irked.

[emilydongray]

Immensely upset by this.

Tried to sign a petition against it, but couldn't find one. Does anyone know of one? Can any one else find one? Also, if one does not exist, does anyone want to help me start one? I feel incredibly strongly about this and would appreciate any help and support to fight it.

Comments

[ex_thankyouk577]

Not as "knee-jerk" as the reactions I see in people's blogs.

I note that the consultation on violent pornography occurred in 2005. This issue might have only just blipped on the BBC's radar, but the government has been looking at it for some time. Hardly a knee-jerk reaction by the government then. Typical slow-ass BBC news: making a story out of something parliament was all over months and months ago.

I also note that the consultation on this matter raises a point that it seeks to bring the law regarding internet pornography in line with the laws surrounding hard copy porn. So is this about excessive censorship, or just about consistency with a level of censorship that we didn't notice and didn't seem to mind in our printed media?

Which brings me to the actual legal issues.

I note that the BBC can only report that Parliament and the Scottish Executive are only considering measures. The consultation document is more insightful into the government views.

In order to be classed as extreme violent pornography, the porn in question would have to contain offences against children, violent rape and offences inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm. That's not spanking in latex. Under the law, that's breaking bones, inflicting permanent disfirgurement, massive blood loss and the infliction of permanent or lasting disabilities. The government is talking about footage of people being crippled for the sexual pleasure of others.

So, what are people's specific objections...?

[emilydongray]

Having researched this issue fairly thoroughkly I am aware of these things. I plan to outline my specific objections in an essay which will form the basis for my online campaign. But in short I am against government suggesting what the boundaries are for acceptable sexual thought in *any* way. Any sexual act is harmful when unconsensual in any way and that even goes for any kind of unwanted sexual contact; However, porn depicting certain acts does not mean a crime has been committed, but this ban would make it a crime to view depictions of certain acts, real or otherwise. The law should protect people from harm and seek to prevent the making of films of such acts (I am aware of the current legislation about filming illegal acts for). gratification).

[ex_thankyouk577]

As I mentioned, this form of censorship already exists for hard copy material and in terms of what can be shown in a sex shop.

So, doesn't your position compel you not only to object to proposed thought on upcoming legislation, but also to campaign for the repealing of current legislation in the printed media?

[emilydongray]

It really does, doesn't it.

I never really knew about the laws on hard copy material. I suppose I never really took hard-copy porn industry seriously as electronic porn industry is so much bigger in terms of culture.

I've always thoiught that we should have truly free trade, that people should be able to buy and sell what they like; that doesn't mean they should be able to use the articles they buy within the law though; although i can see the reason for government intervention: people are selfish and/or stupid.