Geeklawyer blogged exactly a year ago about the governments attempts to get headlines on violent sex porn. Now apparently it is going to be enacted. If you film yourself having sex with your partner and it is masochistic you will suffer the same penalty as if you had been caught filming yourself having sex with one of your children. Grotesque. Quite absurd the lengths that this government will go to to get a headline.
As I said a year ago: I’ll thank the government to keep out of my bedroom. The whole law was predicated on the basis that by making it illegal to download such material the vulnerable disturbed individuals who were interested in it would no longer get it and thus be driven to acts of sexual violence. Even someone with the IQ of a Home Office minister should be able to see the flaw in that argument. Paedophiles currently do not refrain from downloading such material because they are driven to do so, it seems unlikely that SM fetishists will be anymore restrained.
And this all hinges on the supposed link between violent videos and violent acts: a frequent contention of the police judges and morality campaigners, it not yet subject to anything to compellingly convenient such as proof.
Now if you’ll excuse me I have to watch a violent video and find a young woman to batter to death.
I’ve met the mother of Jane Longhurst (the woman whose daughter died a violent death and now campaigns for this) — she’s a remarkably strong, articulate lady and I wouldn’t be surprised if this change in the law is solely because of her advocacy (and her organisational skills in getting this campaign headlines).
I wouldn’t be at all surprised. Its often the case that the relatives of victims start a campaign for legal retribution. It’s part of a recovery strategy. But hard cases make bad laws. If you think of any number of laws that followed on from tabloid headline grabbing cases they were universally a disaster: the dangerous dogs act; any bit of anti-terror legislation etc etc.
The death of Longhurst was a tragedy for the family but it doesn’t matter a damn to anyone else. It violates the rights of everyone to no effect for the family or on crime.
Basing changes in the law on one tragic but unimportant victim is a bad basis for legal strategy.
I worry when the government tries to legislate the sexual activities of consenting adults. Legislation won’t stop this behaviour: it will simply drive it underground, and any teenager will tell you that that making something illegal instantly makes it so much more exciting.
I also worry that when adults are prevented from exercising sexual expression, desires become repressed and subverted and end up being played out on soft targets i.e. children thus subverting a worthy but misguided intention.
Sex games do not harm the environment. They get people away from the TV, using their imagination and getting some exercise. Unfortunately they do not make any contribution to the revenue.
As far as I am aware there is no proven link between S&M and violent acts. My understand was that most people who engage in this type of behaviour have clear boundaries to which all participants adhere.
The death of Ms Longhurst is a tragedy, and I understand why her family is campaigning with a view to prevent this from happening to anyone else. However I’m unsure whether this law will achieve their aims.
This reminds me of the furore in 2003 (?) when the new Sexual Offences Bill was being published. The whole proposed ban on outdoor sex in a ‘private but overlooked’ place was pretty farcical and rightly slammed in the press.
Hi Geeklawyer,
This law does not affect light S & M, only acts in which someone’s life is put at risk (strangulation) or suffers serious injuries (severe bruising or bleeding). Most pornography of this form concerns non-consensual acts i.e. snuff movies and the like. The rationale for banning it is that, like child porn, people should not ‘benefit’ (in the loosest sense) from the illegal torture of another human being. This is the same rationale as was used by the House of Lords in the recent case about evidence obtained using torture.
james,
I’m sure the goveernments spin is that this is only for snuff movies. But nothing in the media reports not discussion indicates that this will be confined to non-consensual life-threatening violence. Rather the contrary.
You are right much will depend on the definitions: I, however, decline to trust Neo-Labour to define tightly. Based on histoy it is more likely is that the offence will be drafted very widely to give discretion to the CPS which they will then expect to use wisely. Some hope. The trck of defining widely and giving executive discretion on a per case basis seems to be a favourite trick of this government.
Whilst Ruthie’s love life has a casualty rate akin to Stalingrad, her professional life is currently showered with accolades. Geeklawyer gripes that Ruthies elevation is sapping her mojo, and that she is morphing from a champion of the individual into a tentacle of the establishment. I’m sure you will all let me know if you start to notice any difference
THIS IS THE CORRECTED VERSION OF THE ABOVE BADLY TYPED VERSION — ADDED RANT VALUE
Tentacles are good.. but we do need to be mindful of governmental interference in our private lives.
I worry that the government of this Isle is pandering to people who take a populist view, who have, perhaps, a rather dull view of life — but… given that we are not a Nation blessed with tolerance for the more exotic forms of sex (Although … isn’t is it wonderful that the sexual world knows us for inventing the term ‘Le Vice Anglais’) — we should be grateful for any communities (apart from torturers, paedos, etc. etc.) who enjoy activities which do not breed more people who might cause embarrassment to those charged, in government, with administering unemployment figures, social welfare benefits, pension payments et al.
I am surprised that the big pension funds have not been out and about sponsoring organisations which promote sexual activities — of an adult and ‘British’ nature (See ‘The Profumo report’ by Lord Denning) — which do not promote procreation,
health, old people living longer than they reasonably should, or any form of human behaviour which leads to more children / dependants. The future of this country lies in making sure that we have fewer people who are likely to be a drain on the state. It will also solve the immigration problem — because, logically — eventiually — there will be no British (however defined) people living in this country and therefore there will be absolutely no point in anyone coming here.
Come to think of it — those appalling companies who say to old people (over 50) that they should start providing, for their dependants and grandchildren, by insuring themselves — (‘No sales man will call, no medical required’ ) — and give them a carriage clock or DVD player as a ‘welcome gift’ , are probably more than likely to contribute to death among the ‘retired’ than even the Black Plague (no doubt sponsored by a medieval insurance guild) managed.
Why? — Why does an old person need a carriage clock? They have retired. Retired people don’t care what time it is. They don’t have to get up in the morning or worry about time. Also — there is the Health & Safety angle. I am told that quite a few people are, in fact, killed by their retirement carriage clocks — because the retired go and have a look at their carriage clock — having consumed inordinate amounts of alcohol by 11.00 and nothing else to do. They then realise that the carriage clock face is a photocopy and of no value (even on daytime TV Car Boot Sale type programmes — which they watch religiously) and they have a heart attack and snuff it.
Even if I had grandchildren (I don’t and won’t — unless something really weird happens next week and I find myself procreating and then living until I am well into my nineties) I would not wish my grand children to have the benefit of any money which they have not earned.
When I go — should I have been foolish enough to leave money in my bank account — I will direct, in my will, that all money in my accounts be removed and placed in the coffin with me — to pay for Rioja in the world hereafter.
I return to my earlier theme.…
Banning smoking in public places will just keep more people alive — and will lead to a reduction in grotesquely large tax revenues and increased pension payments — I fear that Britain, if we ban smoking seriously — will not be able to make up the shortfall in revenue by appointing yet more nerds in uniform to patrol our lives and issue on the spot fines; for smoking in pubs and in other public spaces.
I was going to give up smoking so that I could live longer — but, now, I see that would only add to the burden placed on our non-smoking brothers — and I would not like to think that my living beyond 3 score years and ten — would upset those who don’t drink, don’t smoke, don’t beat it up occasionally, have well planned lives and go on SAGA cruises to Crete.
I shall continue smoking to save the carriage clock gatherers the burden of looking after me on government pensions. My view — however — having paid a fantastic amount of tax (Income/CGT/VAT/Duty) in my time — is that I have an astonishing will to live so that I can claw it all back for my benefit on government pension. I will live until I am 125 + years old if it kills me.
I think it is time for me to phone up that dreadful company and ask them to send me details about that financial plan which has me paying money every month so that my descendants can get pissed at my funeral and then go on and live a life of ease. I shall enjoy filling in the forms badly and having endless phonecalls with eager, greedy, reps who are thinking about their future rather than mine.
I bid you goodnight — Geeklawyer and Ruthie… please delete my earlier version as I was obviously not able to type acurately when I wrote it…
Do me a favour geeklawyer and do a bit of magic on the typos… I seem to have a keyboard which has not been drinking Rioja and cannot keep up with my state of being…
Thank you… Otherwise why not just delete the whole pile of nonsense.
I fear, brother Charon QC, that as I have been abusing a bottle of wine myself — along with some cider & Bishops Tipple — that my improvements may do violence to your literary work.
But you have given me licence and thus do relieve me of guilt. I shall now do so, so far as I can be arsed.
Excellent geeklawyer… I am still drinking Rioja and planning my next foray into legal analysis.
Perhaps it is best not to edit when over refreshed — but, at least, for the moment, this septic isle, as governed presently (and do not think, for one moment, that the Toryists will do any better) we are still allowed to blog while in an altered state.
I wish you well — enjoyed the posts from Lithuania…when is your forum goin to be back?
Mille gracie, Geeklawyer. My epistle to the Ephesians is almost readabale now — following your excellent editing/typo correcting. Thank you for your tolerance. I quite enjoy ‘have it away days’ on other people’s blogs!
I have, of course, not written anything sensible on my own blawg today. I shall rectify this on the morrow and, quite possibly, eventually find some law which I feel able to comment on with precision and an acuity which belies my years
I am now oiff to watch The Discovery Channel which has a film on ‘American Choppers’ (moorcycles for those who do not ride)
a piu tarde
James, as geeklawyer pointed out, the defintions are far too wide-reaching.
When I spoke with Martin Slater — the MP who sponsored this law– he went on and on about snuff movies, depsite the fact that not a single one has ever been discovered.
This is jsut spin to push through an untenable law with far-reaching implicatiosn.
We are very concerned about the implications for civil liberties when people assume — despite the government’s repeated insistence there is no causal link — that looking at a picture of consenting adults means you have a criminal mind.
most of the actresses you mention are not pressured. Being a porn actress can have many motivations; money, pleasure, art..
if this law is concerned for their safety best to consult porn actresses. The union of sex workers may be a good place to start.
I believe the police already have enough opportunity to prosecute when there is real crime and find it suspicious that a strong percentage of the organisations that are supporting this law are police organisations.
Nottingham police, in particluar, are already salivating at the opportunity this law would give them to invade peopels’ privacy without any evidence of a crime having been committed.
Union of sex workers? I had no idea such an organisation existed. How enlightened.
Bet your annual conference is a lot more interesting than the Labour Party.
The Backlash was created by various groups and individuals in an attempt to collate evidence for an informed debate on censorship of pornography, which the Government’s tendentious and one sided consultation paper spectacularly failed to provide.
http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/index.html
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Ban_High_Heels/index.html
I’m trying to organise a day of blogging in support of Backlash on the 9th of October, anyone who opposes the proposed legislation is welcome to take part.
Hi there, I am a member of the SM scene (submissive male, I aint a pushover though!). I found this forum while browsing.
I will say a couple of things about this:
Firstly I once spoke to a Lawyer who was actually a Dominatrix, or was it a Dominatrix who was actually lawyer? either way same thing I suppose! Was quite exhilerating to talk to a woman in a position of power (The lawyer aspect) but anyway I dont want to bore you with my predelictions!
I think it might be important to consider the other so far unthought of implication of this law. I call this piece ‘How Jack the ripper 2 is made’.
Some while ago there was no BDSM scene as such. People where too anxious to come out and discover their sexuality due to societal norms thus fear of social reprisal etc. This meant that people where isolated, there was no community hence people where less accountable unlike nowadays when if there was a pshycho killer we would all immediatly report them to the authoraties. You can obviously see what Im getting at here. This will potentially give free reign to psychopaths with true malicious intention to lurk in the shadows. If I had to place a bet on it I would honestly bet on there being more killings of women by serial killers and the like as opposed to less trouble if this law where to come into play. People who like to be tied up are just so easy for the *REAL* psychos, I mean its on a plate isnt it!!!
You should pop into a fetish club sometime!, its pretty cool. Very tolerant open minded atmosphere, safer, less fighting and unconsentual violence. Unlike your typical normal club where you can get your head kicked in for looking at someone the wrong way (although I do go to those too sometimes).
If this new law comes in, Im going to Germany where the houses are dead cheap, wages are a bit higher, theres less violence, less teenage preggers, people are open minded, liberated and has a totally fantastic fetish scene, the health service is second to none and ran in a totally different way, I will insist I do 2 years military national service with silly unrealsitic egotistical fantasies of joining the GSG9 lol. I Could go on but I want to leave some space for your lawyer folks, it is your forum after all!
…actually no, Im on a roll!
A close older freind of mine tells me they have seen this kind of thing 3 times in their life before. For instance the video nasties and Lady Chatterly. I summarised it in my own words: ‘Vocal moral crusading minorities using an isolated little situation and trying to hinge their assertations off that going full whack in spite of no evidence whatsoever making themselves utimatly look rather stupid’.
All my life I have given consent to activities until recently when people wanted to jail me for 3 years against my consent. Irony? yes! I just hope if it comes to that they will set a gang of good looking female officers to heavy handedly arrest me.
Cuckoo!.….Cuckoo!.….Cuckoo! *said in high tone like actual cuckoo clock* springs to mind, absolute insanity, tis’ the silly season you know!
But serial killers as per one of my above paragraphs arent funny.
This law had better fall on its own ass or my Mistress will be VERY displeased and I dont want the nipple clamps again! (actually I do though).
Sorry Im laughing my head off here, it fluctuates though. I was quite morose yesterday. Hope I dont get sent to prison or something for this post.
“Porn made me do it”
Do we really want our laws to be written by serial killers? This law will be great news for serial killers. They will be able to use this premise to get leniency. Ted Bundy tried to claim that porno made him do it. Shall we take the word of a serial killer over hard evidence and in effect have laws written by psychos?
Where is your evidence that most extreme porn is nonconsensual?
If you actually did some research, you would see that it almost entirely consists of people acting out scenes (yes, even violent scenes) to enhance their sexual fantasies. The site mentioned in the proposal ‘Necrobabes’ is so tame it won’t even fall foul of this law.
Snuff movies are a myth which seems to have grabbed the imagination of the police, but no one has yet been able to prove they exist.
The extreme violence shown, rape, woundings, asphyxiation, etc., is faked, often obviously so. Why would the owners of such sites film themselves commiting actuall rape or causing real harm when the consumers are happy to pay for faked material and even expect the material to be faked. I would go as far as to say most would be applalled at the idea it was not faked.
This law is not about preventing anyone from profiting by the sexual torturing of others, because no one can show this ever happens.
This proposed law explicitly states it does not care if the acts are consensual (even where the sites have FBI approval as many do), it does not even care of those depicted are ral people as it also covers computer-generated images.
As the Royal commission chaired by Professor Williams clearly stated; there is no evidence to suggest a causual link between viewing pornography and the commiting of crime.
So this doesn’t protect society either.
Since we know this will not afeect in anyway the availability of this material, even the often stated, but wrong-headed notion of ‘protecting children from it’ has no basis.
This law is not about protecting anyone it is about headline hunting.