Just a quick reminder, that the UK Government is still set on defining private sexual thought and feeling as criminal. And if you want to help me try to stop it, and are resident in the UK, you can sign here:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/extreme-images/
UK thought crime
-
Susan Strict
- Explorer At Heart
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:04 pm
- Location: On Top
- Contact:
Actually, I think you may have gone off in the wrong direction here - I'm NOT "having a go" at you, but I think it is important to understand the proposed new laws properly. Having said that, I thoroughly agree that it's about time the government stopped trying to control EVERYTHING we do.
The relevant paragraph of Section 6 of the Bill is paragraph 64.
In summary, it says that it will be illegal to knowingly possess any picture of:
(quoted word for word from the Bill)
an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life,
an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse,
a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal.
AND it will only be illegal IF:
1. The picture has been PRODUCED for the purposes of sexual arousal
AND
2. The picture is, or appears to be, real (i.e. this EXCLUDES artwork, cartoons etc., and pictures where the actions are clearly staged and not actually happening)
AND
3. The picture is not part of a larger work or series of pictures where the main purpose or theme is not sexual arousal
Now, all of this is ALREADY illegal to produce, publish or distribute. The only difference is that now, if this Bill becomes law, it will be illegal to possess it too. The Bill does NOT deal with literature or writing of any sort - only images (which includes any sort of video or film image).
I don't really think this is "thought police". It's not the arousal that's a problem. It's whether such material was produced with the intention of the producer for it to be used for sexual arousal, and it is only the most extreme images involving death or serious injury that come under the proposed legislation.
I think the real answer is that unless serious injury or death turns you on (or you happen to like sex with animals or dead bodies), then you haven't anything to worry about. "Normal" BSDM activity and pictures or even videos of it really isn't going to be a problem even if it's fairly violent so long as there's no serious injury or death involved.
Personally, yes I want to stop it because it's a badly thought-out and badly worded piece of legislation - and not just the section about violent pornography. But not because it's "defining private sexual thought". It isn't.
Susan
The relevant paragraph of Section 6 of the Bill is paragraph 64.
In summary, it says that it will be illegal to knowingly possess any picture of:
(quoted word for word from the Bill)
an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life,
an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse,
a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal.
AND it will only be illegal IF:
1. The picture has been PRODUCED for the purposes of sexual arousal
AND
2. The picture is, or appears to be, real (i.e. this EXCLUDES artwork, cartoons etc., and pictures where the actions are clearly staged and not actually happening)
AND
3. The picture is not part of a larger work or series of pictures where the main purpose or theme is not sexual arousal
Now, all of this is ALREADY illegal to produce, publish or distribute. The only difference is that now, if this Bill becomes law, it will be illegal to possess it too. The Bill does NOT deal with literature or writing of any sort - only images (which includes any sort of video or film image).
I don't really think this is "thought police". It's not the arousal that's a problem. It's whether such material was produced with the intention of the producer for it to be used for sexual arousal, and it is only the most extreme images involving death or serious injury that come under the proposed legislation.
I think the real answer is that unless serious injury or death turns you on (or you happen to like sex with animals or dead bodies), then you haven't anything to worry about. "Normal" BSDM activity and pictures or even videos of it really isn't going to be a problem even if it's fairly violent so long as there's no serious injury or death involved.
Personally, yes I want to stop it because it's a badly thought-out and badly worded piece of legislation - and not just the section about violent pornography. But not because it's "defining private sexual thought". It isn't.
Susan
Dear Susan,
Thankyou for such a thoughtful and constructive post.
I have a few points in response.
1. As you say, images will only be banned if they have been produced for the purposes of sexual arousal. That's exactly why it would be a thought crime if enacted. A real crucifix, used for the purposes of worship, shows a nearly naked man being tortured to death. That would remain lawful. An enacted crucifiction in BDSM meant for adult turn- ons could be contraband, and merit three years imprisonment. Precisely the same image is involved in both cases, only the assumed state of mind of the owner differs. The image is not being punished, the sexual preference, a state of mind, is.
2. Regarding the "realness" of images... In a good deal of modern artwork, which is generated in Photoshop and the like, its not really clear whether real people have been involved in the production process. It's very easy to take a picture from a mainstream porn. site and doctor it to make it appear different, possibly to the point it might be contraband under the new Law. Equally, its possible to distort photographs so they look like drawings. An owner of such images cannot know how they have been produced. Yet owners will possibly face very serious legal penalties if they happen to guess wrong about one particular image.
3. The definition of "serious injury" to a persons breasts, anus or genitals is unclear. It's not uncommon for BDSM-ers to inflict skin reddening and /or marks on each other in consenting play. Nothing in the Bill or its explanatory notes says specifically these marks could never be construed as signs of "serious injury". So if you or I spank our tender bits, and then take a photo of the results, that photo may be contraband under the Bill.
4. You say that no-one should be worried unless they happen to like images of death or serious injury (or sex with animals or corpses). I disagree for the following reason.
Ultimately, the final arbitor of whether a given image is or is not contraband would be made in a courtroom by a Judge and jury. In order to bring a prosecution, the authorities must have seized material which currently it is lawful to own. In order to seize material they must have raided a house or other premises and carried away possessions, on the basis of their speculation about the potential for a successful prosecution.
Since the (UK) terrorism acts of five years ago, something like 1,500 people have been detained by Police on suspicion (speculation) , often for very long periods. Under 200 prosecutions have resulted, and only a handful of convictions. Police speculation is very much more often wrong than right.
An unjust Law can only be enforced by unjust means. We will all be under suspicion: everybody who looks at any "unusual" sex will have to be considered a potential suspect. I include this site; there are plenty of examples of "unusual sexual preferences" here (even though the types of image here are largely uncontroversial). To form their suspicions, the Police will be looking at our *preferences*, first and foremost.
5. I believe the only safe course, if this Bill is passed as published, will be to destroy or surrender every erotic image in one's possession. Remember, it will only take *one* "extreme pornographic image* to make you fall foul of the Law. And only a Judge and Jury can decide whether this or that image is "extreme" enough to count. I certainly do not want my home raided at 3 am and my computer etc. taken away on the basis of official speculation!
6. This Bill has been brought forward because of campaigning by Liz Longhurst, a crucifix -wearing Christian who suffered the terrible misfortune to lose her daughter to a violent crime.
Her daughter's boyfriend throttled her daughter to death. He said he was motivated to do that by looking at violent porn. on the Internet.
I do not think we should be governed on the say- so of a convicted murderer's pleas of mitigation. I think he should be held responsible for what he did, and the rest of us should not have to suffer injustice for his crime.
I hope the above seems reasonable, and I am not "getting at" you either! Please post any further comments!
Thankyou for such a thoughtful and constructive post.
I have a few points in response.
1. As you say, images will only be banned if they have been produced for the purposes of sexual arousal. That's exactly why it would be a thought crime if enacted. A real crucifix, used for the purposes of worship, shows a nearly naked man being tortured to death. That would remain lawful. An enacted crucifiction in BDSM meant for adult turn- ons could be contraband, and merit three years imprisonment. Precisely the same image is involved in both cases, only the assumed state of mind of the owner differs. The image is not being punished, the sexual preference, a state of mind, is.
2. Regarding the "realness" of images... In a good deal of modern artwork, which is generated in Photoshop and the like, its not really clear whether real people have been involved in the production process. It's very easy to take a picture from a mainstream porn. site and doctor it to make it appear different, possibly to the point it might be contraband under the new Law. Equally, its possible to distort photographs so they look like drawings. An owner of such images cannot know how they have been produced. Yet owners will possibly face very serious legal penalties if they happen to guess wrong about one particular image.
3. The definition of "serious injury" to a persons breasts, anus or genitals is unclear. It's not uncommon for BDSM-ers to inflict skin reddening and /or marks on each other in consenting play. Nothing in the Bill or its explanatory notes says specifically these marks could never be construed as signs of "serious injury". So if you or I spank our tender bits, and then take a photo of the results, that photo may be contraband under the Bill.
4. You say that no-one should be worried unless they happen to like images of death or serious injury (or sex with animals or corpses). I disagree for the following reason.
Ultimately, the final arbitor of whether a given image is or is not contraband would be made in a courtroom by a Judge and jury. In order to bring a prosecution, the authorities must have seized material which currently it is lawful to own. In order to seize material they must have raided a house or other premises and carried away possessions, on the basis of their speculation about the potential for a successful prosecution.
Since the (UK) terrorism acts of five years ago, something like 1,500 people have been detained by Police on suspicion (speculation) , often for very long periods. Under 200 prosecutions have resulted, and only a handful of convictions. Police speculation is very much more often wrong than right.
An unjust Law can only be enforced by unjust means. We will all be under suspicion: everybody who looks at any "unusual" sex will have to be considered a potential suspect. I include this site; there are plenty of examples of "unusual sexual preferences" here (even though the types of image here are largely uncontroversial). To form their suspicions, the Police will be looking at our *preferences*, first and foremost.
5. I believe the only safe course, if this Bill is passed as published, will be to destroy or surrender every erotic image in one's possession. Remember, it will only take *one* "extreme pornographic image* to make you fall foul of the Law. And only a Judge and Jury can decide whether this or that image is "extreme" enough to count. I certainly do not want my home raided at 3 am and my computer etc. taken away on the basis of official speculation!
6. This Bill has been brought forward because of campaigning by Liz Longhurst, a crucifix -wearing Christian who suffered the terrible misfortune to lose her daughter to a violent crime.
Her daughter's boyfriend throttled her daughter to death. He said he was motivated to do that by looking at violent porn. on the Internet.
I do not think we should be governed on the say- so of a convicted murderer's pleas of mitigation. I think he should be held responsible for what he did, and the rest of us should not have to suffer injustice for his crime.
I hope the above seems reasonable, and I am not "getting at" you either! Please post any further comments!
I think you both have a different definition of thought crime, however I agree with Susan's.
A thaught crime in my mind, and in the orwellian sense, is a thaught being illegal. Simply thinking about having sex with an animal would be illegal under this definition.
In the case of the legislation, it is the actual pornographic materials which are being banned, not the fantasies of the reader/viewer/fantasist.
It is like placing legislation against instructions on how to make a bomb, would not be making owning these instructions a "thought crime" against arsonists. (Bad example however, as arsonists can be institutionalized for planning attacks, I think)
I have to go, but in response to some of diddum's posts, I think serious injury is usually defined in law as :
An injury for which a person is detained in hospital as an 'in-patient', or any of the following injuries: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, burns, severe cuts and lacerations, severe general shock and injuries causing death more than 30 days after the accident.
(That was from a website Google brought up, so it could be wrong, but it appears there is an actual legal/medical definition of what is serious)
A thaught crime in my mind, and in the orwellian sense, is a thaught being illegal. Simply thinking about having sex with an animal would be illegal under this definition.
In the case of the legislation, it is the actual pornographic materials which are being banned, not the fantasies of the reader/viewer/fantasist.
It is like placing legislation against instructions on how to make a bomb, would not be making owning these instructions a "thought crime" against arsonists. (Bad example however, as arsonists can be institutionalized for planning attacks, I think)
I have to go, but in response to some of diddum's posts, I think serious injury is usually defined in law as :
An injury for which a person is detained in hospital as an 'in-patient', or any of the following injuries: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, burns, severe cuts and lacerations, severe general shock and injuries causing death more than 30 days after the accident.
(That was from a website Google brought up, so it could be wrong, but it appears there is an actual legal/medical definition of what is serious)
Hi binary,
good post, thankyou.
If it is illegal to own literature expressing a thought, because of the content of that thought, then the thought is illegal.
Try to imagine this process in a different context. Say it became illegal to own literature expressing the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun. That would effectively outlaw the idea that the Earth goes around the Sun. If you can't write or read about a thing, the thing becomes atrophied and falls out of consciousness.
In the development of language skills in children (and in adult learners of foreign languages) it is a recognised fact that reading, writing and comprehension are inextricably linked. Wittgenstein has shown that the processes of thought and language are one and the same. Try spending a day thinking only in a foreign language, to demonstrate the truth of this!
The Founding Fathers were keen to add freedom of expression to the American Constitution specifically to protect themselves from the kind of repressions of their religious practices they had fleed from in Europe.
One of the first signs of emerging fascism in Germany was the mass burning of unpopular and politically inconvenient books.
I'm grateful for the definition of "serious injury". If such a definition were incorporated in the new Bill, it would help clarify the position. But it wouldn't ameliorate the moral authoritarianism and injustice of the proposed Law.
good post, thankyou.
If it is illegal to own literature expressing a thought, because of the content of that thought, then the thought is illegal.
Try to imagine this process in a different context. Say it became illegal to own literature expressing the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun. That would effectively outlaw the idea that the Earth goes around the Sun. If you can't write or read about a thing, the thing becomes atrophied and falls out of consciousness.
In the development of language skills in children (and in adult learners of foreign languages) it is a recognised fact that reading, writing and comprehension are inextricably linked. Wittgenstein has shown that the processes of thought and language are one and the same. Try spending a day thinking only in a foreign language, to demonstrate the truth of this!
The Founding Fathers were keen to add freedom of expression to the American Constitution specifically to protect themselves from the kind of repressions of their religious practices they had fleed from in Europe.
One of the first signs of emerging fascism in Germany was the mass burning of unpopular and politically inconvenient books.
I'm grateful for the definition of "serious injury". If such a definition were incorporated in the new Bill, it would help clarify the position. But it wouldn't ameliorate the moral authoritarianism and injustice of the proposed Law.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests