You would think that banning violent porn would be a reasonable thing to do. Well, you would if you weren’t prepared to think about it for more than a minute or two. Unfortunately, this is exactly what has happened.
The government has announced plans to make the possession of violent porn punishable by three years in jail.
Why? Seems a reasonable question to me. Perhaps someone can give me a reasonable answer. Not that I have any plans on procuring any violent porn, I just ask the question. And, more specifically, what is violent porn?
It follows a campaign by Berkshire woman Liz Longhurst whose daughter Jane, a Brighton schoolteacher, was strangled by Graham Coutts.
Mrs Longhurst’s campaign was backed by MPs and a 50,000-signature petition.
Ah, so that’s why. Well, I understand Mrs Longhurst’s motives. She lost a daughter to a violent murder and in her grief is lashing out at what she believes to be a factor, if not the actual cause of her daughter’s death. Entirely understandable. It is also entirely the wrong reason to be passing legislation.
Go back to my question; what is violent porn? The Devil’s Kitchen ponders the effect this may have on the BDSM community.
Are the BDSM community all going to be arrested?
There is, of course, a precedent with BDSM practitioners regarding consensual violence. Where, though, is the line drawn? From Frank Fisher’s article in Comment is Free:
Well, any image that is pornographic, and involves violence that appears realistic and would result in death or serious or disabling results.
As Frank points out, mainstream movies can be guilty of that…
The problem with making law on the back of an emotive campaign (apart from vague definitions) is that you end up with bad law. Dunblane led to gun restrictions that mean our Olympic team cannot practice in their own country. So, too, the Dangerous Dogs Act during the Major administration as he, like Blair chased the headlines and allowed policy to follow the red tops’ agenda rather than what was the right thing to do.
Graham Coutts is a violent man predisposed to act out his fantasies and kill an innocent person. He committed his crime because he is so predisposed. This predisposition is, doubtless, why he enjoyed looking at violent porn. That he was a killer is an insight as to why he liked that type of porn. The evidence suggests that he likes violent porn becasue he is a violent man, not that violent porn made him a violent man. There has never been a causal link established that points to pornography leading to violent sex offences. Indeed, according to information looked at by Chris, the opposite may be true.
This legislation sets a dangerous precedent. It is bad law. And, as the Devil’s Kitchen points out, government responding to what womens’ groups, church leaders and police want is a damn fool stupid reason to be passing legislation and is the wrong way to go about it. Whatever happened to weighing up the evidence and considering unexpected consequences? I guess we’ll have to wait for the courts to handle the fallout from those.