Thoughtcrime and extreme pornography in the UK

T

tryptych

waiting for a time
In 2007, the UK government proposed to create new laws making extreme/violent pornography illegal (currently being debated).

I'm not sure exactly where I stand on the banning of such images, but I was recently stunned by the following piece of info (from Wikipedia):

"Classified works are exempt, but an extract from a classified work, if the image was extracted for the purpose of sexual arousal, would not be exempt."

Which criminalizes the subjective intent on viewing images that are otherwise deemed suitable for adult viewing. Will this make it into law, do you think? And are there any examples that criminalize other kinds of subjective responses or arousal? For instance, is a paedophile's arousal by non-illegal images of children in itself a crime?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_pornography
 
-glow-

-glow-

New member
I remember Chris Morris making a meal out of how absurd this would be.
The 'Paedogeddon' episode of Brass Eye showed this clip of some twat being shown round an art gallery and asked 'is this obscene or is this', and Morris would juxtapose some old 'art nude' with some poster of a dog with the boobs or whatever from the said nude plastered on bits of its body. Whoever he was ridiculing at the time went for this pitch.
Christ I miss him, where did he go??
:-((

x
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
tryptych said:
In 2007, the UK government proposed to create new laws making extreme/violent pornography illegal (currently being debated).

I'm not sure exactly where I stand on the banning of such images, but I was recently stunned by the following piece of info (from Wikipedia):

"Classified works are exempt, but an extract from a classified work, if the image was extracted for the purpose of sexual arousal, would not be exempt."

Which criminalizes the subjective intent on viewing images that are otherwise deemed suitable for adult viewing. Will this make it into law, do you think? And are there any examples that criminalize other kinds of subjective responses or arousal? For instance, is a paedophile's arousal by non-illegal images of children in itself a crime?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_pornography
Click to expand...

ever heard about the legal arguments regarding "virtual" child porn, where there are no "real" children involved in images made by child pornographers, but instead they use computer generated images (some completely fabricated, some made of 18 + men and women whose pictures have been extremely modified)? it's been kind of a big legal issue over here for a while, now that technology is getting better at making obviously idealized, faked pictures of people.
 
T

tryptych

waiting for a time
Yes, as I remember it the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to make "virtual" images illegal, but then new legislation was passed which specifically outlaws it. Not sure if it's been tested in court properly?
 
E

elgato

I just dont know
tryptych said:
In 2007, the UK government proposed to create new laws making extreme/violent pornography illegal (currently being debated).

I'm not sure exactly where I stand on the banning of such images, but I was recently stunned by the following piece of info (from Wikipedia):

"Classified works are exempt, but an extract from a classified work, if the image was extracted for the purpose of sexual arousal, would not be exempt."

Which criminalizes the subjective intent on viewing images that are otherwise deemed suitable for adult viewing. Will this make it into law, do you think? And are there any examples that criminalize other kinds of subjective responses or arousal? For instance, is a paedophile's arousal by non-illegal images of children in itself a crime?
Click to expand...

Apologies if you know this stuff already and im missing something... but its almost always the case that a crime requires the two elements of mens rea and actus reus (thought and act essentially), and so the absense of one will negate criminality - i.e. without the act, the thought will not be illegal, and without the (specific) thought, the act may be legal, or at the least the the seriousness of crime is generally affected by the nature of the intention. This situation is a bit more nuanced than most, and interesting because it relates to something like arousal, but i dont think it will struggle to make it into the final legislation... possession is the act, a threshold is set on intention, and a legal test is established. The requisite subjective thought is an intention to hold material for the purposes of arousal, rather than the arousal itself

Its actually an approach which I dont think is subject to Chris Morris' criticism (unless I'm missing something which I may well be), in that they're not saying that the images are inherently offensive/unacceptable, its only when they are utilised for specific purposes, to elicit a particular response that the whole affair is deemed unacceptable. Ths justification is ostensibly to avoid people developing tendencies towards a love of violent pornography, due to the possibility of their tendencies developing into action which harms others. But inevitably there is a hint of moral panic to the whole affair, and a taste of Christian censure. Its a difficult one philosophically for sure
 
G

gek-opel

entered apprentice
elgato said:
Apologies if you know this stuff already and im missing something... but its almost always the case that a crime requires the two elements of mens rea and actus reus (thought and act essentially), and so the absense of one will negate criminality - i.e. without the act, the thought will not be illegal, and without the (specific) thought, the act may be legal, or at the least the the seriousness of crime is generally affected by the nature of the intention. This situation is a bit more nuanced than most, and interesting because it relates to something like arousal, but i dont think it will struggle to make it into the final legislation... possession is the act, a threshold is set on intention, and a legal test is established. The requisite subjective thought is an intention to hold material for the purposes of arousal, rather than the arousal itself

Its actually an approach which I dont think is subject to Chris Morris' criticism (unless I'm missing something which I may well be), in that they're not saying that the images are inherently offensive/unacceptable, its only when they are utilised for specific purposes, to elicit a particular response that the whole affair is deemed unacceptable. Ths justification is ostensibly to avoid people developing tendencies towards a love of violent pornography, due to the possibility of their tendencies developing into action which harms others. But inevitably there is a hint of moral panic to the whole affair, and a taste of Christian censure. Its a difficult one philosophically for sure
Click to expand...

I'd love to see a "reasonable man" test in there: "Would the reasonable paedophile find this digitally altered image arousing?"...
 
T

tryptych

waiting for a time
elgato said:
Apologies if you know this stuff already and im missing something... but its almost always the case that a crime requires the two elements of mens rea and actus reus (thought and act essentially), and so the absense of one will negate criminality - i.e. without the act, the thought will not be illegal, and without the (specific) thought, the act may be legal, or at the least the the seriousness of crime is generally affected by the nature of the intention. This situation is a bit more nuanced than most, and interesting because it relates to something like arousal, but i dont think it will struggle to make it into the final legislation... possession is the act, a threshold is set on intention, and a legal test is established. The requisite subjective thought is an intention to hold material for the purposes of arousal, rather than the arousal itself

Its actually an approach which I dont think is subject to Chris Morris' criticism (unless I'm missing something which I may well be), in that they're not saying that the images are inherently offensive/unacceptable, its only when they are utilised for specific purposes, to elicit a particular response that the whole affair is deemed unacceptable. Ths justification is ostensibly to avoid people developing tendencies towards a love of violent pornography, due to the possibility of their tendencies developing into action which harms others. But inevitably there is a hint of moral panic to the whole affair, and a taste of Christian censure. Its a difficult one philosophically for sure
Click to expand...


This is an area I know little about, so thanks for the elucidation.

What examples might there be of situations when the act is legal without the specific thought? Obviously I can understand where the crime might be less serious without the thought, e.g. murder vs manslaughter, but what other clearcut differentiations between legal/illegal are there?

I just find it weird, and a bit frightening, that the state feels it can legislate that certain images are ok to enjoy in a non-sexual way, but not in a sexual fashion.
 
E

elgato

I just dont know
Yeh i can see what you mean for sure, i was speaking purely from a legalistic perspective, in that I dont think the mechanism is particularly unusual.

But as you say that exception does indicate controversial policy, although again I don't think that many 'right-minded' citizens will be up in arms about it.

as to other examples where intention clearly cuts legality/illegality, none immediately spring to mind, i will have to think/read and get back to you. you're right about it being more specific though, i didnt give it enough thought immediately

Also it requires very strange investigations (although such curious questions are not un-common in the law) into precisely where the line is to be drawn to detach sexual arousal from art.

Further, as you question, is sexual arousal more worthy of censure than 'intellectual' arousal? I suppose the argument would be that sexual tendency more often will lead into a lack of control, to obsession, but how far towards this tendency is it appropriate for the law to reach?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top