Ye Gods!

We’ve been there. Done that. Bought the T-shirt.

The claim of incitement by the very same individual was already shot down in flames once before – and was subsequently abandoned by this individual.

Now it’s back – as ‘inducement’!

Incitement to violence is illegal. Incitement to rape, torture or necrophile (is that a verb?) I bet is illegal in some way, shape or form.

Pornography is not illegal. The depiction of violence is not illegal.

However, if the depiction of an illegal sexual act is now to be deemed incitement then the depiction of an illegal violent act would be the same.

Hitchcock’s shower scene would be history by that logic.

Best of all, of course, this law isn’t even concerned with the active depiction, but with the passive ownership of the depiction. It is a passive crime, punishing not the publisher, but the owner.

But that’s all ok, because all people who own that ‘stuff’ are latent rapists, as the rape crime statistics no doubt show. Oh no, actually they don’t. Hmmm.

So the whole argument is rubbish then. People don’t get incited to rape by this material. There is nothing to back up any such claim.

Just as watching Brad Pitt in ‘Fight Club’ doesn’t turn people into street brawlers, so does watching some sado-masochists indulge in some fantasies turn anyone into a sex fiend.

But hey, if someone claims that this is only something that concerns male perverts, that all men are perverts and makes t quite clear that she hates all men, I feel we have a pattern emerging here.
The desire to see ‘some men’ locked up for looking at ‘filth’ suddenly takes on a different shine in such circumstances.

The fact remains that there will be plenty of things out there which people don’t like, but which does no-one any harm. Dislike, squeamishness, or even revulsion are simply not arguments for banning something.

Many claimed revulsion at that German professors who dissected human bodies on Channel 4. Ought that to have been banned? I saw much of it. Was one of the best programs I’ve seen in years.

But no, let’s hand over power to the bigots, puritans and cultural Luddites and see where it gets us.

As for me, I want to see rapists in our overcrowded prisons, not people who’ve looked at an image of a willing couple playing at rape.

The idea that we’d be letting out real rapists early in order to have enough room to hold the people who’ve owned forbidden images makes my stomach turn.


427 words. Hard task, reading, isn’t it?

so where is the consistency in law which allows for an already illegal act to be legal to someone who wants to watch it

it would be like saying - well it's illegal to make images of pseudo child abuse but it's not illegal to view them

if something is an illegal act then it has to be illegal to view it if you are to achieve the desired level of consistency that you have stated you need in order to have respect for the law

I guess it would depend on whether a jury decided that a screen capture of Hitchcock's shower scene was retained as a singular classic piece of cinematography or whether it was included within a collections of 1,000 or more other screen captures of violent pornography as to whether they could conclude that a pattern was emerging.

It’s not that I’m that bothered about the messianic zeal of someone in particular here. That one’s long left the planet. I’m just horrified at the possibility of people visiting this string, thinking that it’s an informed opinion.

What is the difference between an illegal act and the depiction of an illegal act?

Well, one is a wrong doing. The other is not.

Anyone here ever seen ‘The Sting’? It’s a film with Robert Redford and Paul Newman. In it they perform all manner of confidence tricks. All illegal.
There you go: the depiction of an illegal act.

Seen ‘The Sopranos’ recently? How many illegal acts? How many explicit murders? (Is there a more capital crime than murder?) Was anyone really hurt? Again: the depiction of an illegal act.

Ever seen ‘Smokey and the Bandit’? You get where I’m going, right?

Now, imagine a film set. One man pretends to rape a woman. The woman in turn pretends to be raped. No one is harmed.
Again: the depiction of an illegal act. Suitable for children? Hardly.
Nonetheless, should anyone go to prison for owning a copy of it? Why? To what avail? Based on what logic?

So there, folks. The difference between and real and a fictional act.
The difference between reality and fiction.

People who cannot separate reality from fiction are generally referred to as psychopaths.
Odd that we have someone here who simply can’t seem to separate the two.
Or is it that she merely doesn’t want to?

But apparently the makers and viewers of ‘The Sting’ or ‘The Sopranos’ are all potential law breakers and Mafiosi, because they don’t have ‘respect for the law’.

The whole concept behind that entire argument is so intellectually lazy it beggars belief. But there you go. It’s the kind of logic applied by the supporter of the law.

Yet it’s implication also suggests that we’re on a very slippery slope, folks. So beware giving in to these zealots or they’ll start choosing what kind of fiction to ban next...

hello astro

I guess if the jury didnt like some one enough
they could find guilty on moral grounds

common law is good at correcting missbehavior

Hangings to good for um

loving kindness

Physics,
Then let’s apply the common law test used in the Obscene Publications Act.

The law would still be very controversial, but the matter would be much more manageable.

It would be left to the jury to determine if they thought the material could corrupt its audience (i.e. the owner). The OPA has dealt with policing publication for years, decades in fact.

The government has refused to do this, insisting instead on altogether new parameters.
Yet, oddly, they even claim that the OPA already renders this material illegal for punishment. By implication this would mean that the OPA test works for this subject, even in their own view (albeit that this 'view' is pure spin).

So why not adopt the OPA's common law test here?

No, they are determined not to and will not discuss why.
(It would generate nowhere near the convictions this new law inevitably will. That's why.)

Nanny always knows best it seems…

The only thing that is slightly psychopathic in not being able to separate fact from fiction is the inability to recognise that we are talking about extreme pornography in this Bill .... not confidence tricksters or films that are on general release without an X certificate rating and shown on mainstream television, but pornography.

We are not talking about banning, prohibiting or otherwise condemning classical works of literature such as Hamlet or even modern film depictions such as from the series 'Rome', but there are those amongst us who cannot seem to differentiate between these and depictions that are purely for pornographic gratification

It is entirely for the psycopathic perverts amongst us that need it spelling out in words of one syllable because they obviously can't separate the two, that the law has been worded in such terms as it has.

As in: excluded images includes classified films except where an image is extracted for the purposes of sexual arousal.

So please folks, don't go away with the idea that Phantom is telling you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - he's not, because he knows full well that unless someone extracts an image from the Soprano's for sexual gratification they would not be going to prison for watching it. So much for his versions of informed opinion that he has to deliberately distort the truth.

In other words, all these examples of films that he keeps bringing up are total red herrings

When you start separating out fact from fiction Phantom you will be in position to start calling other people psychopaths.

Try separating the intent of the law from your own exaggerated interpretation before you accuse others of intellectual sloth.

And beware of those zealots would tell you that your right to a decent civilised society is protected by men who watch other men pretending to shag a horse or pretending to wank a corpse or pretending to rape women.

And because it's pretend - but they still get turned on by it - so I guess they must believe it at some level - they're not social misfits in any way shape or form

I see common law being more practical.
We like it or we dont.
No interpritation,no arguements,no fuss.
you got a problem? its YOU.

Its inclusive .Unlike some habits.

So you have failed the common law test.

Please respond with "facts"
as everyone already has an opinion.
morals are hardwired we dont even have to think
about them and they are allways right.
:)
how can you argue with that.

LOL!

Astrocat, you are now saying it is the fact that such depictions show sex as an element that makes them immoral?

Is murder not more serious than rape? Of course it is, but you say that because rape involves sex, depictions of it must be banned?

Or is it simply the idea that anyone could get turned on by fictional images of rape? Is rape fantasy immoral? If you believe so, then you are condemning large numbers of people (mostly women) as immoral. Nancy Friday a practising psychologist estimates 30% of women and 25% of men have rape fantasies (as both victim and perpetrator). That's a lot of 'immoral' people.

So here we are. We need an arbiter of what people are allowed to pretend now. Because some people don’t like what other pretend.
Consider that some people wish not even to allow others to speak (like the example of BNP and Irving at the Oxford Union). Imagine what happens when we enter into the fray with what people ought be allowed to pretend.

As for ‘The Sting’ and ‘The Sopranos’ not being pornography. I think we all know that. The examples were used to illustrate an argument that was entirely independent of the context now being forced upon them by this irate shahida.

Here is the original nonsense to which it responded:


The examples illustrated that, inevitably, an act and a depiction are not the same thing.

We are entering into the realms of fiction with law. We are legislating what fiction can be depicted. That is horrendous.

I have said it repeatedly. This invariably is going to be a first step. It’s an initial encroachment into this kind of fictional territory. But the moral zealots will not stop here, but push on, never satisfied at having banned all ‘abhorrence’.

Because in their eyes, even imagined abhorrence is a crime.

Frankly, do I want to see someone shagging a horse? No.

But then do I wish to see someone go to prison for a having such a video at home? Why should I? Am I this person’s moral guardian? Is this person doing any harm?
It’s not my life. It’s supposed to be a free country.

I’m sick of people inventing new reasons for locking others up. There is simply no point to the creation of this offence. If it satisfies the moralistic cravings of seriously oppressive characters, I really don’t care.

I’m much more worried where the government is seeking to go with this. I don’t think it’s anywhere nice. Legislating the ownership of depiction and fiction is a massive step to take and I don’t like the idea of them having such power, no less of them expanding on it.

good point about fiction and law.

I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head there Phantom.

Physics,
Morals are not hardwired. We’ve been there.

Islamist countries; forcing women to wear burkhas = moral.
Western countries deem that immoral.
Islamist countries; stoning women for adultery = moral.
Western countries deem this immoral.

Such inversion of morality cannot be, if morality is hardwired. Else we’re different species.

As for the common law test, it’s not really a matter of ‘we like it or we don’t’.
Court trials are not popularity contests but attempts of judging legalities.

The common law test for the Obscene Publications Act is that the jury are asked to decide if they think the material could corrupt a proportion of its audience.
Those would be the instructions of the judge.

Some time ago in this string I described the Perrin case, in which it was decided that some pornographic material was illegal on a site’s freely accessible sample pages, but legal in its restricted credit card accessible area.

This case shows that the jury decided the publicly available material could corrupt as it may be accessible by children, yet the exclusive area would be showing the material to a self-selecting, adult audience and hence would not be corrupting.

So you see, the jury are not asked to judge if they liked the material, but they are asked to judge the material in light of its effect on its likely audience.

In fact, a juror who judged the case simply on what he liked would be failing in his duty.

We simply cannot send people to jail on the basis of if we like what they like. People need to do something wrong, not lose in a popularity contest, to go to prison. :)

But in any case, the common law test in the OPA is way superior to the pitiful parameters dreamt up by government for this law.

The test, as used in the OPA, has a legal history and works in its own sort of way, whereas the selection of shoddy commandments and exemptions for this law is a complete farce. (and this from someone who isn’t a fan of the OPA!)

So, we need protecting from anything that conforms with A, B or C, unless it conforms with A, B or C but has already passed by the BBFC. Then we don’t need protecting. Unless someone has taken an excerpt from something that conforms to A, B or C and has been passed by the BBFC. Then we do need protecting from it, lest we be corrupted.

Is that clear? I think I’d call that a ‘pigs breakfast’ of a law.

No I'm not saying sex is immoral .... I'm saying specific sexual acts are immoral irrespective of whether it is real or pretend

Do I think cross species sex should be illegal because it is immoral - yes - it doesn't make any difference to me whether it's real of pretend .... the depiction of it for whatever purpose is wrong

same for necrophilia

but what you are interested in, is separating out from and excluding depictions of acts of extreme violence including rape and murder because on a scale of immorality, you don't perceive that as being in the same league as necrophilia or bestiality

so you make the argument that you personally wouldn't want to watch someone shag a horse but you wouldn't want them to go to prison for owning a video of it because you're not their moral guardian.

so at what point then should society apply perameters to sexuality as immoral?

do we say depictions of sex with animals and dead people is immoral but everything else is ok?

not according to you, the bar you set for immorality is way lower than that because your judgement is that even though you might not want to watch it, you can't condemn others who do.

I've heard paedophiles make the same arguments for pseudo child porn.

Nobody is legislating what fiction can be depicted - there are still documentaries and films that depict child abuse just as there will always be films made that depict rape and murder. The only difference is that extracted images that are used solely for sexual gratification will become illegal to possess.

You might have 2 people who download a video of Sadaam's hanging onto their computer - one person watches it for purely personal reasons such as historical context and has no other video's of acts of extreme violence but the other person watches it for sexual gratification and has a 1000 other images of extreme torture.

Is it immoral to wank over Sadaams dead body even from the obscurity of your own home? personally I would say yes

should a person go to prison for it, well that's a different matter but I'm not really sure what other deterent might deter someone other than restricting these sorts of images at source by the internet providor.

When it has significant damaging effects, either physically or emotionally. Quite simple Astrocat. No one, not even you, has shown that voluntarily viewing this material or taking part in the making of it, harms anyone in any way or causes anyone to be more likely to harm others.





The above two statements contradict each other, either it is immoral to depict (which means pretend to do them in most cases) some acts or it is not.

Are you saying those people who indulge in rape fantasies are immoral and if they have any images to support that fantasy they should be prosecuted?

I notice several times you try to introduce child pornography to this argument, there is no equivalence here, children cannot be put in a sexual situation, pretend or otherwise, legally, that includes pseudo-photographs and, according to the Government, soon it may include cartoons.

We are talking about perfectly legal activities, carried out by consenting adults, viewed in private by consenting adults.

If it were so easy for the internet service provider to censor content, I'm sure even this government would have tried that route first. It sounds easy, but it is not. There are billions of pages online, no provider can vet them all, or even a significant proportion of them. It can take several months to find new illegal sites and block them, but minutes for the site owner to create a new one.

"No I'm not saying sex is immoral .... I'm saying specific sexual acts are immoral irrespective of whether it is real or pretend"-Astro

Pretending is not immoral. A pretend rape etc is no more of an an immoral act than a pretend murder. Real acts may be "immoral" and wrong-not pretense, pretense of any kind is not wrong where no one is harmed and the action is consensual. Pretense of wrongdoing is not only not immoral, it isn't illegal. You could still pretend to do "extreme" sexual things, even with the DPA in place (by your lights behaving immorally) and you could not be touched by this mad law. But anyone who owns a picture of that pretense (including you-"I arrest you for having a picture of yourself pretending to be extremely violent to your wife") and prison may result. If you can't see the irrational idiocy and unfairness of this.....

To single out one sort of pretense because you don't happen to like it, to condemn to jail someone who has a fictional pic of that pretense, is just subjective prejudice. Subjective prejudices should not become criminal laws. To support a law which can put people in prison on the basis of what other people might believe about what thoughts they have about pictures, is to cheer on totalitarianism-thought crime. Even the OPA does not ask a jury to read the mind of a defendant. To erect such subjective rules of evidence, which can potentially put people in jail for years, is evil and the kind of repressive approach to individual freedom which disappeared here with the seventeeth century and religious persecution for having the "wrong" religious beliefs. Trust god botherer Bliar to bring it back.

Edward Garnier QC, the Tory Shadow to Straw, sees this asbsurd DPA can "bring the law into disrepute". You think he's wrong and the likes of "Jackboot" Straw (a jew who seems sadly not to have learned the lessons of the last century about the dangerous wickedness of laws based in fraudulent rubbish. Salter's disgraceful lying, which has done so much to forward the DPA, is no different to the fraudulent "Protocols of the elders of Zion", which was the Nazi's "warrant" to persecute the jews) is right?

Where is the problem? Do we have any evidence people are harmed in production of images-no. Do we have any evidence such material encourages sexual violence; has its greater availability led to a surge in sexual violence that can be attributed to such images-no. Even this government and the loon Salter can provide none.To implement laws supposedly intended to tackle problems the existence of which can't even be established is crazy. This government and Salter's crowd have justified it on the basis of real harm and abuse-knowing that they would be onto a non starter if they used mere subjective prejudice-moral/aesthetic disapproval of harmless private taste and sexuality.

This is quite different to the situation which exists with child porn-countless children are abused to pander to paedophilia, children cannot consent to anything. Child porn law exists to curb paedophiliac abuse-real serious crime for which there exists a mountain of evidence, that is it's justification. That is why a severe state interference in private life of the citizen can be justified in this instance. That law does not exist merely because some people disapprove of the unpleasant images themselves. That is why possession of images of child indecency cannot be rationally compared to an adult law like the DPA. The grounds for the measures cannot be rationally said to be the same at all. The child porn laws are there to tackle real abuse. The DPA simply polices tastes. So we end up with a law which condems people to possibly years in jail on no other basis than that of aesthetics, misinformation ( lies about people being "murdered on camera for entertainment") and prejudices. Criminal law should tackle harm and abuse-not police taste and pander to ignorance. This is a proposed law sold on an utterly bogus prospectus with no evidence to back up any of its justifications. It is simply draconian state repression over pictures certain types don't want other people to own, on pain of imprisonment, as they don't like them. That is wrong, such a law cannot be compatible with a society that is free and respects human rights.

As it can't remove images from the internet, the DPA cannot prevent the "vunerable"-children, disturbed adults etc from accessing such images as easily after as before such a law. It can't do anything it pretends; as a measure to address certain "objectives" it is completely pointless. All it does is fling people in overcrowded jails at vast public expense, wreck the lives of people who have never done anything to harm anyone and divert recources from real crime to non crime. It is a total fraud, a law of breathtaking stupidity. The product of an arrogant regime punch drunk with power.

Astro-why does no other country have such a law as this? Because it is ludicrous and totalitarian. No other country comparable is in the clutches of a gang of inept, intolerant, aging reds-which this one now is.

Do I not want to see someone shag a horse because I think it immoral? No.

Frankly, I have no idea regarding the ‘morality’ of this act. I’m just much too squeamish to want to see it. Period. I’d find it ‘icky’.
But my squeamishness should have no bearing on law. Neither should that of other people.

For example, do I want to watch two men in penetrative anal sex? No. Do I think gay sex is immoral? No.

So there, not wanting to see it, doesn’t mean one deems it immoral and seeks to see it banned. Not wishing to see it, means just that; not wishing to see it.
So, therefore I follow common sense. I don't watch it.

But this doesn’t make one a moralist busy-body seeking to tall others what they’re not allowed to view. No, that requires bigotry.

At what point should society set moral parameters?

Well, should it? Isn’t that more the question?
Regimes like the Taliban or the theocracy of Iran are big on ‘moral parameters’ in law. Theirs. The Saudis are also big on moral law. Great places to live! Why not move there?
After all, they’re very moral.

Well, moral may be. But what if it’s not one’s own morality? I doubt even the most ardent supporters of this moralist drivel wish to go and live in one of those moral nirvanas.

Fact is, is anyone who owns a video of horse shagging, doing any harm? I can’t discern any harm being done.

I can’t see what benefit I am to derive from this person’s imprisonment. It won’t make me safer, as he never posed a threat in the first place. It will only waste my taxes. If 'real' criminals need to be let out early to make way for him, it will in fact make me less safe.

Frankly, there’s no point to incarceration for this. Will it make him a better person? How so? Should by that thinking we not also be locking up gays? After all, it’s merely punishing people for not conforming to the sexual norm. They're sexuality is harmless, but 'immoral' according to some.



Sorry, what? What is a fictitious rape scene in a porn film, if not fiction? It is to be banned from possession. Nobody is legislating that? I see, it’s legislating itself, is it?
These are laws on fiction, if you like to admit it or not.



Ah, so here we are. A thought crime, if ever there was one!

Both own the same thing. But one of them thinks ‘the wrong thing’. So it’s a thought crime pure and simple. Legal and illegal, according to what one assumes the owner thinks.

So there you go. Laws banning fiction and laws banning thought. Oh, what a brave new world.

Steve

The 2 statements do not contradict each other

My personal opinion is that it was not immoral to hang Sadaam
but it was immoral to film him and distribute it around the world and it would be just as immoral for someone to use that footage for sexual gratification.

Now we can get into an argument about whether or not it was immoral to hang Sadaam but this thread relates purely to images used in a sexual context.

Now that was a 'real' event but even if the event was filmed by actors and everyone knew they were pretending, the film would not be obscene or immoral in a pornographic sense for anyone, actors, directors or viewers ..... it would only raise an issue of illegality if could be proved that an extracted umage was used for purposes of sexual gratification.

So it's quite easy to have a situation where something isn't immoral to depict (because it's a historical event) but it would be immoral to use it for sexual purposes. So the 2 statements don't contradict each other at all.

Morality or ethics doesn't deal with damage or evidence of harm either physical or emotional, it is concerned with perceived offence; the distinction between right and wrong; the regulation of conduct, character and disposition. So you answer to the question I raised is irrelevant because a governments right to impose a moral standard for the nation doesn't depend on evidence of harm, it is set an individual national level and each nation has it's own morality even within Europe. If you don't like the morality that this nation is setting - just as I was advised to move to a more moral nation such as Iran - I could advise you to move to a more tolerant nation such as Germany or Holland or Sweden.

As for child pornography there is an equivalence - we have said as a nation that morally and legally it is wrong which has set a moral tone that other countries have now adopted and in time this legislation might also be adopted elsewhere.

As for whether the Government has the power to restrict internet access or not I don't know .... it hasn't seemed to stop China or the Middle East.

You have to remember Steve that for us the internet has relatively few restrictions and some people think that is good thing and others think it's not but as far as I can see, it's only going to be a matter of time before cyberspace faces regulation of content within national jurisdictions primarily due to safeguarding national interest whether it be civil, economic or moral.

Phantom



such as it already is with child pornography which is why so many when they get caught put up the defence that is was 'for research purposes'

Actually not astrocat. Owning buying or downloading images of child pornography is considered incitement to sexually assault a child (who cannot consent) in the making of the material.

Whereas the proposed law does not deal with consent, or even incitement (although it implies this), in any way, it merely criminalises all images that depict non-consensual sexual acts.

shame no-one has ever explained that little technicality to the numerous thesbians who have tried using the 'research' excuse

as I understand it, the proposed law doesn't criminalise all images that depict non-consentual sexual acts ..... it only criminalises them if they are used for sexual gratification

That's right with extracted images, but then you are back to prosecuting on the grounds of what someone thinks or feels, not on any harm they cause.

Any other image must be made principally for sexual gratification.

Accept that only one side in this fight is attempting to change the moral equilibrium of the nation we live in to suit their own personal taste.
So there is no symmetry, hence the attempt at making an argument collapses.

As for morality. In Sudan a British woman teacher has just been arrested for allowing her pupils to name a class teddy bear ‘Mohammed’. She’s now been held on charges of blasphemy. Great thing, morality.

Frankly, what harm does a teddy bear’s name do? None.
Ah, but it’s not a question of harm. It’s a question of morality, isn’t it? A question of offence.
Fine, burn the bitch! It’s her own fault after all…
Ahhh, breathe that moral air, folks. Mmmmh.



Are we sure we were the first? Also, some of the nonsense we’ve done with child porn is hardly something other nations are going to copy.

Principally, everyone agrees on the nastiness and harmfulness of real child porn. Its policing is a matter of child protection. But some have ill-advisedly taken this much further. Parliament – afraid of tabloid wrath – backed some of this stuff.

Child porn is no longer as clear cut as it ought to be, which I believe is a crime committed upon law by our curretn generation of sound bite politicians.

Policing of this has also become an outrage, as has become painfully clear in the now infamous Operation Ore. Why Jim Gamble has still not lost his job and been prosecuted is beyond me.



It’s called ‘cleanfeed’ and is essentially, if I’m not mistaken, something run on the BT system, which would affect all ISPs.

Once again, a system brought in on a benign premise, which is now threatening us all. Essentially introduced to block child porn sites, some are playing with the idea to block other things they don’t like.

It could prove a frightfully effective substitute to the Lord Chamberlain’s blue pen, throwing us a long way back in time. Unless we get the authorities to understand that it’s for child porn and for child porn only.



Very good examples again! Lovely countries! So moral! Progressive nations with future proof ideas we’ll no doubt wish to adopt very soon. ‘The moral dimension’, as Jim Hacker likes to say...

Hey, why don’t we just give up and turn this place into a proper banana republic, with a military guy in sun specs in charge? Who knows, Mugabe may soon need a new job…
Is he 'moral' enough? After all, he's tough on gays...



What is a moral national interest, when it’s at home?

Cyberspace is already under national jurisdictions. Where it can be downloaded it is deemed to be published, making content subject to publication law. This is already the case. (with some farcical consequences).

However, the principal remains that what has not been expressly banned is permitted. Unless of course we follow the advice of the moral brigade and ban everything which isn’t expressly permitted online. (Good bye, rap. Hello, Chris de Burgh, 24/7.)



The law will ban things which fall into set parameters, if non-consensual or not.

Even if a scene has a masochist stating clearly that he wants his scrotum to be pierced by the dominatrix, who then proceeds to do so, it would most likely be deemed illegal.

So consent is not the primary factor, merely the parameters per se.
The only context the law is interested in really is a sexual context. Anything else is deemed circumstantial.

Pornography is defined as ‘having been produced solely or primarily for sexual gratification’. I guess the extraction of certified material would be deemed a ‘production’ of sorts.

Of course there is still no logic why a sexual/pornographic context suddenly renders an act ‘evil’. But then the supporters of this dross aren’t interested in logic. Else they’d be interested in harm.

They’re interested in their morality. They wish to see laws in force to ram home their morality.
They care not one jot for the human cost of their morality.
They're right. They're moral. That's that.

Meanwhile the government is using these poor fools to expand its powers into hitherto untouched realms, no doubt sniggering all the way.

But hey, it doesn’t’ matter if we’re oppressed. As long as we feel more moral.
Oddly that does sound somewhat Iranian, no? Lol.
(I guess this law is a sort of fatwa for those who don’t do as the bigots insist.)

The stupidity this law represents is colossal.
We might just as well hand over our rights at the door.

Right to privacy? What right? After all, they’ll need to snoop on us all, to enforce this thing. Sexual freedom? Don’t make me laugh.
Freedom of possession? Zilch. Concepts of natural justice? Down the drain…

Henceforth you’ll be expected to think right, or else the gentlemen in the jackboots will be banging on your door or scanning all your emails.

Not to protect you from terrorism or hold you safe from crime.
No. To assure that you’re living your lives according to their morality. Because theirs is the only right one.
Just bend over and take it folks! Schnell, schnell!

Morality is henceforth not something debatable but something that is ordained from up on high as law. And transgression of a morality will henceforth be punishable. Even if it’s a transgression in fiction. Better yet, the mere possession of a moral transgression fiction!

Much is being said about how horrid the human beings must be who indulge in this immorality. I care little about that. I am indifferent to what people get up to in private (i.e. I have a concept of privacy).

But my interest focuses much more upon the horrid people who feel entitled to tell us all how to live our lives, to suit them. Not that we’re harming them as a society. No, they simply feel ‘morally’ entitled to make our rules for us.

They are entitled to their own moral code, within their four walls. But what are they doing beyond our thresholds? Why are they encroaching on our space?

How come they expect us to leave them alone (claiming religious freedom, no doubt), yet do not extend us the same civil courtesy?

Who are the really horrid people in 21st century Britain?

Those who look at dodgy pictures. Or those who are intent on bringing to bear cutting edge technology to peer into all our lives in order to enforce upon us their moral and sexual standards?


End of rant….

read the last line and decided not to bother reading any further

sorry

Says it all really.

Bigots never really deal with opposing views.
They can't handle them.

As has been clear in past exchanges when lines were cherry-picked. One chose what one could read out of context and ignored the rest.

Yet now devoid of even a figment of remaining argument one claims not to care anymore. Just as before, one is suddenly 'bored'.

Then, once some grass has grown over, one returns with the same tired half-truths and lots of moral outrage, only to be trounced again.

Which is when one suddenly remembers how 'bored' one is again...

Are we supposed to believe this feigned indifference, every time your 'arguments' run of steam anew?

no - I just can't be arsed with 5000 words at this time of night

Yes, right.
Can’t be asked. Bored. It’s beneath you.
Of course.

Until you come screeching back in here, demanding your moral imperative be recognised again. Then suddenly it’s not that boring anymore. The indifference then suddenly has vanished.

Alas, it never lasts. Because the initial pent up, temporary enthusiasm can’t mend faulty reasoning.

Hence why not just leave it be and be permanently ‘bored’?

phantom:

Could it be that astrocat has realised the arguments in favour of this law are so dumb that we have to dumb down our arguments against it...?! ;-)

No Graham - I'm getting over a bout of the flu and by 10:30pm at night I am too tired to start making a connection between the naming of teddy bears and people wanting to watch a dominatrix puncturing a scrotum.


Who are the really horrid people in the 21st century?

morality has always been imposed on society to varying degrees, more often than not it has been imposed on women more stringently than on men and still is.

when i see you fighting for the rights of prostitutes just as vehemently as you fight for your right to view extreme pornography, I'll take your moral skepticism a little more seriously.

Look at this way boys .... if you can't get your jollies out of a computer screen, you're going have to go back to the real world providors who consent and then maybe we'll get a grown up debate about morality.

Till then the clauses you object to in this Bill are just diddling round the edges of the morality surrounding what is in fact just glorified voyeurism. It's a masquerade posing as an assault on freedom of privacy that is being used to give voyeurs a sense of legitimacy, which is why I get bored with complaining wittering men who are all talk and no action.

From "See no evil" site-

More pertinent material from the 22/11/07 CJIB meeting. I have been re-reading the transcript.

Edited from the transcript-

"Mr. Garnier: The hon. Lady is very kindly reading out the text of the Bill, but we want to know why it is in the shape that it is, and whether she can justify the use of the subjective clauses—I use the word in the grammatical rather than the statute sense—such as “it appears to have been”. We really need to know the answer to that. With respect, we can see what the Bill says, we just need to know why it says it.

Maria Eagle: I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman is in such a very good mood as the evening wears on. It is not even half-past 5 yet. I am trying, having heard from a number of hon. Members on the Committee, to deal with the point that has been raised, but in the context of setting out the offence and explaining why we have come to the view that we have. I have now probably forgotten what he was asking me.

(Playing for time?-G)

Mr. Garnier: I will repeat it while the hon. Lady looks through her notes (sarcasm!-G). She was very kindly reading out subsections (3), (4) and (5); that was very good of her, but could she move forward in her notes to the justification by the Government for the use of the subjective term, “appears to have been” throughout the clause.

(A repetition of the old party line follows-G)

Harry Cohen: I am grateful to the Minister; in fact, I am grateful to all the hon. Members who have taken part in this debate, which has been a good one. I acknowledge that the Minister has an extremely difficult brief, one that she cannot satisfy (you can't rationally defend the indefensible-G), and that it is difficult to frame legislation in this area that is right and proper and fair, and seen by everyone as fair. There is such a wide variety of views that it is unlikely that everyone will see any such legislation as being fair.
I am also grateful to the Minister for her acknowledgment that, with the new possession offence, the clause goes wider than the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (that lie has been nailed-G), which was a point made by Deborah Hyde of Backlash, whom I quoted.
I am still very concerned about the threshold that the Minister referred to. How is a person to know what that threshold is? I do not think that there is clarity about the threshold. It will affect adults, even adults whose behaviour is consensual. I understand her point about the words, “appears to”. As these images are hosted abroad, removing those words could almost render the clause ineffective. The way to deal with that problem is to put pressure on the internet service providers. Greater emphasis should have been placed on doing that than on creating legislation that could be much more of a catch-all. However, I welcome the Minister’s COMMITTMENT TO LOOK AT THE CLAUSE AGAIN in the light of our debate.

Mr. Garnier: I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman to extract from the Government a commitment to do something rather more than say, “We will look at it again,” because too often the Government say that they will look at a matter again in order to avoid a further debate and we never see it again.
It is really quite important that we get the clause right, because, AS IT IS CURRENTLY DRAFTED, IT WILL CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT WILL SOLVE, for many of the reasons that the hon. Gentleman set out in his earlier speech. I am not at all sure, and I hope that he is not at all sure either, that the Minister’s response to his arguments about the subjectivity issue has been adequate. When we finish this short debate, I urge him to urge the Minister to DO SOMETHING REALLY QUITE RADICAL, EITHER ON REPORT OR IN THE OTHER PLACE (the Lords-G), so that the Bill is PRODUCED IN A SENSIBLE FORM. Otherwise, as I just said, the BILL WILL CAUSE MORE TROUBLE THAN IT WILL SOLVE.

Harry Cohen: I agree. The point of my tabling the amendment is that I think that this clause needs to be CHANGED and I hope that it will be, EITHER ON REPORT OR IN ANOTHER PLACE as the hon. and learned Gentleman (Garnier-G) suggests.
Having said that, I know that the Minister is a woman of integrity; WHEN SHE SAYS THAT SHE IS GOING TO LOOK AT THE MATTER AGAIN I KNOW SHE WILL DO SO IN THE LIGHT OF OUR DEBATE. I hope that some changes that reflect that debate—I know that that is difficult, because different points were made in the debate—and that will improve the Bill will result."

Transcript ends

So Harry Cohen says he's sure M Eagle is honourable enough to go away and put this back on the MOJ drawing board. I hope his confidence is well justified. Both Cohen and Garnier-and clearly the 2 Lib Dems, think this proposed law is so bad it would be dreadful in statute in its present form. The main defense of it came from the jobsworths from the ministry-who have to support it. Walker's comments are too unrelated to the actual bill to be of any relevance. It comes across that Mr.Garnier, the MOJ Shadow, hates it, he thinks its a sledgehammer to crack a nut, it's unfair, badly drafted (not produced in a "sensible form") and unworkable in practice-and he doubts it's HR compatible too. He wants changes, indeed he is firmly demanding changes, changes of the sort we are campaigning for. Presumably this message from the Tory front bench and the others will get to relevant parties who will scrutinise further and can table amendments, if there are no meaningful revisions from the ministry. I am heartened by this, despite the predictable withdrawl of the Cohen amendments at this stage.

One may speculate that some of the material campaigners have sent to these individuals has played a big part in making it more clear to MPs how terrible the proposed law is-along with the evidence given by Gareth Crossman to the committee. If similar work by campaigners can help bring the JCHR to see all or parts of part 6 are incompatible with HR (the bill at present is highly incompatible), that may be another opportunity to obtain sane amendment of the bill .

All along I have suspected that once rational people realise the existence of this incoherent totalitarian mess of a proposed law-including some who still inhabit Westmonster- the more opponents the DPA will find it has. As Harry Cohen understates-

"it is unlikely that everyone will see any such legislation as being fair."

And some may be influential enough to do something about it.

Oh, I see, we need to have views on another subject entirely in order for our views on this subject to be taken seriously. So, unless we agree with you on prostitution, then our views on this insane law are irrelevant.

Now there’s logic.

As it stands, I have a long-standing position on legalisation of prostitution and I believe that many objections to prostitution would instead be best seen as reasons for regulation of a legitimate industry.

I refuse to accept as a fact of life Albanian gangsters trading women like cattle among each other for illegal prostitution rings, merely so that Anne Widdecombe can feel good about herself because she won’t allow legalisation.

One of the great outrageous was the silent abandonment of the proposal of three women ‘brothels’ after it had been noisily proposed. Clearly this would be a good way of providing safety. But no, the bishops and bigots opposed. So in order to be ‘Christian Tony’, Blair abandoned it. Why ought women be safe, if a PM’s ‘moral’ image is at stake among the bigoted?

As for my ‘getting my jollies’, you have very little idea of what those jollies of mine might be. But by all means, assume away. After all, you’re the one who requires no evidence or other basis of knowledge, but just ‘knows’…

And the liberties we support are all just glorified voyeurism we’re arguing for with all our ‘diddling’? (and this is more profound than teddy bears?)

First off, what’s wrong with voyeurism? Factually please. Reason it.
After all, all porn would be voyeurism. Not all porn is to be banned, but certain elements of fiction within porn (or what might come to be seen as porn).
The force of reason for separating out this area for not specific purpose still remains utterly lacking.

If people want to be voyeuristic, who cares? Having found a fancy name for what you object to, ‘voyeurism’ apparently, doesn’t grant what you’re saying the force of argument.

The state still requires some sort of reason for a prohibition, not least one which carries a prison sentence.
Dressing up a thought crime as ‘voyeurism’, doesn’t change the concept one iota.

-

Regarding your hardships of grasping arguments surrounding teddies. Teddy’s name is a problem due to the supposed offence to local moralists. You’re the local moralist here.

Thought you wouldn’t have a problem comprehending the obvious parallel. But then, one understands merely what one wants to. No change there then…

Dortom,

Wow. Dare I say, Garnier almost sounds irritated, at the government’s playing games.
No doubt, he too is just a women-hating voyeur seeking to have his ‘jollies’… :)

Unless we are on to something here.
The sheer cynicism of Garnier’s in particular seems to me quite telling.
He is aware of how Labour use their majority and feels that common sense may never even be considered in the ‘redrafting’.

Some may indeed be ‘influential enough to do something about it’, Dortom, but will they be willing? Garnier’s cutting sarcasm suggests to me that he doesn’t really think so...

So once again, it seems we win the argument, even bringing onto our side heavyweight Tory justice spokesmen. Yet once again, it seems to do us very little good.

Labour are right because they feel they always are. They will not listen as they need not do so. As with others, logic never enters into it.

As for Garnier, I’m quietly impressed. When at first he glibly claimed his principal support, I feared the worst. But it does appear that, once he saw the details, he did have the sense to review his position.

Prostitution is actually a subject contained in this Bill so it's not exactly another subject Phantom.

You don't have to agree with me at all, I'm not demanding that you do or calling you names when you don't.

I was just pointing out that morality means different things to different people - it doesn't matter how you dress it up whether it's under the guise of consent or privacy or harm or fairness or human rights ..... it still boils down to hypocritical double standards.

From my point of view this legislation is wonderful, its a dominatrix fantasy of epic proportions .... of course I'm not going to object to it!!

All those men pained by denial and potentially punished for being naughty, naughty boys

You have no idea how much pleasure that thought gives me .... almost as much as the thought of skewering your scrotum Phantom



I've never heard of a hierodule being called a moralist before!! LoL
But then, one understands merely what one wants to. No change there then …

What boils down to hypocrisy? Where is there any hypocrisy in opposing this? Where?



Er? What are you talking about? Women dominating men will be illegal in depiction as much as vice versa….



Ah, I see. My question above already answered. Let’s juxtapose the above with this statement from the same string.



Ah, I think I’ve found the hypocrisy! Wanting to skewer my scrotum is not technically calling me names, but I think we’re at least half way there. As they say, it’s the thought that counts.

Of course, were I to have suggested any such thing for you, I’d now be called a woman-beating misogynist. But hey, there we go. In any case, with your being a confessed man-hater, I’m not much surprised at your seriously twisted attitudes.

But it’s good to flush them out into the open once in a while, so that people who’re tempted to take your posts seriously get to see what kind of a person they’re really listening to.

Essentially you understand porn as the exclusive domain of men. Hating them, you see the outlawing of any sort of porn as a means of denying them something.

It’s seriously twisted. But if it rocks your boat…

However, it seems to me, that while I’m concerned what they’re doing to the state and to people’s freedoms, it’s actually you who’s seeking to get her ‘jollies’ in relation to this legislation…

I remain convinced that any prohibition of ‘extreme’ pornography will lead to a prohibition of ‘extreme’ non-pornographic material per se. Appropriate noises have already been made from several directions, which suggest I’m not imagining things.

As with all initial concentration and centralization of power, it never ends there.

The crux of the problem is always who decides what’s ‘extreme’ and with people such as you about, Astro, I prefer for no one to be given such power of decision in the first place.

As for that last bit, Astro. Hierodule? Who are you kidding?
Just read some of your previous posts of how things are just ‘sick’, ‘plain wrong’ and ‘immoral’ and all that tripe.

Choosing the tag hierodule is quite typical of you, casting yourself in the role of the martyr yet again. Some things never change…

But it’s worth remembering that it’s the supposed martyr who’s keen to see people locked up and punished here. So not so much 'picked on' as 'picking on'….

Isn’t it time for you to get bored again?

A heirodule isn't a martyr - whatever gave you that idea?

A heirodule engages in sexual activity on behalf of the goddess, it's an act of devotion and intercession dedicated to a purpose - it has more to do with personal empowerment. A hierodule has sex on her terms - not a man's. They don't take money like a streetwalker and they don't give it away like a wife.

I meant the hypocrisy of double standards in the way society treats sex not the hypocrisy in opposing this law.

I don't hate men Phantom, I just don't have any respect for them. Men have made the rules for thousands of years and largely cut women out of the equation ... it was men who decreed sex was sinful when they wanted rid of the pagan understanding of sex and blamed women in order to get rid of the goddess, so if you don't like the world your gender has created that's not my problem.

I've put up with constant snide remarks and backhanded comments and for some entirely unknown reason, you seem to think this is likely to help your cause and make the case that exposure to these images brings out the best in people.



What little sympathy I had for your arguments evaporated a couple of days ago when I posted the suggested ammendments and you were just downright rude and ungrateful. All it would have taken was a comment like; that's encouraging news, thanks for bringing it to my attention Astro'.

That would have diffused previous tensions and probably lead to a more productive debate but instead you chose to escalate the situation with snide comments.

You want to push against me .... go right ahead, and I'll do everything in my power to intervene with the goddess to make sure your worst nightmare does come true.

And that could get very interesting indeed .... all it's going to take is one text message to a certain married man with whom I share a Vesta opposition.

A hierodule was a slave. And the goings on surrounding such temple slaves historically leaves very little difference between them and other forced prostitutes. Hence an ideal role for your martyr complex; a crushed, oppressed female spirit wronged by men.



So, you don’t hate men? You merely blame them for screwing up the world and having oppressed women since the beginning of time? Some difference.
I’d also once again ask you to revisit some of your previous quotes. You leave very little doubt regarding your feelings toward men.



What little sympathy you had? When did you ever express sympathy for this?
Disgust? Offence? Disdain? Yes.
Sympathy?

As for my being ‘downright rude and ungrateful’. I also remember the manner in which I was immediately slated for not knowing of it. From what I recall that’s when I became ‘rude and ungrateful’. But sure, have it your way…



I have in the past acknowledged points. Something you’ve not yet done once. For example I recall one good natured concession on the ‘advocatus diaboli’. Did it do me any good? No.
One scratches but expects to be stroked. So, hell, I started scratching back.

Now I’m being told that I’m being sooo unfair. It seems to me one dishes out, but is not willing to take.

You’re happy to say that the likes of me or just campaigning to get to keep their ‘jollies’ watching ‘filth’, seeking merely to protect treasured perversions. All such talk apparently is fine, albeit that you don't know me or my interests at all.

Yet once I call you a moralist bigot, I’m suddenly a mean-spirited bully who’s picking on you.



Sorry, what? You speak to the Gods now? Now if there ever was a gift for a snide remark….



That last sounds like some sort of not very veiled threat.
Not that I understand it, but I feel that someone is seeking to stir up real life trouble for someone else…

Care to explain yourself?

Let me see if I understand what ur saying astrocat.

If I buy the film The Accused (featuring Jodie Foster involved in a pretend rape where no actors were harmed) that is ok.

The message in the film which is what the whole film was about, was that if a woman dresses and behaves flirtatiously and provocatively it does not justify raping her.

Now suppose I watched that because at the time, it was a revolutionary film and I wanted for historic reasons see what all the fuss was about.

Suppose I am not interested in the message at all, but think Jodie Foster is a real hottie and i want to see strangers rip her clothes off while she is screaming "no no", for sexual gratification.

If the police came round and saw i owned this film (i dont)how can they know my intentions when i watch it?


Another "rape" film was Straw Dogs. This was banned for many years on DVD and released recently.

In this film the character played by Susan George is raped, however she initially tries to fight it but while being raped actually enjoys it.

This was banned because up until this point, rape was always seen as the woman doesnt want it, but this film provided a new idea of the woman wanting sex with a man but refusing because she does not want to betray her husband but enjoys it when she is taken against her will as the rapist is a better lover, but she also has the defence she was taken against her will.

It was deemed society could not cope with this "women enjoy being raped but have an excuse that they tried to be faithful" argument so it was banned.



Suppose you go round someone's house and they have a DVD collection. All of them are hollywood films which depict rape.

What do you do? Maybe they are interested in working for the police on rape crimes.

Maybe they get off on fiction watching women being raped.

What if the purchaser of the film is unaware of the lack of consent of the participants taking place?

The porn film Deep Throat comes to mind.

Forget what was in it, it has caused a lot of consent scandals.

When it was released it was just believed it showed consenting adults acting out and doing sexual things.

This DVD can be bought in shops TODAY in the UK.

The woman that appeared in it later claimed she was forced against her will to do many of these things on camera under threat of physical violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat_%28film%29


I have seen documentaries on TV about this film.

Here you can buy it from Amazon UK

Here for amazon list

So amazon in the Uk is selling a DVD which contains a woman performing sexual acts she claimed before her death she was made to perform against her will on film.

In other words, if she was telling the truth, the Amazon is selling a REAL RAPE tape. (Ok things go in her mouth never seen it but)

Here is the BBC story on it

here




What is your view on that? Amazon selling a dvd which allegedly shows a woman performing sex scenes against her wishes at gunpoint?

THAT IS THE REAL CONCERN.

In fairness most who originally bought it had no idea of this and thought they were buying a "normal" porn film where all adults consented but it shocked the porn world with her "forced to do it" accusations.

Now what is the difference between someone owning a lot of hollywood rape dvds and some ameature fantasy rape films showing the same thing without any storyline?


Cliff

Originally they weren't slaves.

The earliest known record is of the Sumerian priestess Enheduanna who was a hierodule to Innana. The sacred marriage was the realm of the highest ranked sacred prostitute, the nu gig ("pure or spotless"), but under the Akkadian conquerors of Sumer, sacred prostitutes made up an entire complex hierarchy. The top-ranking "entu," possibly parallel to the nu gig, wore special caps and jewelry and carried a ceremonial staff like that of the ruler. "Naditu" formed the next hierarchical level and came from the highest families in land. Known for their business acumen, they played an essential role in the Akkadian economy.
"Quadishtu," the "sacred women," fell next in line, with "ishtaritu," who specialized in dancing, music and singing forming the lower tier of temple priestess.

Even the Hebrew Bible uses a word 'qedesha' to describe a cult prostitute which means 'sacred/consecrated woman' - hardly a slave then. They were priestesses not slaves and were viewed with social approval.

In Greece they were known as 'hetairai' and were independent courtesans unlike the 'pornai' who were street walkers and often slaves.

Only later did when matriarchal society had been subjugated by patriarchal society that deemed it was pagan idolatory was ritual sex regarded as shameful, sinful and dangerous if not sanctified within monogomous relationships.

----

No I don't hate men - Hate and and the absence of respect don't equate to the same emotion. I hate what men do sometimes because I think they place far too much emphasis on domination and destructive combative obstinance and are largely selfish in the pursuit of it, but that doesn't mean I hate them because their attitude isn't very constructive, it just means I don't have much respect for it.

Do you think the world isn't screwed up? And yes, I do think that women have been oppressed by men for centuries.




You started scratching back because you didn't get praised for admitting you were wrong? Gee that's mature. Don't come it Phantom, you talk down to everyone who doesn't agree with you which probably explains why Triarius has left Webcameron. And if you remember, you called smokeless akin to an Islamic extremist because he didn't agree with you. You're too handy at calling people names simply because they have a different opinion to you, which somewhat the belies your calls for extending tolerance to people with whose lifestyles one might happen to disagree with.

SteveMD makes the same arguments as you but he manages it politely. All you do is get peoples backs up.





I must have at some point or else I feel you would have been unlikely to say; 'As for the dangers of the law, we seem to share fairly similar positions.'




I wasn't planning on doing much talking. In any event, even if I was, what's the difference between talking to the Gods and praying to dead people like Jesus and the saints? Are you suggesting that people who pray are worthy of snide remarks? How very tolerant of you.



I wasn't planning on wearing a veil either. Interesting though that you didn't dismiss the possibility that an act of sexual devotion dedicated to a goddess might produce a mundane effect beyond your control. But then perhaps you aren't so stupid as to dismiss sexual magick completely when it's a subject you probably know little about.



it depends on a number of factors, many people have extra marital relations without them causing any trouble

if you mean it may cause trouble in the future with regard to making your worst nightmare come true .... you have to remember that your worst nightmare is someone elses fervent hope.

Perhaps you two should take a step back here? You are not headed anywhere good with this.

Astro,

Some very cheap shots there, again ignoring context altogether.
Now if I respond to them point for point, I’ll be accused of writing overly long contributions again…

So I’ll limit myself to this one, as it refers to a third person.



Yes, I remember. He’d just called Graham a pervert for beign into S&M, if I recall. I said that I saw little difference between castigating the one who wishes to have sex differently because it doesn’t adhere to one's values and extremist Muslims decrying people for not living according to their views. I still do not have much of a problem with that analogy.

In the same vein, what would I be if I accused you of perversion for thinking of indulging in ritualistic Pagan sexual activities? Wouldn’t that make me a bigot?
What business is it of mine what you do with your privates?

Sure, from what I read in your post I think it’s a lot of spiritual mumbo jumbo, but you’re perfectly entitled to it. In fact, if you wish to record it and stick it on the net for other mumbo jumbos to watch, I’ll not have the slightest objection. I won’t watch it myself.
But then I see no need at all to stop you and others from being as free as you wish to be.

I am not so inclined. You are.

You can say I’m calling you names again. But it’s a simple fact. You wish to be free to follow your spiritual shenanigans and indulge in whatever related carnal desire you wish, at the press of a button on a mobile phone. Yet you are determined to deny it to others, where it does not meet your fancy.

In a recent post you mentioned hypocrisy. Is the above not a schoolbook example of hypocrisy?

My position has remained as always. We ought to let people do what they wish. If they wish to set themselves up as hierodules, that’s no business of mine.

But if the modern hierodule wishes to picture herself bound and whipped or binding and whipping on the internet, then that is none of my business either.

I am not the referee who needs to walk around issuing yellow cards to those who have transgressed on my sense morality.

I do not need laws to protect my feelings of sexual propriety.

Meanwhile you want such laws. Yet you keep your mobile handy in case you wish to some guy a text message in order to have your Pagan end away.

-

You see, it fairly clear that we do not like each other. It’s just stating the obvious.
Invective is going to continue to fly between us, I have little doubt.

Sure, I make snide remarks and ‘call you names’. It’s entirely mutual, contrary to your claims

But here you are dropping super-sized hints about some sort of sexual Pagan spirituality of yours and I don’t even blink.

Yet I’ve already had it made quite clear that you’d like to see my testicles on a skewer for supporting people’s rights to view pornographic material of which you morally disapprove.

And you cannot see how this entire concept of rights of yours is entirely one-sided?
No wonder you like to concentrate on my use of invective rather than on the argument at hand.

You want to have your cake and eat it. You wish to indulge in your sexual desires which are far from mainstream, yet wish to deny others from indulging in theirs, because of your feelings.

You’re sure your deity is Vesta and not Janus?

I know, Steve.
Someone else has already sent me a private message asking me to take the hits without replying in kind.

Who knows, perhaps I’m just not big enough a man for it. :)

I think one of the problems is inherent to the subject.
Namely any supporter by definition is accepting of the premise of adherents to such practices as those which are to be banned being perverts. Else why ban it?

Meanwhile those who support people’s rights to view whatever they wish see those who would ban people from doing so due to their personal feelings of moral offence as bigots.
After all, it is merely about ‘abhorrence’, not harm.

This means that there is an edge of hostility to proceedings right from the start.

The above setup I believe leads to inevitable clashes, however much one tries to steer clear, as what to one side are arguments to the other appear insults.

Finally, add passion to it.
I’ve made no bones about being a campaigner on this issue.
I’m beginning to suspect that the opposite number here is one also, albeit for the other side.

Either way, we’re arguing from positions not of opinion but fervent belief.
So, yes, sparks fly sometimes. But then it’s better than watching paint dry in some of the other strings, no? ;)

But by all means, please haul us back to the subject once in a while…

As I understand it Cliff - there is nothing to stop anyone having hundreds of certified DVD's which are of the genre of StrawDogs or Deepthroat or the Accused - provided they are on general release, I don't see how there can be a problem.

the problem (I think) is if someone takes an extract from one of these films and transfers it to another format i.e an extract stored as a computer image.

I don't know how the CPS are going to determine whether there is sufficient justification for bringing a prosecution on such evidence. I would assume there would have to be some very convincing evidence of computer access to 'extreme porn sites' before the Police would even begin to look at what was in someone's DVD collection.

I would suspect that the CPS wouldn't be interested in polaroids taken between consenting couples or peoples DVD collections and would only really be interested in looking at instances of the extreme end of 'pornographic websites' if they are going to be able to bring about a successful prosecution.

Unfortunately the law has to be worded in such a way that it provides a framework to include the 'extreme' end because there doesn't seem to be a way of wording it to exclude Mr. & Mrs. Bloggs polaroids without it being a catch all description.



I don't know (because I haven't seen it)whether this film has scenes of extreme violence contained in it so I've no idea whether even if Boreman's allegations were true and she was forced at gunpoint to act against her will, it would be a film that would be affected by this legislation. But certainly if her allegations were true, it doesn't say very much about the practices that lie behind the claims that these films are made consentually.

Laws are put on the statute books on the offchance that they may be needed at some time under a particular set of circumstances that may warrant it. I would think the Police have very specific targets in mind that they are unable to prosecute currently and are not remotely interested in what Mr. & Mrs. Bloggs get up to in their bedroom or what Master Bloggs buys from HMV or the local sex shop whose material is regulated by law anyway.

I would think these proposals are aimed pretty much at web sites or DVD's that show scenes of bestiality for example.

Oh come now, that's a bit of a thin argument. How many adult porn films are there? Hundreds of thousands? And how many claims by people that they were forced to perform in them?

If such a thing were common or even a significant minority of cases, we would have ample evidence of it.

Phantom

No Smokeless hadn't called Graham a pervert - he said 'what some would call a pervert' ..... which was an honest opinion, some people would call people who are into BDSM perverts but it's still going over the top to liken someone who shoots guns for sport to an Islamic terrorist.

My sexual desires don't involve animals, dead people or pretending to be raped or murdered for the entertainment of othersm nor does it include watching it so I'd say that makes me pretty mainstream.

I'm not a campaigner for anyone or any side, but I do think there are millions of people in the country who do find these images repugnant.

Should you and Graham and Steve and others be allowed to express your outrage at these proposals without one person on this site standing up and speaking on behalf of the millions who think they are vile practices?

And should they be able to do without without incurring verbal abuse or being told to that their opinion (astrological) isn't welcome and told to go elsewhere, so don't tell me that you see no need to stop me from being as free as I wish to be. I didn't exactly notice you or anyone else on this site jump up and down in the defence of free speech.

You're quick enough to defend other freedoms but apparantly not if it conflicts with your opinion.

You're right - at least this thread isn't as boring as watching paint dry and perhaps we have each other to thank for that.

I dont mind acting on behalf of Janus in the slightest .... it's better to see in all directions rather than be blinkered

So what? If it's consensual - it's OK.

However, the same goes with your shooting. You should be allowed to do it. No doubt about it.

We spend so much time insulting each others consensual hobbies we forget their are child molesters, rapists and murderers out there. These are the enemy; not some guy shooting rounds at a range or a couple watching a BDSM video.

The idea we're going to find a murderer at a gun shop or a rapist at a S&M club is utterly preposterous. Maybe a murderer will own guns. Maybe a rapist will own 'extreme' pornography.' It doesn't imply a strict connection.

See: Correlation vs. Causation examples
http://www.statistics-help-online.com/node50.html

Is this really the level of intellectual discourse on WebCameron? We should be worried.

Really, can we please get onto something important? Let's do the intelligent thing and just stay out of each others consensual right to live how we please.

Before I'm accused of being a 'lefty loony' for taking such a viewpoint, you should note this is not a liberal view at all. A liberal view would want MORE intervention and regulation. A traditional conservative view would be to allow for personal responsibility.

You don't jail a drunk until he's disorderly.

Jake

Well said Jake, I pretty much agree with that post (though I am probably more left-wing and thoroughly ashamed of the authoritarian interfering stance of this and other recent laws).

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Consent doesn't come into it Jake.

Laws regarding public morality are indifferent to consent.

Look at the gambling laws.

And if America through the WTO can legally maintain restrictions on cross border internet gambling to protect public morality, it sets a precedent for the UK protecting public morality in the field of internet sexual content.

And that's why I think the Gov. is of the opinion that these proposals are compatible with Human Rights legislation.

Astrocat, no one has claimed there is no abuse at all, but to base an arguing position on a single instance when dealing with such a vast number of occurrences, as you did, is not a tenable position.

May I ask, which laws limit gambling on the grounds of morals? please be specific, because if such laws exist I would like to see them (seriously).

Steve

I'm not making it an arguing position - it was just a comment in reply to Chulcoop on the allegations that the woman in question made.

I don't think the 2005 Gambling Act specifically states that the regulations are being brought in to protect public morals, but Governments have a legal exception even under the HRA to act in defence of public morals without stating that this is their motivation in a Bill.