NEW UK Law against "Sexual Torture" Pictures .....

This is the place where you can share your thoughts on selfbondage with like minded people.
Post Reply
User avatar
curious_sb
Retired Moderator
Posts: 1147
Joined: 24 Mar 2006, 00:38
Location: United Kingdom

NEW UK Law against "Sexual Torture" Pictures .....

Post by curious_sb »

Hi,

First of all sorry for what seems like an ill-informed rant, but I am a little bit worried about the "extent" to which this new law is going to apply, apparently if you get caught in the UK with pictures (on or off line) depicting sexual torture / rape / abuse, you could face up to 3 years in prison.

Read about it here:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/30082006/140/t ... crime.html

And Here
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/30082006/325/c ... -porn.html

Now my guess is, and espedcially from reading the last sentence of that first news report, that this new law will only target the so called "snuff" sites and real rape and hardcore stuff that frankly, really would not do anything for me at all anyway, but my feeling deep down is that "is this just another knot, in the noose around the neck of the BDSM culture?", what about our freedom of expression and artistic licence? How loosely are the government likely to interpret this new law?

Will this mean that it will become a criminal offence to visit sites such as Hogtied.com, Sexandsubmission.com, waterbondage.com Powershotz.com, or Knotnice.com? (My Favourite websites for bondage pictures).

Under the new law, (I guess) the pictures I posted on Strappados, would also technically be breaking the new law???

I know this is not exactly self bondage, but it still applies in a way. So sorry on advance if anyone thinks im posting in wrong area.

Anyone wishing to share any thoughts feelings or opinions on this, please feel free to comment.

My personal opinion is that we are adults and should be able to be exposed to whatever images we desire, so long as no-one gets harmed in the process, the people in the images are consenting adults, and it doesnt involve children or animals.

My big worry as I said before is how they classify what is legal and what is not, and how that affects us in the Bondage, Domination, and Sado Masochist (BDSM) community, after all, Bondage, and SM is a form of torture, albeit playful consenting torture, but how do you tell who consented to what in an image of a particular scene?

Is this going ot be just the start for us of what amounts to treading barefoot on broken eggshells??

Please somebody get me a paper bag, am I having panic attacks over nothing??
Curious_SB
Retired Forum Moderator
mat_slave
*
Posts: 10
Joined: 16 Jun 2006, 19:54
Contact:

Re: NEW UK Law against "Sexual Torture" Pictures .

Post by mat_slave »

curious_sb wrote:Hi,


Is this going ot be just the start for us of what amounts to treading barefoot on broken eggshells??
surely walking on eggshells barefoot would count as torture?

on a more serious note how will this affect the self bondage community.. I mean will the drawings on annas site be affected by us viewing in the uk?

to be honest I can't see the government coming after people like us, they're going to be more interested in those collecting rape and snuff kind of pictures. that's my view anyway.

m
User avatar
curious_sb
Retired Moderator
Posts: 1147
Joined: 24 Mar 2006, 00:38
Location: United Kingdom

Post by curious_sb »

Thanks for your response Matt_Slave, precisely my point, I mean the implications are far and wide.

I dont know what sites other people visit but I like to look at pictures of women tied up, that is in an erotic / art sense, not because I think any less of women you understand.

The sites I go to for my eye candy are the ones I mentioned above. Would anyone think they would be illegal? I doubt it really but the problem is the grey areas. Who will the police target.

Those of you who wont admit it, I know you look at these sort of pictures too, either for gratification, or just inspiration for new ties, we all get bored of the same old stuff.

I am just worried about the implications it has for people like us, decent people, who just happen to be into BDSM is one way or to one degree or another.

Three years and a criminal record is a lot to risk for what amounts to a hobby (though some may argue a lifestyle).
Curious_SB
Retired Forum Moderator
User avatar
curious_sb
Retired Moderator
Posts: 1147
Joined: 24 Mar 2006, 00:38
Location: United Kingdom

Post by curious_sb »

Ok well here's a new developmenst, but if ever you wanted to know what the word "vague" means, this does a pretty good job of defining it:

A Home Office spokesman said that the new law was not intended to target people who accidentally came into contact with obscene pornography; nor would it hit the mainstream adult entertainment industry, which works within current obscenity laws.
Curious_SB
Retired Forum Moderator
User avatar
curious_sb
Retired Moderator
Posts: 1147
Joined: 24 Mar 2006, 00:38
Location: United Kingdom

Post by curious_sb »

More specifics for anyone interested.....

He said the Government will bring in new laws as soon as possible to ban possession of porn depicting "scenes of extreme sexual violence" and other obscene material such as bestiality and necrophilia.

It would cover, for example, violence that is - or appears to be - life-threatening or is likely to result in "serious and disabling injury".

The move will cover porn both online and offline.

Currently it is an offence to publish and distribute such material, but not an offence to possess it.

Under today's proposals the maximum penalty for publication, distribution and possession for gain of obscene pornography would also be increased from three to five years imprisonment.
Curious_SB
Retired Forum Moderator
User avatar
LoRee
Retired Moderator
Posts: 893
Joined: 04 Apr 2006, 01:28
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Contact:

Post by LoRee »

It's what you Brits get for reelecting that Bush wantabe Tony Blair. Just like I've no simpathy what so ever for most Americans who let Bush get reelected. I voted agaist the SOB for all the good it did. We are NOT terrorist. To the best of my knowledge no one in our group or lifestyle has flown any planes into buildings or bombed the underground. Sales of the type of stuff curious_sb mentioned is NOT financing al Qaeda, Hamass, or any other type of orginization. So why the FUCK are the US & UK govornments targeting US!
OH I GET IT!!! They are pissed off cause the world court & Genniva accords won't let them torture detainees any more. So they feel if they can't do it, then nether can we. Not that informed adult consent means anything to those bastards! :x :twisted: :x
"I find it far more annoying when the universe makes me work for damnation. I prefer it just gave it to me and save me the effort"
User avatar
curious_sb
Retired Moderator
Posts: 1147
Joined: 24 Mar 2006, 00:38
Location: United Kingdom

Post by curious_sb »

Hahaha

Thats so true, in fact its so true I want to stop laughing and cry.
Curious_SB
Retired Forum Moderator
User avatar
TieMeTighter
**
Posts: 52
Joined: 13 Jul 2006, 05:19
Location: London UK

how can we stay legal

Post by TieMeTighter »

I suspect hogtied's exactly the type of site this is aimed at, as it depicts scenes simultaneously containing bondage, sex and torture, albeit with paid actors.

This is exactly the kind of assosciation that they don't want to exist.
I don't side with the argument, but it assumes that a warped person could be influenced to want to carry out acts they've seen on innocent victims.

Personally I can't see this would have any more effect on someone than mainstream tv depicting, and indeed glorifying violence, stabbings and so on. I feel neither would adversely influence a balanced, sane person, however you will find it difficult to argue your point once you have been labelled a deviant, particularly in the face of vociferous public campaigns by those who have been affected in some way by a criminal act of this nature on someone close to them, even though we also wholeheartedly agree that such crimes are truly abhorrent, and a wholely different thing to the consensual bondage or self-bondage activities that we may have an interest in.

As merely viewing an image on a website stores a copy of it in your cache on your hard disk, then technically you are downloading an image by viewing it. If there's several then you haven't merely innocently come across the site, but you've been actively viewing it.

We've been warned however, to avoid any potential future misinterpretations of our own kinks and interests now's the time to install and ensure you use the shredding and encryption software that is available.
User avatar
TieMeTighter
**
Posts: 52
Joined: 13 Jul 2006, 05:19
Location: London UK

How can we ensure we stay legal.

Post by TieMeTighter »

A couple of plus points, one of the quotes in the news article, one hopes it's accurate is "The new law would outlaw any {pornographic} material that featured violence that was, or appeared to be, life-threatening or likely to result in serious and disabling injury."

This clearly and demonstrably would not apply to the majority of bondage that I believe most members of this forum have a liking for.

Whilst there is always a risk of injury, it's not likely to cause such an injury or we would not practice it, in the same way using an electrical appliance could, but is not likely to electrocute you. Hence images depicting this type of bondage should not fall into the remit of this new law.

One also has to look at the definition of pornography, which cannot just include scantily clad subjects restrained in bondage or how would you draw a distinction between depictions of Jesus on the cross, roman slaves in chains and your average bondage model ?
User avatar
curious_sb
Retired Moderator
Posts: 1147
Joined: 24 Mar 2006, 00:38
Location: United Kingdom

Re: how can we stay legal

Post by curious_sb »

TieMeTighter wrote:I suspect hogtied's exactly the type of site this is aimed at, as it depicts scenes simultaneously containing bondage, sex and torture, albeit with paid actors.
Yes I see your point, but then....
TieMeTighter wrote:A couple of plus points, one of the quotes in the news article, one hopes it's accurate is "The new law would outlaw any {pornographic} material that featured violence that was, or appeared to be, life-threatening or likely to result in serious and disabling injury."
...does Hogtied REALLY depict life threatening torture likely to kill or cause serious and disabling permanent injury? I don't think so, I like the pictures they produce, it not just smut, most of it is quite aesthetically pleasing to the eye, almost like art.

To confess yes I not only "look at the hogtied pictures on the site", I also save some of them to my hard drive, but at no point do I feel like I am doing anything illegal.

To quote the news article, the sites this new law wants to target is sites like hangingbitches.com and necrobabes.com.

Now I can tell just by those names, that those sites will do nothing for me, and I have no intention of visiting those sites. My main argument here is what the interpretation of the law will mean for the more mainstream bondage sites (and I consider hogtied as a mainstream site) and those people - like me, who choose to visit them, and download their pictures.

Dont get me wrong, TieMeTighter. I dont disagree with you totally, I just think theres a clear difference between being gratified sexually by watching people tied up (mainstream bondage), and watching "bitches hang" or "shagging dead corpses".

I do agree that you have a point in that if you really don't want to get caught up in this legal grey area, dont have this sort of stuff on your computer in the first place.

I just think its a real shame and it just spoils what I consider good harmless fun.
Curious_SB
Retired Forum Moderator
User avatar
TieMeTighter
**
Posts: 52
Joined: 13 Jul 2006, 05:19
Location: London UK

on a lighter note.

Post by TieMeTighter »

I wonder what attitude would be taken when it was realised that far from looking at bondage material to take delight in another's plight I would actually enjoy being the "victim", lol.

I would love to model for "men in pain".
User avatar
curious_sb
Retired Moderator
Posts: 1147
Joined: 24 Mar 2006, 00:38
Location: United Kingdom

Post by curious_sb »

Yes, its just like that stupid law that it's against the law to kill yourself. Or something daft like that anyway I read it somewhere....
Curious_SB
Retired Forum Moderator
User avatar
bondagemonkey
*
Posts: 15
Joined: 15 Sep 2006, 18:57

Post by bondagemonkey »

To be honest, I don't think it would hit the bondage sites hard at all, maybe some of the more severe domination sites, such as Cruella and the English Mansion would have to tone down a little...

Being tied up is not the same as having a noose around your neck.
Wearing a hood with breathing holes isn't going to kill you, putting a plastic bag over your head will.
Being handcuffed to a bed for a few hours with some thistles strapped to your cock won't seriously hurt you (Unless you count pins and needles for 24 hours... trust me on this one!).
Nobody could really count anything I've read about on self-bondage sites as serious injury...

The only thing I can see which would be an issue from the self bondage front is the forced feeding style of pictures, or images featuring inflation gags could be hit. The idea of self bondage is safe thrills, nothing more.

If the government really take the law in hand, I'm sure something such as BT's clean-feed which stop the truly illegal sites would be put in place.
//Bondagemonkey - waiting for the ice to melt...
// http://www.icebondage.net/wiki/BondageMonster
User avatar
LoRee
Retired Moderator
Posts: 893
Joined: 04 Apr 2006, 01:28
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Contact:

Post by LoRee »

TieMeTighter said:
it assumes that a warped person could be influenced to want to carry out acts they've seen on innocent victims.
You wouldnt be aluding to the CIA and their water boarding like sports would you? Boy I'm glad I'm not Canadian. :lol: :shock:
"I find it far more annoying when the universe makes me work for damnation. I prefer it just gave it to me and save me the effort"
jake
****
Posts: 700
Joined: 01 Nov 2006, 00:11

Post by jake »

THE ARTICLE IS SO VAGUE!!!

It should say EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS, not "Sexual Torture"!!!!

THAT MEANS NOTHING.

SOON THE DAY WILL COME WHERE IT WILL BE ILLEGAL TO PUT HANDCUFFS OF YOUR WIFE
Post Reply