Relevant video by Louis C.K. -- <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za7jQ1s1BV0" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za7jQ1s1BV0</a>.<p>Porn or anything involving only consenting adults might look like something else, but that doesn't make it something else. It's still consenting adults and putting the government between them doesn't seem to me to help anything.<p>Things not involving only consenting adults are another story, but this law (not that I'm an expert on it) seems to miss the distinction.
You could make the case that owning a movie such as Irreversible(<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290673/" rel="nofollow">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290673/</a>) would be punishable with jail time under this law.<p>There are much better laws that could be be put in place, or that already are in place to protect women from sexual violence.<p>I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but the way western europe is moving at the moment. It's starting to look more and more like the morality police is taking over.
How the does this work with consensual kink? I mean, like, what actually counts as "rape porn" - simulated consensual non-consent? Any bondage at all? This is so fucking stupid I don't even.<p>Edit: That said, this <i>is</i> the Metro, who are basically the Daily Mail lite.
I suppose HMV executives will obviously have to go to prison for posessing copies of Deliverance, A clockwork orange and Mad Max to name a couple.<p>Makes me think of: <a href="http://i.imgur.com/vEqEHxP.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://i.imgur.com/vEqEHxP.jpg</a>
> In a further crackdown on what Mr Cameron referred to as ‘the darkest corners of the internet’, Downing Street will tomorrow announce that a national database will be created to give every illegal image a label.<p>While we're at it, why don't we do that with videos, too? The label won't contain any content, just some "metadata" that we can use to "verify" whether or not an image/video is illegal. [0]<p>We should also create an easily-queried database for all of these, just in case we aren't sure whether or not a particular image/video is actually illegal.<p>Then, we can create a tracking program, or "tracker" to keep tabs on who is in possession of these images/videos at all times, and broadcast their IP addresses publicly[1].<p>I think this would be an excellent use of government money.<p>[0] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet_URI_scheme" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet_URI_scheme</a><p>[1] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_tracker" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_tracker</a>
(trigger warning, obvs)<p>....And actual discussions about rape and rape culture become even more diminished as the law <i>completely overlooks</i> the wide-ranging aspects of rape. It's often very difficult to identify if what you are seeing is consensual or not, so now the law's basically going to redefine rape as... What? Some stereotype of a guy in a mask with a knife to a defenseless person's neck?<p>From Wikipedia:<p><pre><code> The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion,
abuse of authority or against a person who is incapable
of valid consent, such as one who is unconscious,
incapacitated, or below the legal age of consent.
</code></pre>
How the fuck are they going to be able to tell if the person in the picture is of legal age of consent, or under the influence, or if they've been coerced? What if they're just scared shitless and go along without consenting because of prior trauma? Does the law give any indication how to tell just from a picture or video what is rape and what isn't? Does a blog post or support forum depicting one's own rape count as 'porn'?<p>There is no way to tell if something is or isn't rape just from looking as an outsider. Rape varies in who is the victim, who is the abuser, and the circumstances of how the attack takes place - often it doesn't even look like an attack. Often it's a family member or relative. It very rarely gets reported and it's almost never prosecuted successfully. All this law's going to do is whitewash the reality of rape culture and prevent people from addressing real issues in an adult fashion.<p>The other way to look at this is: Was rape already illegal? Yes. And wouldn't possession of proof of rape just be used against you in court? Yes. So what does this law actually accomplish? It attempts to sweep under the rug any thoughts or imagery of rape, as if to pretend it never existed.<p>Good job, Cameron.
It's hard to get any detail of the proposed changes from the tabloid Metro (a paper distributed for free, usually by being left on the seats of public transport).<p>Usually the laws are nuanced. Thus, you can still buy American Beauty even though it has the uncovered breasts of an underage actress.<p>But this government has done stupid things - and it wouldn't surprise me if they ban pornography of consenting adults with clear disclaimers (and paperwork) that the scenes are simulated and the films contain pre- and post- scene interviews with the actors.
I have a copy of Sergio Leone's "Once upon a time in America" on DVD, which has two rape scenes.<p>It also has a sex scene involving a minor and shows Robert De Niro's character smoking opium.
It is my understanding that an available veriety of pornography actually reduces sexual crimes. As if the materials work as a sexual release for potential would-be criminals.<p>If that is in fact the case, i fail to see what problem this solves. (Obviously speaking about consented pornography and not released images/video of a legal definition of rape)
> In a further crackdown on what Mr Cameron referred to as ‘the darkest corners of the internet’, Downing Street will tomorrow announce that a national database will be created to give every illegal image a label.<p>Cameron is laying the foundation to implement his censorship system.