UK government cracks down on violent porn

Remove all ads!

Really? I've never heard of such a thing. Do you have any references to back this claim? I'm not saying it's impossible. All I'm saying is if this is true, it's the first I've heard of it, and it certainly doesn't appear to be an obvious deduction from my own life experiences.

 

I've allways found this kind of games with words amusing. "Because it's called rape fantasy, it is bound to follow the exact definition of fantasy described here". Who are you to say what goes on in the mind of someone watching rape porn? You have allready distanced yourself from that possition by saying that it's sick and therefore you can't understand what goes on in the person's head when he watches rape porn. Of course I won't start pretending that I undestand it either, but I avoid passing judgement upon things I don't understand, especially if there is no proven harm caused to another and no damage done to the society.

I'm still waiting for the answer to why simulating murder is okay but simulating rape is not. The last time I checked murder was the more serious of the two felonies. So why should games like GTA3 be allowed (which arguably increase violent behaviour) but rape porn should not?

EDIT: I've been away from this thread for awhile so I'll answer an older comment from Chev to an earlier post of mine.

If you find adult girls and boys who look like 10-year olds and enough of them then sure I suppose I'd allow child pornography with adult actors. I just don't think it's possible.

[ September 07, 2005, 18:18: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

 

Umm, Non-Sequitor, I thought that a bill of rights was imperative to a democracy, period. And thus, Since Democracy translates as "people rule", the people must have some rights, but also some obligations. Thus the law does have the right and obligation to enact some laws on moral grounds. Like it or not, every state makes some statement about decency by the laws it makes. My hat is off to the UK for this brave stance in the face of a truly disgusting evil.

 

Aldeth,

Actually, most of the evidence seems to indicate the opposite; that if you're scared of being victimised, you'll take the requisite action to avoid it. This is why little old ladies being mugged and beaten by a young male offender is much rarer than one might think. They don't put themselves in the position where they can be victimised. That's not to say that it's partially the victim's fault, merely that in most people's lives, they are exposed to a greater or lesser degree to a risk of victimisation by virtue of lifestyle, age and demographics.

It's also the reason why the average victim of assault is a young male, the line between victims and offenders is often much blurrier (at least, for non-sexual crimes) than one might think, and why security analyses so frequently focus on "target hardening" or "vulnerability reduction". Of course, if you want to be totally safe, lock yourself in an underground vault with plenty of food and make sure that water chip doesn't break.

This is a little , sorry... but I had to set the record straight. I didn't do a Masters on victim assistance and policy for nothing.

Gnarff,

This is seriously , but...

Strictly speaking, it is not. That certain rights and liberties are guaranteed is imperative - it's just that we don't have a separate document like the Bill of Rights to do it. This has everything to do with Australia's colonial history, which is a completely different topic, so PM me if you want a more complete explanation.