Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

penbat1

New Proposals To Curb Internet Violence

Recommended Posts

I must be one of the most anti-abuse people on the planet but am sceptical about the new proposals to make possession of violent material on the Internet illegal. There is no link proven between seeing something violent and acting violent. But the government says that because of the Jane Longhurst case where the killer liked looking at sick internet violence there should be a crack down.

What the government doesnt realise is that the killer was obviously a psychopath who is predisposed to appalling behaviour anyway in one way or another. So even if he hadnt seen the internet filth he would have most likely acted just as badly but maybe a different mode of operation. This same argument explains why castration wouldnt stop sex attackers reoffending - the problem is in their head (a psychopath) not in their balls. They would most likely just carry on with violence or abuse but without any sexual element.

The whole idea that something can "deprave or corrupt" is silly but maybe the mind numbing garbage on childrens TV on Saturday mornings is a close contender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if this is about the bbc article about violent pornography, then i agree in some parts with the law. There is obviously nothing wrong with a little porn ;) However, some things just encourage corrupted minds to behave violently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well if this is about the bbc article about violent pornography, then i agree in some parts with the law. There is obviously nothing wrong with a little porn  ;) However, some things just encourage corrupted minds to behave violently.

As far as i am concerned anything which is consentual is OK. Anything which is not consentual is not. Seems an impossibility to define "violent porn" . Where do you draw the line ? Does a couple of mild spanks as part of conventional sex constitute violent porn ? I think it would be feasible to make anything connected with necrophilia illegal but anything else is too nebulous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey geezer definately nothing wrong with a little mild spanking! but i think there is probably more disturbing stuff out there (cant say how bad because i've never been interested in that kinda thing). Some people need protecting from themselves, in an ideal world these people would be given the help they need but i guess its often people that 'seemed' normal that come out and do sick things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hey geezer definately nothing wrong with a little mild spanking! but i think there is probably more disturbing stuff out there (cant say how bad because i've never been interested in that kinda thing). Some people need protecting from themselves, in an ideal world these people would be given the help they need but i guess its often people that 'seemed' normal that come out and do sick things.

Can we ban banks too because they encourage bank robbers and I am scared I might be in one when its held up? :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would make it hard to enforce, is that it is freely available in Europe and probably half of the rest of the world. Day trip to holland, pay in cash, who's gonna know?

DVDs also makes it very easy to pirate and surely the last thing you want is to have people buying from dodgier places helping criminals. Or even just downloading it for free, the people in the film are doing it for a living after all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can we ban banks too because they encourage bank robbers and I am scared I might be in one when its held up?  :wacko:

In fact now I think about it I am also scared of being run over and believe cars are encouraging people to drive over the speed limits. Can we fix speed limitors to all cars too please.

EDIT: Dont bother about taxis, let just ban them outright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact now I think about it I am also scared of being run over and believe cars are encouraging people to drive over the speed limits. Can we fix speed limitors to all cars too please.

EDIT: Dont bother about taxis, let just ban them outright.

Yes on the same basis there is avery good argument for banning football because of all the hooliganism. But even if that were done, trouble would most likely just get displaced somewhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest growl
I must be one of the most anti-abuse people on the planet but am sceptical about the new proposals to make possession of violent material on the Internet illegal. There is no link proven between seeing something violent and acting violent. But the government says that because of the Jane Longhurst case where the killer liked looking at sick internet violence there should be a crack down.

What the government doesnt realise is that the killer was obviously a psychopath who is predisposed to appalling behaviour anyway in one way or another.

having been to your excellent site a couple of weeks back. I agree with most of what you say. However many of these porn sites show abuse against vunerable people and children. Much of the abuse leads to death. So by cracking down on the people who view this abuse, the authorities can eventually crack down on the people who manage these sites and then eventually the people who make the pictures of the abuse and perform it, and perhaps save a few lives.

We are not talking about a few naughty pictures. We are talking about crime sindicates who possess children and vulnerable people as slaves, exploit and abuse them and profit from their torment by passing around graphic material of the abuse.

The trail is slimy with those that just look, to those that act out their sick fantatasies. But the authorities have to start somewhere.

Although I have a problem in general with enforcing rules for the Internet and censorship. I have no problem with there being a crime for downloading material where someone paid a heavy price to make it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
having been to your excellent site a couple of weeks back. I agree with most of what you say. However many of these porn sites show abuse against vunerable people and children. Much of the abuse leads to death. So by cracking down on the people who view this abuse, the authorities can eventually crack down on the people who manage these sites and then eventually the people who make the pictures of the abuse and perform it, and perhaps save a few lives.

We are not talking about a few naughty pictures. We are talking about crime sindicates who possess children and vulnerable people as slaves, exploit and abuse them and profit from their torment by passing around graphic material of the abuse.

The trail is slimy with those that just look, to those that act out their sick fantatasies. But the authorities have to start somewhere.

Although I have a problem in general with enforcing rules for the Internet and censorship. I have no problem with there being a crime for downloading material where someone paid a heavy price to make it.

I think my later point that anything consentual is OK but anything not consentual is not OK covers your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest growl
How can you tell if it is consensual?

That's a good question. I think myself and penbat are in agreement about the consensual stuff.

Like much of law that is being introduced today there is a danger of curbing the rights of people who are not harming anyone, and the choice of having too weak a law, that it offers no protection to the vulnerable and is therefore pointless introducing it.

I suppose it will come down to the drafting of it.

The thing is most people in their right mind would not view a site were it was obvious that harm was being done. They would not even go looking for it in the first place and they would instinctively know that it was wrong.

As was the case with Gary Glitter the police had already targeted the site, they knew it involved abuse of children, and they then sought to track down the people who downloaded pictures from the site. That lead them to Gary Glitter.

I think somebody mentioned earlier about how it would be difficult to enforce. Well all they need is your IP address and when you go to a site it is logged automatically along with the date and time. At least it is with my sites.

Also just because you can go over to another country and do it, does not mean you should be able to do something here.

Criminals are always looking for some loophole, and as penbat said psycopaths are deviant anyway and will just move on to the next thing. But that does not mean that we should just give up and let people do what they want if it is harming others. If it is not then then they should be left alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as i am concerned anything which is consentual is OK.

This is the key to making ethical, logical, law.

Mix sex into the equation and suddenly Joe public feels he has to denounce and condemn, presumably because of some deep seated insecurity about the nature of one's sexuality.

But like penbat1 says, the real crime is not perversion, but lack of consent. Ignore this and you have to accept that this latest extension to the law logically means we should ban all depiction of murder: ie half the output of the global film industry.

However many of these porn sites show abuse against vunerable people and children. Much of the abuse leads to death.

...

...

So by cracking down on the people who view this abuse, the authorities can eventually crack down on the people who manage these sites and then eventually the people who make the pictures of the abuse and perform it, and perhaps save a few lives.

We are not talking about a few naughty pictures. We are talking about crime sindicates who possess children and vulnerable people as slaves, exploit and abuse them and profit from their torment by passing around graphic material of the abuse.

I can see that we more or less agree on the problems, but to my mind, tackling the "consumers" of this material is actually an abdication of responsibility by those who have been given responsibility to protect.

It's like prosecuting hash users because smack-Barons have too good a legal team. Remember, the stated reason for not going after the hosts and producers is that many such sites are situated outside of UK legal jurisdiction. I say to our political masters, get off your fat backsides and organise world-wide talks to unify law on such matters.

When a serial killer is on the loose, you set to one side the petty theft cases. Surely, for the sake of the victims we should be going after the producers of this material before we tackle the "dirt raincoat" brigade, who may, or may not choose to believe everything they watch is consensual / special effects.

Essentially you have two choices:

1 . Ditch this law change. Instead require producers to have a US 2257 type registration for all media content. If they can't produce the documentation or the actor/actress, charge them with murder.

OR

2. Remember that the law change refers to "degrading." I think you'd find some who would consider public nudity or even private sex as degrading. I guarantee you most jurours would (for sake of their personal modesty) count a consensual 3 on 1 as degrading. Furthermore porn is always filmed so as to appeal to our base nature, so that "3 on 1" might not even look consensual. Watch it and you are almost bound to be breaking the law by any sensible definition.

You choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest growl
It's like prosecuting hash users because smack-Barons have too good a legal team. Remember, the stated reason for not going after the hosts and producers is that many such sites are situated outside of UK legal jurisdiction. I say to our political masters, get off your fat backsides and organise world-wide talks to unify law on such matters.

...

Essentially you have two choices:

1 . Ditch this law change. Instead require producers to have a US 2257 type registration for all media content. If they can't produce the documentation or the actor/actress, charge them with murder.

OR

2. Remember that the law change refers to "degrading." I think you'd find some who would consider public nudity or even private sex as degrading. I guarantee you most jurours would (for sake of their personal modesty) count a consensual 3 on 1 as degrading. Furthermore porn is always filmed so as to appeal to our base nature, so that "3 on 1"  might not even look consensual. Watch it and you are almost bound to be breaking the law by any sensible definition.

You choose.

Yes. You've made some good points there. I definetly agree that the politicians need to get together with the lawmakers of other countries to standardise the law.

Also what about the porn that is pretend rape. Or pretend gang-bangs. That is a lot of peoples fantasies and its not even the really perverse stuff. So yes having to produce some kind of certificate (if thats what you mean)would be a good idea.

However I still feel that you have to go after the petty criminals aswell as the big guys at the top end. I may be naive, but they are a business and if you take away the customers then their business suffers. Plus crime should be prevented no matter how small it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can we ban banks too because they encourage bank robbers and I am scared I might be in one when its held up?  :wacko:

ok so people getting off on disturbing types of pornography simulating rape and violence towards women is ok? i dont know about you but personally i believe there is a line and its not impossible for it to be drawn. its got nothing to do with being over zealous at all. or should we allow books inciting terrorism just because some people can read them and not become a terrorist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ok so people getting off on disturbing types of pornography simulating rape and violence towards women is ok? i dont know about you but personally i believe there is a line and its not impossible for it to be drawn. its got nothing to do with being over zealous at all. or should we allow books inciting terrorism just because some people can read them and not become a terrorist.

In that case you will also be up for banning half of Hollywoods films. And lets not start on simulated murder. Secondly how do you know the simulating rape and violence is only towards women?!? Very strange.

I for one do not want to live in a nanny state. I want to live in free will. I have a brain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an incredibly complex problem with no perfect solutions.

For me, I find it instructive to carry out a 'thought experiment'. This involves, for any level of pornography, thinking how I would feel, react, and so on if the pornography I was looking at involved, as the main female, my daughter or my wife or girlfriend or sister or mother. Would I still feel it was OK even if it was consensual?

I know that for me I would feel sick to the bottom of my being. If I feel this way for these particular people shouldn't it be the same for whoever the woman is? She will be someones daughter, wife, girlfriend, sister, mother, and so on. What would you do (feel like) if your daughter (if you have one ... if not imagine for a moment that you do) got involved in pornography? How would you feel watching a man buy a DVD with a photo of her on the front? And so on.

Another point to consider is the age of the females involved in pornography. How many men looking at pornography on the internet have looked at porn involving underage females without realising it? Probably large numbers of men, I would guess.

It is terrible how something (in this case sex) can be so 'good' and 'pleasurable' but at the same time have the potential for being so 'wrong' and 'sick'. The philosophy of yin and yang makes good sense here.

Censorship is terrible and can do immense harm to society. However lines do have to be drawn somewhere.

I say all of the above with the awareness that there can hardly be any men who have not looked at pornography during their lifetime and gained enjoyment from it. The figure who haven't must be very close to 0%. Still, that does not make it right.

All of this is IMHO. There are of course many, many viewpoints and arguments to be made about this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.