Addie Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 I see from the BBC website Ban on violent net porn planned Possessing extreme internet pornography could be banned under proposals put forward by ministers. Distribution of extreme pornography is illegal in the UK but this does not affect foreign websites, so new laws could ban possession of it in Britain. The Home Office and Scottish Executive are consulting on whether new laws are needed and what should be covered. The idea was welcomed by the family of Jane Longhurst, of Hove, murdered by a man addicted to violent net porn. Does the internet corrupt and/or dehumanise, and if so, do people need to be protected from themselves and others by certain images being banned from the internet? Has the freedom of the internet been so abused that it's time to impose some rules? Not to distract from the above, but just to add this oddity. If you google 'woman' these are some of the sponsored links that pop up. Woman. Meet 1000s of singles online Find your bride. Meet Girls in the UK Dating and chat Find a Girl for Sex Today Meet Women for Hot Sex Find a Lady for Sex Today Find a Female Sex Partner Today. However, type in 'man' and you're offered Money Can Buy A Lot Donald Trump Shows You How to Make More Money Slightly insulting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Oh great - another government attempt to regulate the internet - not gonna work, I'm afraid... For starters: Where do you draw the line on what's violent and what isn't? And how would they enforce it, with a police force that can't even tackle the problem of kiddie fiddlers properly? Na - rubbish.. The only bit I like from the article is this: "The new laws would not affect people who came into contact with pornographic material by accident." Accidental pornography - husbands worldwide have been waiting for this excuse - now, up to how many gigs is it accidental?.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 I got sent an email once inviting me to look at pictures of rapes. Are telling me that they shouldn't at least attempt to regulate stuff like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyconcrete Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Regulation and the internet is tough.. First they'd have to define violent net porn, is it someone with high heels stepping on a man, or a lady shouting "say my name beeatch, then slapping some poor innocent man". In my eyes thats violent, while others would love that kind of thing. Would they have a commission who watchs said porn then decides how violent it actually is? I'm certainly by no means a supporter of "violent net porn", but I find internet regulation difficult, if not fruitless. I'd be surprised if a man was arrested for having pictures of a women step on someone's goolies, while someone else could have a stash of 1000's of pictures of corpses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Oh great - another government attempt to regulate the internet - not gonna work, I'm afraid...For starters: Where do you draw the line on what's violent and what isn't? And how would they enforce it, with a police force that can't even tackle the problem of kiddie fiddlers properly? Na - rubbish.. Why are there suddenly definition problems simply because it's internet based? These laws already exist, it's already illegal, what the original post is suggesting is that the existing regulation that covers print and video/dvd gets expanded to cover international internet sites. Accidental pornography - husbands worldwide have been waiting for this excuse - now, up to how many gigs is it accidental?.. Huh? You recieve a spam email containing child porn. You have auto-preview on in outlook experess, internet explorer is called to display the image. You delete it, but its still cached and on your pc. Are you guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Huh? You recieve a spam email containing child porn. You have auto-preview on in outlook experess, internet explorer is called to display the image. You delete it, but its still cached and on your pc. Are you guilty? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> With that in mind is there a way to delete/clean your PC up? Genuine question not a cris de couer before the web police descend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Why are there suddenly definition problems simply because it's internet based? These laws already exist, it's already illegal, what the original post is suggesting is that the existing regulation that covers print and video/dvd gets expanded to cover international internet sites. But whose existing laws are we going to use to try to police international internet sites? Some countries laws migh want to go further and ban all porn while other countries are a bit more liberal with regards to adult hetrosexual port for example. Governments trying to regulate the internet always seem to have problems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Oh great - another government attempt to regulate the internet - not gonna work, I'm afraid...For starters: Where do you draw the line on what's violent and what isn't? And how would they enforce it, with a police force that can't even tackle the problem of kiddie fiddlers properly? Na - rubbish.. Why are there suddenly definition problems simply because it's internet based? These laws already exist, it's already illegal, what the original post is suggesting is that the existing regulation that covers print and video/dvd gets expanded to cover international internet sites. And how is this going to be enforced? You'd need a million whizzkids to follow up all leads and scan hard disks - the idea is good and worthy in theory, no doubt. And I don't think that the guidelines set by the BBFC and others are sufficient to govern online affairs - or are they going to visit each site and rate it? So the question still remains - how do you define "violent pornography"? Is a woman having intercourse with her lover and then butchering him at the moment of the highest joy violent? If so, then you won't be able to buy "Basic Instinct" on Play.com anymore... I just can't see a clear definition - it's different with child porn, there's a clear definition of it - the age. Anything under 18 (purposely) on your screen and you should be locked up in a cosy 20 man cell with the most feared members of the Hell's Angels as your only company for the next 50 years, but what might be violent for the British Board of Film Classification might not be violent for Jim Doe... Accidental pornography - husbands worldwide have been waiting for this excuse - now, up to how many gigs is it accidental?.. Huh? You recieve a spam email containing child porn. You have auto-preview on in outlook experess, internet explorer is called to display the image. You delete it, but its still cached and on your pc. Are you guilty? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, you're not I was referring to normal pron with that - should have mentioned... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 With that in mind is there a way to delete/clean your PC up? Genuine question not a cris de couer before the web police descend? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not using outlook express is a good start, and disabling html emails. Popups are still a problem in your browser though. Clear your browser cache frequently, and keep it small. Tools/options in IE. I have talked to the financial crimes unit about this in the past and whilst in the eyes of the law child porn in browser caches technically have you guilty of not only posessing indecent images but also being a distributor too, because of the wording of the law relating to duplicated images, unless you've a huge quantity you're not likely to be nicked for it. I think these things are looked at in a case by case basis, and you're much more likely to get in trouble if theres evidence of you hording, distributing, viewing or more importantly subscribing to these things. Still, if you do get sent indecent images, or get spyware/popups that display them, take some time to find out if they've been cached on your pc and make sure you remove all copies. Edit: anything in the above is just my personal opinion and experience as a network dude, none of it is to be considered legal advice, etc, blah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 But whose existing laws are we going to use to try to police international internet sites? Some countries laws migh want to go further and ban all porn while other countries are a bit more liberal with regards to adult hetrosexual port for example. Governments trying to regulate the internet always seem to have problems <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, it's definately a problem that. There are some precidents such as an Australian company getting a ruling in australian law on a USA hosted website. Enforcing the punishments virtually impossible though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addie Posted August 30, 2005 Author Share Posted August 30, 2005 I'm only guessing here but would an unacceptable level of pornography involve people, of any age, who were reluctant participants and who are victims not actors. So we have the viewers. They're not harming anyone are they? They're only looking. Can they step back enough to replace the tortured faces with those of their children, mothers and brothers? Their hands are clean are they? But what is the next kick? What satisfies next? I worry that desensitisation occurs when being exposed to a limitless supply of pornography. In fact, I believe that a limitless supply of ANYTHING can be bad for you. So you have these voyeurs getting themselves nicely wound up and then what? More of this ... The mother of murdered teacher Jane Longhurst has welcomed reports that the government is set to announce a crackdown on violent internet porn. Methods used to combat child porn are set to be drawn upon and police officers could be given greater powers. Liz Longhurst, 74, of Reading, Berkshire, said new legislation would mean her daughter's death "would not have been entirely in vain". Porn-obsessed Graham Coutts killed her daughter in Hove, East Sussex, in 2003. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 It's a violent pornography! Choking chicks and sodomy The kinda xxxx you get on your TV! PS. Your Basic Instinct analogy is terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 I'm only guessing here but would an unacceptable level of pornography involve people, of any age, who were reluctant participants and who are victims not actors. Actually, the vast majority of violent pornography involves consenting actors. They may be presented as unwilling participants, as that's that makes it arousing to the viewer, but they sign up to appear in these things for money. If it's genuine, then it's a criminal act and nobody is going to distribute something that is an actual crime as they're liable for prosecution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 And how is this going to be enforced? You'd need a million whizzkids to follow up all leads and scan hard disks - the idea is good and worthy in theory, no doubt. Again, you're not paying attention. We're not talking about end users here, they're already covered by this law, and convictions are happening. This is relating to distributors servers in other countries. And I don't think that the guidelines set by the BBFC and others are sufficient to govern online affairs - or are they going to visit each site and rate it? BBFC guidelines are just that, guidelines, that's got nothign to do with law. So the question still remains - how do you define "violent pornography"? I don't know why your'e so hung up on a cast iron definition. This often simply doesn't exist in criminal law. What's the definition for harassment? How about public order laws? Law isn't strictly defined, that's why lawyers make so much money. I just can't see a clear definition - it's different with child porn, there's a clear definition of it - the age. Anything under 18 (purposely) on your screen and you should be locked up in a cosy 20 man cell with the most feared members of the Hell's Angels as your only company for the next 50 years, but what might be violent for the British Board of Film Classification might not be violent for Jim Doe... Na, it's not clearly defined. What about pictures someone has of his kids and their friends playing in the garden in swimsuits? Is that child porn? What about that famous image of the nakid vietnamese girl running naked down the road, is that child porn? Most Law isn't clearly defined, its applied in each case. No, you're not Technically you are. Under the obscene publications act you're a distributor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyconcrete Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Its all very confusing.... One answer is government registration; ABC Mylchreest & Son - Government Registered Sodomists**. (** Completely fictional) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.