Nintendo Switch review: Hands-on with the intuitive modular console and its disappointing games…
NO the 'original' BIG BROTHER
The governments proposal to make illegal the downloading and storing of violent pornographic images has given me cause for concern.
I will accept that in a very small minority of people these images could effect their behaviour and possibly result in violent acts. The prevention of this is and must be an important action by police, medical and government bodies.
What does concern me is what will get grouped into this category, many feature films carry violent sexual images which some may consider pornographic.
Also, this supposedly means someone will be watching what we all download or sites we visit !
The problems of framing the Legislation are legion.
But it sounded good.
On Friday night I watched a TV program that graphically portrayed torture and death of several people, including 2 naked girls suspended by their ankles at the entrance of a tunnel. Allowing the camera man to work, both in silhouette, and close up.
Last night the death toll was horrendous and I only watched BBC1.
"I think we all know what the government means by this. They are really talking about child porn. And the sooner these people are behind bars for life, the better. "
Nope. Mainly targets violent porn with adults - click here
"Campaigners have long argued for violent pornographic sites to be shut down, chief among them Liz Longhurst whose daughter Jane was killed two years ago by a man obsessed with violent internet sexual pornography. "
I agree with you all, but personally, especially where a home/family pc is concerned, it's up to us to take preventative steps from day One, by enabling the 'Content Advisor' in Internet options - at least that's a start.
that I have not been the owner of a TV for at least the last 14 years.
I have just purchased a TV (25" Sony Trinitron for £34.00 at the local Auction Room)and been staggered by the level of violence shown as a matter of course.
How will the Leglislators differentiate between an American TV Show, with pictures of a terrified, bound and gagged, woman in the back of a van, and an Internet site showing the same scene.
Child porn is already covered under similar legislation. The laws on violent porn are to close a loophole where it is illegal to make available these images (ie host a site with these images) but not illegal to view or download.
"How will the Leglislators differentiate between an American TV Show, with pictures of a terrified, bound and gagged, woman in the back of a van, and an Internet site showing the same scene. "
I think the idea is that any TV show or film clearly contains actors and is clearly not real.
The images in question are often posed to look like they are real images of violence and in some cases are. The difference is you know with actors the violence is fake and the actors are OK. With the pictures they can be very convincing, if not, very actually real.
Most people that "get off" on these sorts of images won't be watching TV programs or films where they know the images are faked by actors but will "get off" on the violent images because they will look real and have the possibility of being real and not staged. They don't know if the actors consented to the picture content or if they are actors at all and that's what drives their fetish. The possibility of seeing real people in real pain not just actors and tomato sauce.
On TV it's obviously fake and does nothing for them. In these pictures - who knows what real suffering is going on? That's the difference.
I totally understand your reasoning.
However, I find it difficult to work out how such a piece of legislation would be written.
I don't think it should be on TV either, but am against Censorship. I watched it anyway.
How's that for a conundrum!
A few weeks ago a young lad at work was showing a video to his mates, on his mobile phone, of a violent sexual act against a woman, involving a horse. A week or so later it transpired that the woman involved had died three days later from the injuries sustained in the making of this sick video. Whatever it takes, the people responsible for this kind of thing must be dealt with very severely. The people who download it only help to perpetuate it.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.