Violent porn legislation

[ciphergoth]

This is the best written, most cogent, clearest exposition of the issues around this legislation around violent porn I have read. It's long, but please read it all - AFAICT it never falters.

(props to angelmine)

Comments

[djm4]

One slight issue I have with it is in this paragraph:

"If I get excited by looking at pictures of – say – a group of teenaged squaddies mud wrestling in the nude, then that's perfectly okay, provided I'm looking at a real film of real recruits being really abused in the sort of perfectly normal, heterosexual horse-play that made the British army what it is today. But if exactly the same scene is staged by a gay porn website for the benefit of the kind of people who like that kind of thing, then a crime is committed by anyone who looks at it."

I don't see why the gay porn web site version of the same thing would be illegal under the act, since as presented, it doesn't seem to fall into the following categories:

" i: serious violence *
ii: intercourse or oral sex with an animal
iii: sexual interference with a human corpse

* by serious violence we mean appears to be life threatening or likely to result in serious, disabling injury"

I may be missing something, though.

I'm not saying that he couldn't come up with an example that perfectly illustrates his point, just that the examples that he gave doesn't seem to.

[purplerabbits.livejournal.com]

That was one of my nitpicks. Another one is that law has just been passed which would require 'body worlds' to get a license to display human remains, which I very much doubt it would get...