UK violent image laws

[MMI]

Really, is it up to everyone else to decide what's best for the rest of us?

To some extent, yes. We can't go around murdering people, for example, even if we do get a buzz out of doing it. We mustn't take other people's property away from them, no matter how much we might want to have it for ourselves. Because it's better for everyone concerned that we live in a peaceful society that respects rights of ownership.

We should be prevented from fornicating with animals because that is unacceptable behaviour in society. We should also be prevented from committing acts of incest, for the same reason. If an act is illegal, it follows that photographs of such acts must also be tainted, and the new Act confirms this by making it clear that possession of such images ARE illegal.

Homosexuality was once unacceptable, and it had to be prevented to preserve public order and decency. It no longer is unacceptable, so public order and morality are no longer under threat by gays. The law can be relaxed.

But now we are getting into grey areas. Should a man co-habit with more than one woman? Should acts of submission be outlawed? (What's the feminist movement's take on BDSM, btw? Anyone know?) Is consensual whipping and bondage something that should be outlawed?

In UK, consensual whipping and bondage are not illegal, even if the whipping is on the genitalia. But the new Act of Parliament makes it illegal to possess photographs of such acts. That is a nonsense: "The law is a ass!"

I think icey's fears are that there will be some kind of legislative creep, and that whatever the law enforcement fascisti deem to be an extreme pornographic image, will automatically become one. My own view is that there may well be a number of attempted prosecutions for possession of photographs of S/M scenes, but most of them will fail.

Meanwhile, slightly off-topic, somewhere in the family photograph album is a picture of my sister when she was about 5, standing up in a tin bathtub, naked and full frontal, watching the bathwater leak through a hole in the tub. The photograph was taken in 1952.

Also, we have another picture of my younger son when he was about the same age, just out of the bath and naked, wearing a pirate hat and a pair of rubber boots, and laughing his head off at some joke or other which I don't remember. This was taken in the early 90's. (We also have pictures of both of my sons having a water fight in the bath. The greatest harm that was done when those pictures were taken was that the bathroom floor got flooded!)

I wouldn't dare have any of those pictures developed now, and I suspect if they were seen I might be accused of paedophilia. I think this is a reflection of the puritan society we have once again become, and, just as "ungodliness" was shameful in the 17th century, so anything that is remotely sexual is shameful today.

[icey]

Also, we have another picture of my younger son when he was about the same age, just out of the bath and naked, wearing a pirate hat and a pair of rubber boots, and laughing his head off at some joke or other which I don't remember. .

i had a cpl baby pics like that of my own son but i got rid of them..paranoia or what lol
i agree with beastiality and all the other laws necrophilia peadophila but i dont think consensual s/m should be illegal they dont have the right (or shouldnt) to tell us what sexual activitys we can/cant do in our own homes.

and it isnt just fears i have,ive not done too good a job at posting i never know how to word things correctly lol
but i do know that as well as reading up about it all and research from my barrister from when we were in court that the pics that my ex had could have landed us in prison! and they were milder ones his solicitor dloaded them and because it was for a family law case she couldnt risk dloading the stronger ones, this was before the new law was fully passed.

the pics of me were one of me hogtied,one of me bound and gagged naked and one of me with a few welts and cpl mild bruises, not only would we have been charged with transmitting violent images, Icehawk would have been done for assault and i would have been dont for aiding and assisting said assualt...we were extremely lucky that the judge dismissed it as irrelevant to the case and spiteful of my ex and that she decided not to report us to the correct authorities because it would have a detrimental effect on my children and on the proviso we removed our site and any images which we had already done by then immediately after we recieved the pics from our solicitor.although the few images we have left on my laptop we havnt removed and luckily because she didnt report us nobody has ever looked.


had it been a cpl more days later when part of the bill was passed the outcome would probably have been much more drastic.