Censorship

'There Is No Reason for This Stuff'

|

A British law criminalizing the possession of "violent and extreme pornography" is expected to take effect next week. The bill, a response to the 2003 murder of Brighton schoolteacher Jane Longhurst by a man who liked violent pornography, would ban simulated sexual violence as well as images of the real thing. The prohibited material includes images of "an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person's life"; "an act which results in or appears to result in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts, or genitals"; "an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse"; or "a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal" (emphasis added). Critics worry that the definition is too broad and too vague and that the law will punish people for engaging in consensual activities that do not actually harm anyone. "If no sexual offense is being committed," one M.P. who opposed the bill told the BBC, "it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offense for having an image of something which was not an offense."

But the Justice Ministry insists that "pornographic material which depicts necrophilia, bestiality or violence that is life threatening or likely to result in serious injury to the anus, breasts or genitals has no place in a modern society and should not be tolerated." The M.P. who led the fight for the bill in the House of Lords promises the government will target only images that are "grossly offensive and disgusting." Jane Longhurst's mother, who campaigned for the ban, has little patience with the critics:

Speaking from her home in Berkshire, Mrs. Longhurst acknowledges that libertarians see her as "a horrible killjoy." "I'm not. I do not approve of this stuff, but there is room for all sorts of different people. But anything which is going to cause damage to other people needs to be stopped."

To those who fear the legislation might criminalise people who use violent pornography as a harmless sex aid, she responds with a blunt "hard luck."

"There is no reason for this stuff. I can't see why people need to see it. People say what about our human rights but where are Jane's human rights?"

[Thanks to Daniel Reeves for the tip.]

Advertisement

NEXT: Class Action Lawyers Get Creative

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’ve never been harmed by a video of titties, even if those titties were beings slapped, pinched, poked, or prodded.

    I can’t imagine anyone else has, either.

    But who knows? Maybe I’m just a ticking time-bomb of sexual degradation and perversion. Time will tell, I suppose.

  2. If people are fucked up to begin with, then Pirates, Pulp Fiction, or Grand Theft Auto aren’t going to make any difference.

    Anyways, it’s fucking England.

  3. The M.P. who led the fight for the bill in the House of Lords promises the government will target only images that are “grossly offensive and disgusting.”

    That’s so reassuring.

  4. “an act which results in or appears to result in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts, or genitals“; “an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse”;[my emphasis]

    America’s Funniest Home Videos reruns are now illegal in Great Britain.

  5. Coming next: banning the depiction of an act which results in or appears to result in death. That will bring the murder rate in the UK to zero right quick.

  6. America’s Funniest Home Videos reruns are now illegal in Great Britain.

    It is nice to know there is a place on Earth free from that drivel.

  7. That damn show seems to be on non stop where I live in this place full of fucking simple country folk. The police chase show plays on another channel.

  8. The M.P. who led the fight for the bill in the House of Lords promises the government will target only images that are “grossly offensive and disgusting.”

    Well, golly, if that’s the case, why don’t we just pass a law saying that all bad and naughty things are illegal and let the government sort it out on the enforcement side. I mean why trust them to not ban Warner Brothers cartoons (even though they clearly violate this law) and not trust them with other, more important things.

  9. I CAN’T FIT ALL MY BREAST-INJURY PORN IN THIS FUCKING KITCHENETTE!

  10. I wonder what the job description will look like for the person who has to review all the pornography. I humbly volunteer my services for the UK masses. It is for the children, after all, that I do this.

  11. Next to be banned: material that includes images of someone stealing or appearing to steal from another individual.

    Goodbye Ocean’s 11.

  12. I humbly volunteer my services for the UK masses.

    Be careful what you wish for.

  13. This is the country that banned the depiction of nunchucks in movies or TV shows. They aren’t exactly big on freedom of speech.

  14. So much for BDSM videos as well.

  15. I’d say that’s it for a lot of the Bond movies, too. I guess the novels will still be okay if the covers are tame enough.

  16. I guess that means they’ll ban that great Prodigy video.

  17. Too bad Ms. Longhurst didn’t have a pistol handy to blow that creepy guy away.

  18. “sexual interference with a human corpse…”

    Speaking as someone who cannot claim English as his mother tongue — I am a native-born speaker of American, after all — I have to wonder what the above means…

    Perhaps jumping the bones of a shuffling zombie? I mean, could any other corpses be doing anything with which one could “interfere,” sexually or otherwise?

  19. According to Oxford:

    “interference

    ? noun 1 the action of interfering or process of being interfered with. 2 disturbance to radio signals caused by unwanted signals from other sources. 3 Physics the combination of two or more waveforms to form a resultant in which the wave motions are either reinforced or cancelled (e.g. the combination of beams of light to form a pattern of light and dark bands).”

    You know, that corpse might be trying to listen to BBC 3’s latest episode of “Big Brother” or something. If you are on top of it the signal might not be as strong.

    http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/interference?view=uk

  20. I guess this means the U.K.’s “video nasties” list will be back.

  21. …depictions of certain tortured Christian martyrs.

  22. I think prostitution should be banned. I don’t care if that is libertarian. I also think materials created while recording the activities of prostitutes should be able to be sold for money. I can’t commit a crime with the intention of selling videos of that crime, can I?

    If you don’t think pr0n stars are prostitutes, translate “pornography” literally from the Greek.

  23. But anything which is going to cause damage to other people needs to be stopped.

    Wow.

    “an act which results in or appears to result in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts, or genitals”

    “He’s staggering off the rugby field. He’s doubled over. Looks like he got the wind knocked out of him.”

    This is the country that banned the depiction of nunchucks in movies or TV shows. They aren’t exactly big on freedom of speech.

    This is the country that is banning replica firearms, swords, and pointy kitchen knives in real life. They aren’t exactly big on freedom of speech.

    Too bad Ms. Longhurst didn’t have a pistol handy to blow that creepy guy away.

    “I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama said. “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”

  24. I guess those Brits aren’t big fans of squicking, then.

    an act which results in or appears to result in serious injury to a person’s…

    Hey, does waterboarding qualify? In that case, I’m all for it. Let’s send old Bush and Cheney back to England to be tried (that was the state of affairs right before the Revolution, so why not go back to it for just a little bit?)

  25. Now they will never know the glory that is prolapse.

  26. “sexual interference with a human corpse…”

    any pics of my wife having sex will be illegal?

  27. Surprised this law took so long in the UK. I once dated a girl who liked to be choked during sex . I put a stop to that particular move when Kobe Bryant was accused of rape. Smart move on my part I believe.

  28. Surprised this law took so long in the UK. I once dated a girl who liked to be choked during sex . I put a stop to that particular move when Kobe Bryant was accused of rape.

    Can I have her phone number?

  29. Careful, LarryA, you’ll incur the wrath of joe for pointing out Obama’s lack of intelligent thought on that particular subject.

    “sexual interference with a human corpse…”

    any pics of my wife having sex will be illegal?

    Only if she’s with you, perhaps?

  30. If you don’t think pr0n stars are prostitutes, translate “pornography” literally from the Greek.

    I don’t know about you, but all my adult movies feature erotica stars.

  31. Has anyone seen HBO’s “The Tutors”? Is it still legal in the UK? Why would killing someone the day after sex be that much better?

  32. the government will target only images that are “grossly offensive and disgusting.”

    Rob Manuel and the rest of the b3tards better watch out. B3ta ain’t nothing but grossly offensive and disgusting.

  33. “There is no reason for this stuff. I can’t see why people need to see it. People say what about our human rights but where are Jane’s human rights?”

    I think they’re covered by the murder laws that are already on the books, thanks.

  34. Can’t we just get back to putting cameras everywhere, and bolting GPS’s in peoples cars so the government can track their every move?

    Sheesh.

    Oh wait…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.