Posted by
Pariahjane
Thought police, anyone? It appears that the UK is intent on rushing through a bill that would ban violent or 'extreme' pornography.
According to the article, violent or extreme porn could be:
As defined by the new Criminal Justice Bill
An act which threatens or appears to threaten a person's life
An act which results in or appears to result in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals
An act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse
A person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal
First off, I can't take issue with the last two descriptions of extreme pornography and having a potential ban against such acts because a dead person or an animal can't really give consent to be a part of the sex act in the first place. One could argue that as long as everyone is acting in the movie than it would be ok. Yet the bill would still make it illegal since it has that nice little word appearing in it.
Secondly, what exactly is 'serious injury'. I'm sure there are some people who think that getting a bruise is a pretty serious injury. Who decides just how serious an injury must be to earn the label 'violent' or 'extreme'. I don't, for example, consider spanking in a sexual context to be violent or extreme but others may. So, who decides?
On a side note, if there is a porn movie in which someone 'seriously' injures another actor in the face but not the breasts, anus or genitals would that still be considered 'violent pornography' and thus be banned?
There are those who get sexual satisfaction out of rape fantasies or torture fantasies. Others get off by bondage or sadomasochism. The movies can be used as a sexual tool in the bedroom and whether we agree with their fetish or not, as long as they have permissive partners they should have a right to view this stuff.
But campaigners say the new law risks criminalising thousands of people
who use violent pornographic images as part of consensual sexual relationships.
People like Helen, who by day works in an office in the Midlands,
and enjoys being sexually submissive and occasionally watching pornography,
portrayed by actors, which could be banned under the new legislation.
Some people like it kinky and sometimes that kinkiness goes beyond a little spanking but as long as these people are performing these acts with consensual adults than I see no reason why they should not be allowed to continue. Of course, I realize that the bill is focusing on pornography and not necessarily what people do in the privacy of their own homes. Pornography is acting and actors get paid. The people performing these acts in adult movies are not being forced to do these things; they are paid for it.
This bill is just an attempt to control what people are watching. It's censorship, plain and simple. Just because the legislation was proposed with good intentions doesn't make those intentions right.
Five years ago Jane Longhurst, a teacher from Brighton, was murdered.
It later emerged her killer had been compulsively accessing websites such as
Club Dead and Rape Action, which contained images of women being abused and
violated.
One cannot blame pornography for one man's depraved act. There could be many consenting adults who watched the same movies as the murderer did but they did not go out and kill somebody. As Helen states:
"Mrs Longhurst sees this man having done this to her daughter and she
wants something to blame and rather than blame this psychotic man she wants to
change the law but she doesn't really understand the situation," says Helen. "Do
you ban alcohol just because some people are alcoholics?"
To be honest I would think that alcohol causes more societal problems than extreme pornography does.
Speaking from her home in Berkshire, Mrs Longhurst acknowledges that
libertarians see her as "a horrible killjoy".
"I'm not. I do not approve of this stuff but there is room for all sorts of different people. But anything which is going to cause damage to other people needs to be stopped."
To those who fear the legislation might criminalise people who use violent
pornography as a harmless sex aid, she responds with a blunt "hard luck".
"There is no reason for this stuff. I can't see why people need to see it.
People say what about our human rights but where are Jane's human rights?" (Emphasis added)
Now see, here's my problem with a bill such as this. Who gives Mrs. Longhurst the right to decide what others can and cannot view? There are many people in this world who use pornography to spice up their sex life and because Mrs. Longhurst doesn't like their tastes she feels it is within her right to have it banned.
I understand that perhaps there could be a darker element that is attracted to violent pornography but that does not give anyone the right to make it illegal for all the other consenting adults. Chances are there are many people just like you and me that get satisfaction from sex a little rougher than the average vanilla would prefer.
What next? Will pornography that contains sodomy be banned next? After all, sodomy could be considered an act which results in or appears to result in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals. The point is, people are going to jump on this and use it as a reason to make illegal other forms of pornography.
Making 'violent' pornography illegal is censorship. It is not there to protect the people. If it was then violent movies would be banned, as well as television or music that depicts violent acts. After all, how many murders have been the result of watching pornography?