3 years in Prison for violent porn??

kainedamo

Superhero
Joined
Sep 11, 2001
Messages
9,713
Reaction score
0
Points
31
I know, I know. No porn threads. But since this is a news matter, AND of some importance, I thought I might be able to get away with it. I PM'd Morg, and said if he thinks the thread is inappropriate to go ahead with locking it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/5297600.stm

Mother wins ban on violent porn

Liz Longhurst won support from MPs for her campaign


Mother's reaction
A mother whose daughter died at the hands of a man obsessed with violent internet porn has won her fight for a ban on possessing such images.
The government has announced plans to make the possession of violent porn punishable by three years in jail.

It follows a campaign by Berkshire woman Liz Longhurst whose daughter Jane, a Brighton schoolteacher, was strangled by Graham Coutts.

Mrs Longhurst's campaign was backed by MPs and a 50,000-signature petition.

Hidden body

In November last year the petition won cross-party support when it was presented to the House of Commons and was backed publicly by the solicitor general, Harriet Harman MP.

Since her daughter's death Mrs Longhurst, 74, from Reading, has fought a long campaign to ban the possession of images of sexual violence.




Doubts remain over ban

Mrs Longhurst said: "My daughter Sue and myself are very pleased that after 30 months of intensive campaigning we have persuaded the government to take action against these horrific internet sites, which can have such a corrupting influence and glorify extreme sexual violence."

Jane Longhurst, 31, was found dead on Wiggonholt Common, near Pulborough, West Sussex, on 19 April 2003.

She had been strangled with a pair of tights and her body kept in storage for weeks before it was found.

In 2004, musician Coutts, 36, of Waterloo Street, Hove, West Sussex, was jailed for life for her murder but on appeal the minimum term he was ordered to serve was reduced from 30 to 26 years.

Such material has no place in our society

Home Office minister Vernon Coaker

Trial jurors had been told of his obsession with strangulation and how he looked at internet sites connected with the fetish.

It is already a crime to make or publish such images but proposed legislation will outlaw possession of images such as "material featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury".

Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker MP said: "Such material has no place in our society but the advent of the internet has meant that this material is more easily available and means existing controls are being by-passed - we must move to tackle this."

Mrs Longhurst said legislation, which would apply to all websites, would mean her daughter's death had not been "entirely in vain".

Reading West MP Martin Salter, who backed the campaign, said: "This campaign has taken a huge amount of time and effort but it has struck a chord right across the country.


Graham Coutts was said to have been addicted to violent porn
The move by the government would close a legal loophole.

"It is great news that the Government has not only listened but has responded to calls to outlaw access to sickening internet images, which can so easily send vulnerable people over the edge."

The new law will not target those who accidentally come into contact with obscene pornography or affect mainstream entertainment industry working within current obscenity laws.

But the proposed legislation has drawn opposition from anti-censorship groups and organisations who represent people involved in sadomasochist activities.

Shaun Gabb, director of the anti-censorship organisation the Libertarian Alliance, said: "If you are criminalising possession then you are giving police inquisitorial powers to come into your house and see what you've got, now we didn't have this in the past."

This year five Law Lords sent Coutts' case back to the Court of Appeal to "invite that court to quash the conviction".

It was argued that jurors in the original trial should have been offered the option of manslaughter as well as a murder verdict.

I'm kind of confused. Oh, this only applies to Britain by the way. What can and what can't they lock you up for? "material featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury". But what if it's an entirely fictional situation that's being filmed? And isn't this law hypocritical in that it only applies to porn and not movies? It's sounds really stupid, and really uninforcible if you ask me.

There are alot of consenting people out there that like the BDSM stuff. What about those people?

I'm confused as to where this law draws the line.
 
So I can keep my violent porn then?
 
Mentok said:
So I can keep my violent porn then?
Yeah, but our weekend plans to make more are ruined. Ruined! :csad:
 
While I do like porn some of the stuff out there is pretty sick and should be policed IMO.
 
The problem that I have with this. Is that people don't realise that because of the internet. It is keeping more people from doing this stuff, then not. It is called Catharsis. If they keep restricting this stuff. There will be a rise in Serial Killers. Much like videogames can help a person deminish violent tendencies.
 
While I do like porn some of the stuff out there is pretty sick and should be policed IMO.

But where is the line drawn?
 
Are we talking about the pseudo rape/snuff films?
Because, if so, I agree with the ruling.
 
But I'm not too sure if that's what it means.

Maybe it's down to interpretation. Maybe if a police guy somehow got a look at your porn, saw some ass slapping, saw some rough stuff, he'd be all horrified, and arrest you and charge you according to this law.

With the right judge and jury, you could probably get prosecuted!
 
"material featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury".

Doesnt sound like spanking to me.
 
7Hells said:
"material featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury".

Doesnt sound like spanking to me.

But maybe that's just how kainedamo likes it. :daredevil
 
7Hells said:
"material featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury".

Doesnt sound like spanking to me.


I think maybe you're right.
 
This won't change a thing. Purveyors of BDSM oriented pornography have found ways to circumvent all of the laws on the books for years in order to keep producing their materials. It isn't clear in the article, though, if they're talking about fetish and BDSM related porn or something else entirely like fantasy rape or snuff films or something, which are either borderline where the law is concerned or flat-out illegal to begin with.

jag
 
Equint77 said:

Well, regardless, if these people really think this is going to make a difference and stop people from producing or owning these kinds of materials, they are sadly mistaken. There are always ways around obscenity laws because they are so subjective and open to interpretation, and when that fails there's always a black market approach to production and distribution. It amazes me whenever people try to legislate morality, because it's always doomed to failure. I swear that no one seems to have learned from the example set by prohibition laws in the U.S. in the 1920's and how that can go horribly wrong on so many levels.

jag
 
jaguarr said:
Well, regardless, if these people really think this is going to make a difference and stop people from producing or owning these kinds of materials, they are sadly mistaken. There are always ways around obscenity laws because they are so subjective and open to interpretation, and when that fails there's always a black market approach to production and distribution. It amazes me whenever people try to legislate morality, because it's always doomed to failure. I swear that no one seems to have learned from the example set by prohibition laws in the U.S. in the 1920's and how that can go horribly wrong on so many levels.

jag

Every law, every rule has a loophole and there's thousands of people constantly thinking how to get around them. I respect these people for trying to make a change, but as you said Jag... even if there was a prohibition on porn (as an example)... there's always gonna be camcorders and people wanting to video tape themselves.

It's a tremendous effort but unfortunately a lost cause.
 
Equint77 said:
Every law, every rule has a loophole and there's thousands of people constantly thinking how to get around them. I respect these people for trying to make a change, but as you said Jag... even if there was a prohibition on porn (as an example)... there's always gonna be camcorders and people wanting to video tape themselves.

It's a tremendous effort but unfortunately a lost cause.


I don't disagree at all with the end result they are after, which is to prevent violent crimes of these nature from happening. The truth is, though, that people who are going to do things like that will do them regardless of whether they've seen it in pornography or not. In fact, as Maximum_Carnage pointed out, being able to realize these fantasies through pornography probably keeps a great many of those with such tendencies from ever trying to realize them in real life scenarios. There are already laws on the books for things that are and very much should be illegal like murder, rape, and any other non-consentual activities. The trouble with video is that it makes it very difficult to distinguish what's real and what's not, particularly since the folks that make that kind of pornography usually aim for extreme realism. It becomes very difficult to prosecute, so they've simply outlawed all kinds of porn that depict these kinds of acts (never mind that you can watch a Hollywood film with some of these same depictions). It's an across the board approach and really the only fair one. And ambitious filmmakers either find ways to circumvent those laws or go completely underground with their material, anyway.

Not that the Brits have any sort of monopoly on trying to legislate futile morality laws, but at least one is their own and doesn't add to the mountain of terrible legislation we have in the states.

jag
 
jaguarr said:
I don't disagree at all with the end result they are after, which is to prevent violent crimes of these nature from happening. The truth is, though, that people who are going to do things like that will do them regardless of whether they've seen it in pornography or not. In fact, as Maximum_Carnage pointed out, being able to realize these fantasies through pornography probably keeps a great many of those with such tendencies from ever trying to realize them in real life scenarios. There are already laws on the books for things that are and very much should be illegal like murder, rape, and any other non-consentual activities. The trouble with video is that it makes it very difficult to distinguish what's real and what's not, particularly since the folks that make that kind of pornography usually aim for extreme realism. It becomes very difficult to prosecute, so they've simply outlawed all kinds of porn that depict these kinds of acts (never mind that you can watch a Hollywood film with some of these same depictions). It's an across the board approach and really the only fair one. And ambitious filmmakers either find ways to circumvent those laws or go completely underground with their material, anyway.

Not that the Brits have any sort of monopoly on trying to legislate futile morality laws, but at least one is their own and doesn't add to the mountain of terrible legislation we have in the states.

jag

you hit that right on the head.
 
This thread fine, just so nobody posts any porn stars in here
 
i consider Elisha Cuthbert Porn.. take her off your avvy.
 
Equint77 said:
i consider Elisha Cuthbert Porn.. take her off your avvy.


How about I just remove yours? :p
 
GhostRider5006 said:
Thats some HARDCORE porn.


*looks at sig* You do realized you spell friend wrong? :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
201,164
Messages
21,908,426
Members
45,703
Latest member
BMD
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"