state reasons for the violent pornography bill

[Arginald Valleywater]

I am far from prudish but I can't believe anyone can justify violent porn.
Beating someone up , consenting or not, for sexual pleasure is plain old wrong. If you get off on this stuff it is likely you will carry out such actions on your nearest and dearest, children etc. If you find torture sexually stimulating then you need serious help and 117'd for the protection of the public.

[middle_aged_dutchman]

I know something about the behaviour of the Dutch in Indonesia, but that would become quite a long story. Let's put it this way: The Indonesians had legitimate reasons to declare independence in 1945.
But it is also true that the Japanese occupation forces behaved in a beastly (sorry: humanly) way, especially towards the Dutch part of the population. If you want to know more, look here:

[eroticartist]

Hi Dutchman,
Wish I was in the Dam now as I have not had a smoke for a couple of months. Thank you for your post which I found most interesting.
Mike.

[eroticartist]

None of you have commented on my posting but have digressed to a debate about violent imagery. What I am saying is if someone had evidence that included violent imagery or death in order to expose the perpetrators then the police could raid their home because it is illegal to possess such imagery.

However to answer your comments whether or not a "violent pornography bill" is necessary, or not, is that no such bill is needed because the proposed banning of videos of necrophilia, oral sex with an animal or murder and mutilation and so on are unnecessary because the said acts are illegal per se and depiction of them would be evidence of such crimes.
If they were made by the perpetrators they would be evidence of their own crimes and if by someone with intention to expose the perpetrators then they would be for a good purpose.

To sum up:.
the bill is not necessary and can only be used against the production of SM films made by consenting adult actors for consenting adults

Mike Freeman.

[Jacques]

You are correct the Bill is not necessary but you might want to see the implications of it over at melonfarmers

The only current illegal imagery to posess (in law) is child porn (of which there is a get out clause) and state secrets, everything else is currently legal to possess the offence is publishing. The government wants to change this and has been guided by a kneejerk reaction.