heard about new Porn Law?

[one eyed jack]

Is giving some one 3 years for owning violent porn images or video going to stop that person being violent though?

I imagine 3 years inside (18 months for good behaviour) is going to put them in the frame of mind to actually doing it being deprived of pussy for so long.

I imagine some if not most violent porn is at least consensual. Just because it doesnt get past BBFc doesnt make it necessarily illegal if model releases and i.ds can be found.

Some people are just naturally born a bit twisted. What do we all do then? have sex with the curtains closed and the lights off now?

[one eyed jack]

You can see it already, the tip offs to the porn inspection brigade with a crew of 8 officers putting their feet up in your lounge all comfy with their cuppas watching your porn collection on the telly in front of the wife and kids ticking off a box here and there and conferring if something is violent or not...

its more likely there are to be more killings and rapes if this stuff isnt around i think.

While your at it check the place for any class a drugs....

Mind you wasnt there a law against this type of thing anyway?

[c.j.jaxxon]

You've GOT to be kidding! I mean here in Chicago we've got all kinds of crazy laws, but this one here? If they pass this one I sugggest a bullet to quench the thirst of a few people!

[Flat_Eric]

Bigoldowl wrote:

>>


I can only agree 100% with everything that you guys have already said above.

A very sinister - indeed nasty - piece of "catch-all" legislation, if ever there was one.

What is "violent porn" anyway? Child porn is easy to categorise. But how the fuck do you define "violent porn"?

For example, I have in my collection a French porn film made by Marc Dorcel in the early / mid '80s on DVD (the title of which escapes me right now and I can't be arsed digging it out to look). In it there's a scene in which a woman gets raped over a car bonnet in an underground car park (by J.P. Armand I think).

All a bit misogynystic (as indeed were many French porn productions back then) but still basically "mainstream" porn from a leading European smut stable.

Would ownership of that get me into hot water with the NuLab Thought Police? I have to fear that indeed it would - or certainly could. Because no doubt while some people might not put it in the "violent porn" category, others undoubtedly would. And if I was unlucky enough to be up in front of a beak who classed it as such, I think I could have real grounds for worrying about being banged up and then being put on some "sex offenders' register" upon my release, my life in tatters as a result and being hounded by a baying mob of locals branding me as the neighbourhood perv.

A truly scary thought - all through owning a particular mainstream porn DVD. I can even see people getting into trouble over movies like "Baise Moi", which actually had an "art-house" UK cinema release in 2000, I believe. Maybe even "Death Wish 2" could land you in hot water as well?!

Where WILL the line be drawn - and will there be any leeway for common sense to be applied by the police and the courts? And if so, how willing will they be to apply common sense?!

And for those reasons, I count myself very fortunate that I live in Germany, a country that - though by no means perfect - is at least far more liberal, enlightened and indeed sensible with regard to porn and the consumption of same.

It seems to me that NuLab are out to criminalise as many ordinary folk as they possibly can.

[Snake Diamond]

Porn, Porn, Porn, Porn, umm did I forget to mention yet Porn ? LOL

The legistlation applies to Porn, thats all. Pornographic Material of an Extreme/Violent nature.

[mart]

This topic is already being discussed on the main forum.
Shouldn't the mods try to rationalise this parallel thread business?
Anyway, apart from that, I'm not going to comment because being in NZ it aint going to affect me (and I suspect most of you are getting unnecessarily paranoid about it).

Mart

[mrmcfister]

Yep,total spin, wont be enforced .How could it?Who would?Police wont be interested,trading standards?Nope!Tomorrows chip papers.IMHO some of the rape vids are a bit whacko but this is just another press release by one of the 3000 in government having to justify their fat salaries.If govt cant sort immigration,crime,terrorism,hunting,thug youths,alcohol fuelled disorder,internet fraud,etc etc how the fuck do they think theyre going to tackle this little niche ? Reassuring for the lady who pressed for it but even she feels its unenforceable.

[planeterotica]

Flat_Eric wrote:

> Bigoldowl wrote:
>
> reaction by the government. A women was killed by a man who
> viewed "violent porn" on the net - he is now appealing against
> the conviction. The mother of the murdered women starts a
> campaign and, hey presto, the government introduces a piece of
> subjective "legislation".

planeterotica wrote.

As much as i synpathise with the mother, but as i remember the case both the murdered woman and the guilty man were allready friends and both into this kind of fetish and sex play and the man claimed in court that it was a sex game gone wrong and the women had given her consent for the game to take place, of course they trawled through his computer and found that he had visited such sites and concluded that this had fed his lust for this kind of sex play, the thing is the internet may had played no part in this tragic case as the convicted man may have had this kind of fetish on mind long before ever viewing it on the internet.

[Flat_Eric]

Snake Diamond wrote:

<<<<<The legistlation applies to Porn, thats all. Pornographic Material of an Extreme/Violent nature.<<<<


But that's the whole point, Snake - how do you define "extreme" and "violent" (especially "extreme")?

It's a bit like trying to define "obscene" - all very subjective, means different things to different people.