking in cosideration that: All visitors have plain control of all their doings. All visitors are mentally sound. The visitors are aware of the fact that fiction should not be always brought into reality.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work in such idealistic way. There are several studies on this field, both being for and against this sort of censorship but unless there is enough material to come to a conclusion, a more cautious policy would be better than a "not guilty until proven" policy. If the person needs those violent sexual stimuli that bad, they could look for other people with the same need and engage on these acts among themselves and keeping it from the public. |
I will give you a conclusion: Better parenting equals less abuse of drugs, less abuse of alcohol, less unwanted pregnancies. if there weren't so many ty parents than there wouldn't be as many problems. Some people might not be mentally sane but that does not always mean they will go out and commit a violent crime. I have a tenant who owns over twenty handguns and he is legally crazy. He has never commited a crime with the guns other than purchasing them. What causes crimes is authorotarian parents who abuse thier children while young and during the whole time they live with them. Most of those people will go out and rebel against authority. In short better parents are needed to prevent such crimes.
| quote: | | The US, often being a puritan country, would likely follow the steps of United Kingdom but, even if it didn't it doesn't contradict with the arguments. |
My brain seems dead by now must be due to the fact I have a hangover. Oh, ok the US of A is a puritan country. That is why we have the highest rate of divorces and cheating on spouses. It would also be as to why the porn industry in the US alone is a twenty billion dollar industry, and as to why the gambling industry here is 900 billion dollars worth. It could also explain why we have the most rapes in the world because of our purity. That to me really sounds puritan:rolleyes:. This ban would be just as successful as the drug war. In fact the banned would make it just "cool" to rebel against. By banning anything that would have been done by a few before you just make it comman practice for the rest once the ban is there. |
|
|
| swisstoni_uk |
What somebody does in their own home is their own choice and business as long as nobody was an unwilling participent and all know the extent of what they are doing and are of sound mind. The internet is a public domain, there should be no censorship of what can be viewed and what cannot, one body or country cannot take control and limit access to it.
If i want to get bummed by a Donkey and put pictures on my site, then i'll bloody well do so :haha: :haha: |
|
|
| Tim Shady |
| pics or stfu :p |
|
|
|
|
