Tom Ramcigam (magicmarmot) wrote,
Tom Ramcigam

possession of some porn illegal in UK

The images of violent porn, defined as "material featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury" isn't my thing, but the law is focused on one case in which the killer-- who killed his victim by strangling her with a pair of tights and kept her body in the freezer-- looked at internet sites that were connected with the "fetish".

1.) The guy is insane. Whether he surfed websites or not doesn't cause him to kill.

2.) This makes the connection that his obsession with his fetish caused (or was at least instrumental in aggrivating) his killing actions. I say that correlation is not causation, but this isn't even correlation: consider that the website has likely thousands of viewers; how many of them are killers. This freak of nature is an anomaly in any consideration, and making "violent porn" illegal to own because of this is dangerous to freedom issues.

3.) The definition is ill-defined enough that it could start infringing on more mainstream fetish porn, particularly bondage, which is mainstream enough to affect millions of people.

It's a politicized morality ploy.

  • (no subject)

    It finally happened. It had to, really. I was in the bottom two cut from LJ-Idol this week. I made it to the top 50, from some rather larger…

  • Mayville

    "Too many bats in the belfry, eh?" The question came from a small man in the scrubs-and-robe garb of an inmate. He looked a little like a garden…

  • LJ-Idol

    Another batch of entries. Consistently amazed at how good the writing is. Voting is open for…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.