As I understand it, it's either now illegal or will be illegal (in the UK) to sell/possess/something footage of two consenting adults who are not engaged in rape, but are simulating rape. They simulate this through force, words, threats, all that sort of thing.
So if that's illegal, even though it's provably not an actual rape (depending on who made it, obviously, but in theory we could call up the participants to check, or if they let the cameras keep running someone will shout "Cut" and they stop and go for a coffee), what protects similar scenes of simulated rape in books (if indeed they should be protected)?
I must say the idea of FSoG being banned does make me think there's an upside to this :p
> As I understand it, it's either now illegal or will be illegal (in the UK) to sell/possess/something footage of two consenting adults who are not engaged in rape, but are simulating rape. They simulate this through force, words, threats, all that sort of thing.
This is already a really dangerous thing. Rape is sex without consent and rape doesn't always look like a struggle with violent resistance. If enforcement looks only to a violent struggle as a requirement for labeling porn as rape porn, that gov't is reenforcing existing stereotypes about rape and sexual assault.
How someone depicts rape or how stereotypical it is is irrelevant. The dangerous component here is the limitation on freedom of expression. This horse has been beaten to death 10 million times, but here's a distillation of the argument:
If you ban, for example, all simulation of racist themes, you eliminate a certain kind of harmful imagery, which is a good thing. But this also prevents one from educating people as to why racism is wrong, by showing a depiction and how harmful it can be. It would ban things like movies about the life of Malcolm X or Martin Luther King Jr or Emmett Till.
As relates to rape, this would ban Lifetime movies which show the gritty horrible reality of rape and the subsequent damage it does to people's lives. That violent struggle is a stereotype of rape that hides non-consensual sex as a form of rape is irrelevant to the main point: this law destroys our ability to educate and our freedom of expression.
> That violent struggle is a stereotype of rape that hides non-consensual sex as a form of rape is irrelevant to the main point: this law destroys our ability to educate and our freedom of expression.
I totally agree with your point. However, promoting stereotypes about rape does diminish our ability to educate about the facts and experiences of survivors and makes it so that causes of and solutions to rape as a form of institutional violence become obscured.
kink.com does this in all of their videos (at the beginning of each scene discuss what is going to happen and then at the end discuss how they though it went). This is a lot better than most "vanilla" porn.
Does anyone have the text of the law? Will it, for instance, be illegal for BDSM practitioners to tape their own sex acts for "private use" after this? This often involves simulated rape, albeit mutually consentual.
I think a more notable example included in that is A Clockwork Orange, which clearly depicts (simulated) rape. Is this classic now going to be illegal to distribute online in the UK?
I'd agree the initial contact could be considered sexual assault, if it resulted in her feeling that way. Instead she enjoyed it and wanted it to continue, and continue they did. He wanted to stop because he felt like he was crossing a line and she wanted to keep going. That's about as enthusiastic as it can get without being explicit.
No, of course it won't, you know that it won't, and your attempt to try to misrepresent the proposed bill by suggesting that it will is petty and dangerous.
The question is how anyone can draw up a law that leaves art on one side and porn on the other.
It's Lady Chatterley's Lover all over again, and to suggest there's no need to be concerned is, I think, you misrepresenting the position. Until this is defined, there's a lot to be concerned about.
OK, I didn't mean to say there's no need to be concerned. But my point is, by wildly exaggerating the purpose and effects of this law, you're actually derailing what should be a sensible discussion. Personally, I find myself sympathising with the law, in part because of the extreme hysteria in response to it. I also find myself sympathising with it because I want child abuse to be eradicated, but that would be getting back to the actual issue at hand.
In defence of this comment, apparently the book describes the drugging and raping of two ten year olds from the record shop, which is changed in the film to be a consensual encounter with girls his own age.
There are other rape scenes in the movie though. Fun fact: one of the actresses involved quit because of the difficulty of filming them.
One other movie with a rape scene: American History X.
I was referring to the film version of A Clockwork Orange, which does have a rape scene, but not of the two teenagers from the record shop. The book is another matter though (not that I can remember it clearly, haven't read it for at least 2 decades..).
EDIT: Actually, this is cleared up above, which is fortunate since I appeared to be asleep at the wheel when I wrote my original response ;)
How much of this is the old political trick of creating a law that is overly broad and nuanced only to come back and refine it to something slightly more specific later? Perhaps the plan all along has been to create something that will cause outrage so that people don't complain when the next version comes around that's only slightly better, but still worse off than before.
That was broadly true of British obscenity laws for decades (centuries?). You couldn't publish anything that was obscene or that could disturb people but just what that meant was poorly defined and pretty much up to judges and juries.
I actually kinda like that typically British approach though since it allows tastes to move with the times without actually rewriting any laws. What's "obscene" in 2013 is not the same as in 1940, for example, but it does take court cases to set precedents.
The proposed laws are stupid, but making shit up is not useful for discussion.
We went through the same nonsense when the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was introduced, and yet we can still walk into shops and buy American Beauty and other films.
Phase 1. Set up a surveillance state & keep a record of everything that your victims/subjects do.
Phase 2. Pass legislation that people cannot meaningfully object to, yet is worded so vaguely and in such woolly terms that it tars a significant section of the population with the same brush.
Phase 3. Profit!
.... Finally, a 3-step plan to profit that does not involve underpants!
So now the UK is turning into saudi arabia ? or is it iran ?
Anyone who is choked when they hear about alcohol or porn banned in these countries and is not choked by this move from the UK government has a serious mental problem.
Of course the book will not be banned, this is an absurd link baity claim. The post is based on the ridiculous misconception that the wording BBC News are using will be anything like the actual text of the bill. Stories like these are given to the press to portray a flavor of what a policy will be - reading anything more into it would likely prove unwise.
I think they [the author] are intentionally exploring it. In fact, a good portion of the article is on the definition of "depict"[1], which would probably include books by most people's understanding. The other point is being available online - which books are via kindle and other services.
> Also falling into firmly into this category is Burgess' "A Clockwork Orange". Once again, it's available for Kindle, it definitely depicts rape, and it's read world-wide by millions.
This is both a book and a film - extremely famous, and has a rape scene. Is it going to be illegal (once again)?
Earlier, in the same section he says:
> Given that many contemporary novels (and less-contemporary) novels do deal with sexual abuse and rape, some of which explore the idea of "rape fantasy" (Herein referred to by the more accepted name, "ravishment") between consenting partners means that a large portion of those with an interest in BDSM and kink will fall into this category.
So, whether novels will be included or not, there is definitely already media which is currently legal and consumed by law abiding citizens who have no predilections or desires to rape anyone that may suddenly become illegal. This is a problem, in my opinion.
I'm glad I have the first and second amendments... for now.
It wasn't really clear in your comment so I figured it would be good to chime in and mention that the movie wasn't actually banned by any government but rather Kubrick had it pulled:
"Kubrick asked Warner Brothers to withdraw the film from British distribution, disliking the allegation that the film was responsible for copycat violence in real life"
Technically it was illegal to distribute the movie in Britain for 27 years, but it was purely a copyright / distribution rights issue. You may have known that but it's such a huge myth that it was actually banned for content that I wanted to fill in some gaps.
I was aware of it, having spent far too much time discussing this and other movies and the rights related to them.
I think this is a great point, though, and I can only excuse myself for lack of sleep for not at least mentioning it. Thanks for adding it!
Back to my point, which stems from the allegations, and the fact that now the movie has been legal again for some time and yet we are not overrun with copycats, though it continues to be a popular movie.
Who is intentionally exploring it? What makes you think this? Can you provide credible news sources to back up this claim that Cameron's intended anti porn measures (which have already seen conflicting pieces on opt-out vs opt-in) will be applied to books?
Other than a sensationalist blog post by someone whose passion for free speech led them to wildly jump to unfounded conclusions, which doesn't help the legitimate discussion around this topic at all?
The person you assigned the identifier "someone whose passion for free speech led them to wildly jump to unfounded conclusions" which is far too long of an identifier, if you ask me, but that's not really the point either.
> What makes you think this?
The fact that I read the article makes me think that the person who wrote the article is exploring said concept.
> Can you provide credible news sources to back up this claim that Cameron's intended anti porn measures (which have already seen conflicting pieces on opt-out vs opt-in) will be applied to books?
Can you provide the quoted text from the article we are discussing which makes this exact claim? I never said it did, I said it was exploring the possibility, and to back that up I included relevant passages and information.
Furthermore, I made the point, which you ignored, that whether or not books are included, there is currently media that is being consumed and possessed by people in the UK which will certainly be considered illegal very soon. Can you tell me your stance on how good or bad that is?
It's an intentional exploration of the concept, from TFA:
"... thus bringing this absurdist tirade to a close and showing the law for what it really is: Propaganda codified as law."
The clue is in the "absurdist tirade" -- this is a reduction of the current media coverage of the law into implications which seem technically plausible.
Cameron was looking good until recently with his crackdown (however slight) on our disgraceful benefit system. And now he looks to censor the population under the guise of protecting children (teaching them how to protect themselves is probably a better option). This country is rapidly going downhill as our freedoms are slowly reduced.
--
That said, an opt-in porn filter for parents is always going to be a good/useful thing. But we all know any determined individual (and I'd suspect many young-ish people) will bypass these blockades in no time at all, just as we have with Kickass/TPB.
What about all the prison rape scenes in movies?? Will this make them illegal? Or as they are same sex, they don't count? Would be interesting to see if they classify them as perversion or something similar instead of rape. With this current government, it would not surprise me if they say that a same sex rape victim is asking for it or something...
Unlikely. Anti-pornography laws generally only apply to imagery whose purpose is to be titillating [1]. There's just too much content of a sexual nature that is perfectly legitimate (arts, sciences, and journalism in particular).
In practice, this definition has rarely [1] been a problem. There are more serious concerns.
For example, a real problem with possession-based laws (as opposed to distribution-based laws) is how comparatively easy it is to frame innocent people [2]. Law enforcement likes possession-based laws, because they are an order of magnitude easier to prove and prosecute.
Oh no, this new wave of UK anti-porn zealotry will ban even legitimate literature like 50 Shades of Grey... Give me a break. 50 Shades of Grey is a porn novel. It's a porn novel that made the best seller list, much to the first world's embarrassment and I'll bet you anything that it's what prompted this law in the first place. There are a lot of legitimate reasons to be concerned about this new proposed law, but I won't shed a tear for 50 Shades.
I think you are missing the point. It seems that the author used 50 Shades of Grey to illustrate his "If everyone is a criminal, no one is" point. Literary merit aside, 50 Shades of Grey was a massive hit, and also pornographic, meaning that lots and lots of people read it, and lots and lots of people are now "criminals".
Also, in terms of freedom of expression how is 50 shades of grey any less significant than any of the other books he listed?
"Literary merit aside, 50 Shades of Grey was a massive hit, and also pornographic, meaning that lots and lots of people read it,"
Which is probably something that the UK government does not want happening again.
"and lots and lots of people are now "criminals"."
No they're not, unless they decide to share copies of the novel online. I must have really missed it if there was something about retroactively enforcing laws.
There are legit concerns here, but fsog isn't one.
FSOG (nice acronym, it's a pain in the ass to type out) demonstrates that there a wide segment of the population that is willing and interested in reading material which the government is attempting to criminalize. I misspoke when I said they "are now" criminals, I should have said they will be criminals.
>Which is probably something that the UK government does not want happening again.
Also, this gets my hackles up. Why should they not want it to happen again, besides pointless and absurd moralizing? People have been writing smut for thousands of years. The first books printed with Gutenberg's printing press? Porn. What's different now?
No form of literature should ever be made illegal. Holocaust denial, Creationism, Scientology, etc. No matter how absurd or factually incorrect it is, should never be censored in any way or form. Absolute freedom of press without limitation. Incitement to hatred, racism, etc. The usual arguments against this come from people who are offended. People who argue that they are offended do so under the assumption that they have a right not to be offended. This is a false assumption.
I must say the idea of FSoG being banned does make me think there's an upside to this :p