‘Rape porn’ possession to be punished with 3 years in jail in the UK(metro.co.uk)
metro.co.uk
‘Rape porn’ possession to be punished with 3 years in jail in the UK
http://metro.co.uk/2013/11/17/rape-porn-possession-to-be-punished-by-three-years-in-jail-david-cameron-to-announce-4189512/
37 comments
You could make the case that owning a movie such as Irreversible(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290673/) would be punishable with jail time under this law.
There are much better laws that could be be put in place, or that already are in place to protect women from sexual violence.
I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but the way western europe is moving at the moment. It's starting to look more and more like the morality police is taking over.
There are much better laws that could be be put in place, or that already are in place to protect women from sexual violence.
I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but the way western europe is moving at the moment. It's starting to look more and more like the morality police is taking over.
Why would you say 'western europe'? I am not saying you are wrong. It's just that I was surprised to see stuff like 'blocking porn' coming our of UK, I have not seen anything like that in any other European country and my perception of this was that it's just some weird UK puritanism or something. Obviously I might have missed something.
> it's just some weird UK puritanism or something
It's politics. The Conservatives (David Cameron's party) are in coalition with the Liberal Democrats. We can debate the merits of the coalition (many do), but the upside is that some of the more extreme policies many Tories wanted to put through have been blocked.
This creates a dilemma for David Cameron, not too dissimilar from that of the US Republicans right now: on the one hand, there's an increasingly vocal wing of the party that favors extremely conservative policies (such as pulling out of the EU completely, replacing the EU Human Rights Act, small government, big cuts, etc). On the other, there's the harsh reality that these policies have no chance of getting through a parliament where they don't have an absolute majority.
So we are left in this situation where David Cameron announces, on a fairly regular basis, policies that are intended to appease his vocal right wing members (a "British Bill of Rights", a referendum to exit the EU, outlawing violent pornography, etc) that realistically have no chance of becoming legislation. In the unlikely event these policies actually do become legislation (such as forcing unemployed people claiming benefits to work for free) they normally end up being struck down by the courts.
I wouldn't disagree with your assessment that the UK is rather more puritan than many of its continental Europe peers - but these policies aren't coming out of that. They're coming out of the fact an election is not all that far away, and the Tories desperately don't want to end up in another coalition government.
It's politics. The Conservatives (David Cameron's party) are in coalition with the Liberal Democrats. We can debate the merits of the coalition (many do), but the upside is that some of the more extreme policies many Tories wanted to put through have been blocked.
This creates a dilemma for David Cameron, not too dissimilar from that of the US Republicans right now: on the one hand, there's an increasingly vocal wing of the party that favors extremely conservative policies (such as pulling out of the EU completely, replacing the EU Human Rights Act, small government, big cuts, etc). On the other, there's the harsh reality that these policies have no chance of getting through a parliament where they don't have an absolute majority.
So we are left in this situation where David Cameron announces, on a fairly regular basis, policies that are intended to appease his vocal right wing members (a "British Bill of Rights", a referendum to exit the EU, outlawing violent pornography, etc) that realistically have no chance of becoming legislation. In the unlikely event these policies actually do become legislation (such as forcing unemployed people claiming benefits to work for free) they normally end up being struck down by the courts.
I wouldn't disagree with your assessment that the UK is rather more puritan than many of its continental Europe peers - but these policies aren't coming out of that. They're coming out of the fact an election is not all that far away, and the Tories desperately don't want to end up in another coalition government.
I don't know many people in the UK who likes these decisions, I actually wonder how they make it anywhere.
Especially the porn filter, I don't even know why that's still going ahead.
Especially the porn filter, I don't even know why that's still going ahead.
Interestingly, the BBFC gave the thumbs up to Irreversible, because the camera was locked off during the rape scene and so it wasn't deemed to be for titillation.
Was that the official reason?
Because it certainly wasn't titillating, regardless of the cinematography. The entire film was meant to unnerve the viewer with the shaking camera, infrasound and unsettling music (the scene where Pierre and Marcus traverse the nightclub is one of the most atmospherically nauseous that I've watched), reverse chronology and absolute nihilism. And of course, the seizure-inducing strobe lights.
There was much more going on for it than just the rape scene. It was in no way meant to be erotic.
Because it certainly wasn't titillating, regardless of the cinematography. The entire film was meant to unnerve the viewer with the shaking camera, infrasound and unsettling music (the scene where Pierre and Marcus traverse the nightclub is one of the most atmospherically nauseous that I've watched), reverse chronology and absolute nihilism. And of course, the seizure-inducing strobe lights.
There was much more going on for it than just the rape scene. It was in no way meant to be erotic.
Yeah, well as official as their podcast can be I guess. Obviously they don't judge a whole film on one scene, but if there is a scene that is particularly graphic such as that one, they often talk about it specifically. I'd recommend their podcast if you can still get ahold of it.
How the does this work with consensual kink? I mean, like, what actually counts as "rape porn" - simulated consensual non-consent? Any bondage at all? This is so fucking stupid I don't even.
Edit: That said, this is the Metro, who are basically the Daily Mail lite.
Edit: That said, this is the Metro, who are basically the Daily Mail lite.
Congrats, you have thought this through in more detail than any UK official has.
The way it works is that vague laws can be selectively enforced as desired.
I wouldn't be surprised if this measure makes the consensual rape kink even more popular.
To answer your question:
> How the does this work with consensual kink?
Even the possession of consensual porn will get you locked away, at least according to the article:
> Mr Cameron is targeting websites which show videos and images of rape – whether they claim they are ‘simulated’ or not.
To answer your question:
> How the does this work with consensual kink?
Even the possession of consensual porn will get you locked away, at least according to the article:
> Mr Cameron is targeting websites which show videos and images of rape – whether they claim they are ‘simulated’ or not.
I wonder if there is any good data to support that idea, because I have similar suspicions. It's a question with important implications for policies related to sex and pornography.
You could read it as targeting websites which show videos of actual rape, no matter if they claim it's simulated or not.
Not sure how they could tell though!
Not sure how they could tell though!
I suppose HMV executives will obviously have to go to prison for posessing copies of Deliverance, A clockwork orange and Mad Max to name a couple.
Makes me think of: http://i.imgur.com/vEqEHxP.jpg
Makes me think of: http://i.imgur.com/vEqEHxP.jpg
So when do they outlaw simulations of shooting people with guns?
Give it time. You will be safe from everything soon.
well, in the UK (except in Northern Ireland) police doesn't even carry guns.
the point is they don't need to most of the times, which is actually good thing.
the good thing about that is that if the police doesn't carry guns, the "need" for criminals to carry the gun is reduced, and everyone wins.
> In a further crackdown on what Mr Cameron referred to as ‘the darkest corners of the internet’, Downing Street will tomorrow announce that a national database will be created to give every illegal image a label.
While we're at it, why don't we do that with videos, too? The label won't contain any content, just some "metadata" that we can use to "verify" whether or not an image/video is illegal. [0]
We should also create an easily-queried database for all of these, just in case we aren't sure whether or not a particular image/video is actually illegal.
Then, we can create a tracking program, or "tracker" to keep tabs on who is in possession of these images/videos at all times, and broadcast their IP addresses publicly[1].
I think this would be an excellent use of government money.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet_URI_scheme
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_tracker
While we're at it, why don't we do that with videos, too? The label won't contain any content, just some "metadata" that we can use to "verify" whether or not an image/video is illegal. [0]
We should also create an easily-queried database for all of these, just in case we aren't sure whether or not a particular image/video is actually illegal.
Then, we can create a tracking program, or "tracker" to keep tabs on who is in possession of these images/videos at all times, and broadcast their IP addresses publicly[1].
I think this would be an excellent use of government money.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet_URI_scheme
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_tracker
Then when I check to see if it is illegal do I get arrested?
(trigger warning, obvs)
....And actual discussions about rape and rape culture become even more diminished as the law completely overlooks the wide-ranging aspects of rape. It's often very difficult to identify if what you are seeing is consensual or not, so now the law's basically going to redefine rape as... What? Some stereotype of a guy in a mask with a knife to a defenseless person's neck?
From Wikipedia:
There is no way to tell if something is or isn't rape just from looking as an outsider. Rape varies in who is the victim, who is the abuser, and the circumstances of how the attack takes place - often it doesn't even look like an attack. Often it's a family member or relative. It very rarely gets reported and it's almost never prosecuted successfully. All this law's going to do is whitewash the reality of rape culture and prevent people from addressing real issues in an adult fashion.
The other way to look at this is: Was rape already illegal? Yes. And wouldn't possession of proof of rape just be used against you in court? Yes. So what does this law actually accomplish? It attempts to sweep under the rug any thoughts or imagery of rape, as if to pretend it never existed.
Good job, Cameron.
....And actual discussions about rape and rape culture become even more diminished as the law completely overlooks the wide-ranging aspects of rape. It's often very difficult to identify if what you are seeing is consensual or not, so now the law's basically going to redefine rape as... What? Some stereotype of a guy in a mask with a knife to a defenseless person's neck?
From Wikipedia:
The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion,
abuse of authority or against a person who is incapable
of valid consent, such as one who is unconscious,
incapacitated, or below the legal age of consent.
There is no way to tell if something is or isn't rape just from looking as an outsider. Rape varies in who is the victim, who is the abuser, and the circumstances of how the attack takes place - often it doesn't even look like an attack. Often it's a family member or relative. It very rarely gets reported and it's almost never prosecuted successfully. All this law's going to do is whitewash the reality of rape culture and prevent people from addressing real issues in an adult fashion.
The other way to look at this is: Was rape already illegal? Yes. And wouldn't possession of proof of rape just be used against you in court? Yes. So what does this law actually accomplish? It attempts to sweep under the rug any thoughts or imagery of rape, as if to pretend it never existed.
Good job, Cameron.
Reminds me of the idea to prohibit actors who don't look like 18 from doing pr0n.
It's hard to get any detail of the proposed changes from the tabloid Metro (a paper distributed for free, usually by being left on the seats of public transport).
Usually the laws are nuanced. Thus, you can still buy American Beauty even though it has the uncovered breasts of an underage actress.
But this government has done stupid things - and it wouldn't surprise me if they ban pornography of consenting adults with clear disclaimers (and paperwork) that the scenes are simulated and the films contain pre- and post- scene interviews with the actors.
Usually the laws are nuanced. Thus, you can still buy American Beauty even though it has the uncovered breasts of an underage actress.
But this government has done stupid things - and it wouldn't surprise me if they ban pornography of consenting adults with clear disclaimers (and paperwork) that the scenes are simulated and the films contain pre- and post- scene interviews with the actors.
It's a pretty crappy story, given nothing has been announced yet (I assume someone leaked something to the Metro in an attempt to get a good PR boost at the start of the week).
I would say it is highly unlikely that whatever legislation does get passed would make simulated rape images illegal to possess (in fact, I'd say it's not going to happen).
It won't be the first - or last - time that a Prime Minister has announced some fundamentally stupid piece of proposed legislation that will never get passed, and simply is used to get some press. Cameron's government has a history of particularly stupid proposals regarding the internet and the like that never made it to fruition.
What will almost certainly happen is that possession images of actual rape will be made illegal. I suspect many people consider the latter to be somewhat different to the former (and if you don't, maybe you should stop and think about that).
I would say it is highly unlikely that whatever legislation does get passed would make simulated rape images illegal to possess (in fact, I'd say it's not going to happen).
It won't be the first - or last - time that a Prime Minister has announced some fundamentally stupid piece of proposed legislation that will never get passed, and simply is used to get some press. Cameron's government has a history of particularly stupid proposals regarding the internet and the like that never made it to fruition.
What will almost certainly happen is that possession images of actual rape will be made illegal. I suspect many people consider the latter to be somewhat different to the former (and if you don't, maybe you should stop and think about that).
[deleted]
I have a copy of Sergio Leone's "Once upon a time in America" on DVD, which has two rape scenes.
It also has a sex scene involving a minor and shows Robert De Niro's character smoking opium.
It also has a sex scene involving a minor and shows Robert De Niro's character smoking opium.
It is my understanding that an available veriety of pornography actually reduces sexual crimes. As if the materials work as a sexual release for potential would-be criminals.
If that is in fact the case, i fail to see what problem this solves. (Obviously speaking about consented pornography and not released images/video of a legal definition of rape)
If that is in fact the case, i fail to see what problem this solves. (Obviously speaking about consented pornography and not released images/video of a legal definition of rape)
Rape and Dog are entire sections of Japanese porn stores. So, in case you're keeping score. Japan 1 UK 0.
Even so, they are still forbidden by law from depicting genitalia, aren't they?
Maybe this is a case of legal restrictions generating increased rates of kink.
Maybe this is a case of legal restrictions generating increased rates of kink.
What is that 3 years imprisoment going to achieve for society? Which is the crime? Who's the victim?
> In a further crackdown on what Mr Cameron referred to as ‘the darkest corners of the internet’, Downing Street will tomorrow announce that a national database will be created to give every illegal image a label.
Cameron is laying the foundation to implement his censorship system.
Cameron is laying the foundation to implement his censorship system.
Wonder how much would you get if you own "Machete Kills"
Are action movies and violent video games next on cameron's list?
Porn or anything involving only consenting adults might look like something else, but that doesn't make it something else. It's still consenting adults and putting the government between them doesn't seem to me to help anything.
Things not involving only consenting adults are another story, but this law (not that I'm an expert on it) seems to miss the distinction.