3 ms·

Completely agree. I can't think of a legal precedent, but if the images are illegal I think it's safe to assume a video that includes that image is also, I'd ar

by mcintyre1994 13y ago

Completely agree. I can't think of a legal precedent, but if the images are illegal I think it's safe to assume a video that includes that image is also, I'd argue worse but again I don't have a precedent to back that up. And there's plenty of legitimate art that can be described as video that includes rape, which isn't remotely reasonable to be banned. He points one out himself, The Accused which I haven't seen. Obvious other examples are The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Game of Thrones and the BBC's own The White Queen. The BBC censored that programme compared to the Starz cut, and we still see a young girl get raped. None of them should be opt in as far as I'm concerned. I don't understand what wording can be used here to avoid banning legitimate stuff and can't easily be worked around.

rquantz 13y ago
There will probably be something like a "reasonable person" test for obscenity. However, there is pornography that depicts rape without being actual rape. If the intention is to ban fetish porn, then it is a clear violation of freedom of speech. Whether that is constitutional in Britain is beyond me, since they seem to be much less absolute about free speech than in the U.S., but clearly have some protections as well. In the U.S., there was a recent Supreme Court decision [1] throwing out a law intended to ban crush porn, in which a woman crushes a small animal to death with her feet. They ruled that it was over-broad and could outlaw, for instance, hunting videos. A new law was passed immediately after the decision that had more specific language, and it has not, to my knowledge, been tested in court yet. Meanwhile, the court has upheld bans on child porn. It seems to me that there is no need to ban possession of images depicting actions that are already illegal, but courts seem to think it's OK in the U.S. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stevens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stevens

rquantz 13y ago

There will probably be something like a "reasonable person" test for obscenity. However, there is pornography that depicts rape without being actual rape. If the intention is to ban fetish porn, then it is a clear violation of freedom of speech. Whether that is constitutional in Britain is beyond me, since they seem to be much less absolute about free speech than in the U.S., but clearly have some protections as well. In the U.S., there was a recent Supreme Court decision [1] throwing out a law intended to ban crush porn, in which a woman crushes a small animal to death with her feet. They ruled that it was over-broad and could outlaw, for instance, hunting videos. A new law was passed immediately after the decision that had more specific language, and it has not, to my knowledge, been tested in court yet. Meanwhile, the court has upheld bans on child porn. It seems to me that there is no need to ban possession of images depicting actions that are already illegal, but courts seem to think it's OK in the U.S. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stevens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stevens