I'm puzzled

[muninnhuginn]

So I thought I'd let the great minds on my f-list help me out.

[Poll #561638]

And behind the cut...

Regardless of my opinion of whether the law ought to be changed, or other thoughts on obscenity or freedom of expression, I'm getting increasingly annoyed with the proposed ban on "violent net porn" (as reported here, for instance). As the article says, "The aim is for a new offence of possessing violent and abusive pornography". The paragraph that really gets me is:

A Home Office spokeswoman added the proposed law included deliberately viewing such images which meant "effectively downloading" the information on to the computer.

"Images"? So I could write the most disgusting story I liked, involving any of the practices that so offend--the news this morning mentioned bestiality and necrophilia--and put in on a web page and that would be OK? No images, just text. Actually, I could spice it up with some audio clips. Or create a complete porno podcast. Still no images.

It's not just the nameless Home Office spokeswoman (woman? why not person? or is the gender somehow important?) who sees things so narrowly. In the same article, Paul Goggins (Home Office minister) talks about protecting children from " these kinds of extreme pornographic images". Even the opponents of any such ban talk more about viewing images than any other method of consumption.

Only pictures deprave and corrupt, eh?

Comments

[timill]

Oh, and stained-glass windows...

And neckties...

[muninnhuginn]

Neckties, now that's a thought.

[armb.livejournal.com]

If texts (or indeed pictures) "deprave and corrupt", aren't they already illegal?
Possibly only pictures have an effect in milliseconds (not necessarily a depraving and corrupting one) (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg18725133.500), before the viewer has time to think "oh, that's not what I was looking for".
Though even if you do accept violent pornography does encourage/incite violence against people, it seems unfair that someone who does think "oh, that's not what I was looking for" has "effectively downloaded" the mage/whatever and therefore according to the Home Office spokeswoman done so deliberately.

/me follows the link to the consultation document.
Ah - they are talking about stuff that is already illegal under the Obscene Publications Act, but illegal to publish, not possess. And they say it wouldn't cover accidentally stumbling on stuff (no "effectively download").
However, it is just pictures: "The intention is also only to cover actual
images or realistic depictions of the activities listed (but not, for example, text or cartoons). By realistic depictions we intend to capture those scenes which appear to be real and are convincing, but which may be acted. This follows the precedent of the child pornography legislation and is in part necessary to avoid the need to prove the activity actually took
place"
I'm not sure how "actually took place" relates to "may be acted" (or, as antonia_tiger points out, may be CGI or Photoshop work).

[armb.livejournal.com]

Actually on second thoughts, depending on the definitions in use, "dance" might imply artistic content, which might imply erotica-not-pornographyness.
But I still don't see why, say, a textual first hand account of a rape and murder should be less realistic, less convincing, less depraving, or less relevent to actual activity than, say, a photo sequence using actors and special effects which is labelled as a fantasy. If the supposed justification for the law is that this material encourages real violence, then it shouldn't matter whether the depicted activity actually took place; if it is that possessing evidence of a crime should be a crime itself, then whether that evidence is an image or not shouldn't matter, so long as it can persuade a jury beyond reasonable doubt.

[muninnhuginn]

I think I agree generally with most of your last paragraph.

Dance

[armb.livejournal.com]

Yesterday's local paper included a reference to "naked lap and pole dancing". I expect that fits someone's definition of pornography (though not extreme violent pornography).