British Bill To Ban 'Extreme' Porn Infuriates Critics

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - British Bill To Ban 'Extreme' Porn Infuriates Critics stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS


First Posted: 12-30-08 05:24 PM   |   Updated: 01-30-09 05:12 AM

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Porn

To some people it is exactly the kind of protective legislation that Britain needs in a world where access to a vast array of pornography is available at the click of a mouse. To others, a new law banning "extreme" pornography gives the Government unprecedented powers to police bedrooms (and basements).

Critics, including at least two lords, say that legislation coming into force next month forbidding the possession of "an extreme pornographic image" will criminalise thousands of previously law-abiding people who have a harmless taste for unconventional sex.

Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 comes into force on 26 January and makes owning offending pictures a criminal offence punishable by up to three years' imprisonment. An image is deemed to be extreme if it "is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character" and portrays in any way an act which threatens a person's life, or which results or appears likely to result in serious injury to someone's genitals or breasts.

The law was passed earlier this year following a mother's emotive campaign after her daughter was killed by a man who claimed he was addicted to violent porn.

Opponents have no problems with two provisions banning images of bestiality or necrophilia - both of which are already illegal to do - but fear that the other definitions are so vaguely worded that even images of consenting adults engaging in fictional violence will now be outlawed, giving Britain the toughest anti-porn laws in Europe.

Members of Britain's BDSM (bondage, domination and sado-masochism) community, as well as those in the gothic and alternative scenes, complain that they are being unfairly targeted. "I firmly agree that images of non-consensual activities which involve violence should be criminalised but this is a badly worded law that risks criminalising thousands of ordinary people," said Claire Lewis, a 35-year-old disabled rights activist from Manchester who has set up the Consenting Adult Action Network (Caan). "The Government seems to be convinced that if people like us look at pictures for too long we'll end up turning into abusers. That's outrageous."

Caan campaigners plan to burn their pornography collections outside Parliament. A second group, Backlash, is hiring lawyers from the leading human rights firm Bindmans to contest cases when they come to court.

Myles Jackman, Backlash's legal adviser, said: "Ultimately it will be up to a magistrate and a jury to decide what constitutes extreme pornography but the wording is so impossibly vague it could constitute anything. Take the phrase 'life-threatening'. There is, I understand, a genre of porn known as 'smoking pornography' which you could argue combines pornography with a potentially life threatening act."

Story continues below
advertisement

Its supporters include the photographer Ben Westwood, eldest son of the fashion designer Vivienne. He fears some of his pictures, which often show images of people bound and gagged, could be outlawed in the new year. "I simply don't believe it is the Government's business to interfere in people's sexuality," he said. "What particularly offends me is that these laws were brought in without any consultation whatsoever with the people they affect. That is not a democracy."

The outlawing of extreme porn won the backing of the Home Office, under the former Home Secretary David Blunkett, after a three-year campaign by Liz Longhurst. Her daughter, Jane, was strangled by Graham Coutts in 2003. During his trial, Coutts said he had a fixation with asphyxiation porn and necrophilia. A petition started by Mrs Longhurst to outlaw violent pornography garnered 50,000 signatures.

The Bill went through the Commons unchallenged and only in the House of Lords was there any significant opposition. Baroness Miller, the Liberal Democrat peer, argued that the legislation would justify the Government "walking into people's bedrooms and turning them into criminals simply for viewing something".

The law is a significant change in direction for policing pornography in Britain because it shifts the burden of guilt from those making the pornography to those viewing it.

Enthusiasts of gothic horror and burlesque shows - which often feature pseudo-violence such as fake knives and participants covered in mock blood, say they are concerned that their artistic creativity will be stifled.

There are also concerns about how the law will be policed. Caan has taken a dossier of images to three major police forces: not one could yet say which pictures would be deemed illegal. One month ahead of the legislation being enacted, the Association of Chief Police Officers has yet to draw up any guidelines on how it is to be policed.

Yesterday, a spokeswoman from the Ministry of Justice said the new law would only be used to target the most extreme cases. "The new offence only covers the possession of images, it does not limit private sexual behaviour," she said.

It is little consolation for Westwood who has vowed to continue his erotic photography regardless: "I'm not going to stop what I do and nor should anyone else. There are already laws in place to stop people harming each other."

Read more on the Independent.

To some people it is exactly the kind of protective legislation that Britain needs in a world where access to a vast array of pornography is available at the click of a mouse. To others, a new law ban...
To some people it is exactly the kind of protective legislation that Britain needs in a world where access to a vast array of pornography is available at the click of a mouse. To others, a new law ban...
Filed by Hanna Ingber Win  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
153
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)
- meeneecat I'm a Fan of meeneecat 5 fans permalink

I'm generally against censorship, however I don't think, most people realize the trend in which pornography is taking. A new documentary on porn called "the price of pleasure" interviews many people in the industry and there's a telling scene where the producer of (vivid??, not sure though) says that he is scared of the trend in which porno is heading. He says, there's only so many ways to "bleep" and right now everyone is trying to be the most extreme and the current trend is getting much more violent. Then they show several clips from pornos, and cut to the army manual on torture...which describes exactly what was just being shown in the porn clips; water boarding, asphyxiation, infliction of severe pain, etc.

My feeling is, that these laws are designed to outlaw anything considered torture. Which I think most normal people would agree is wrong and should be outlawed. However, what most people don't seem to realize is that this type of stuff is currently happening in the porn industry...things like torture.

I've seen porn addicts deny till they are blue in the face that there are no abuses in the porn industry - but you would have to be an idiot not to see what is going on with some of these studios, especially after seeing some of these pornos then juxtaposing them with the army guide on torture. Is there anyone here that doesn't think torture is wrong and inhumane?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:33 AM on 01/02/2009
- meeneecat I'm a Fan of meeneecat 5 fans permalink

That first sentence should be "most people DON'T realize the trend in which pornography is taking". (it's late)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:54 AM on 01/02/2009

meeneecat:

I suggest you look up the meaning of the word "Consent".

People who participate in pornography are, in the very vast majority, CONSENTING adults. People who are being tortured do NOT consent.

People who participate in pornography can say STOP and, again, in the very vast majority of cases, what's happening will stop. Those who are being tortured have no such protection.

I'm sure that there are a very few examples of non-consensual acts taking place in some porn, however there are already laws to protect people from assault, bodily harm etc, passing a law like this will protect nobody and will criminalise innocent people simply for having tastes that are not "normal".

Incidentally, the maximum penalty for this law is three years in jail and being put on the Sex Offenders Register (as if, by owning pictures, even of legal, consensual acts, you're the same as a rapist or a child molestor), whereas, under English law, if I was to go out and assault someone on the street, I could get a much lower sentence.

Obviously just owning these Dangerous Pictures is worse than actually beating someone up!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:52 AM on 01/02/2009
- meeneecat I'm a Fan of meeneecat 5 fans permalink

I guess your not familiar with the economic situation of most of the women entering into this profession.

Ask a woman, if she had a choice, whether she would rather make $300 dollars a day selling her body to make videos, or $300 a day being a waitress, nurse, driver, nanny, teacher, etc.

Now, which do you think she would choose.

Now consider that most all of the jobs available to women do not pay $300 dollars a day, or the fact that there may be no jobs available at all. Then consider that women has 2 kids, and she's single, and the father isn't paying child support and she has to feed and cloth her family as well as provide shelter. So if a food service job is available, she could get $30 dollars a day minimum wage to work as a waitress and her family could barely eat for the week, let alone afford shelter or medicine....or she could make $300 a day selling her body to make a video. It's not a choice if you are coerced into it by your circumstances.

You can either sell your body and eat, or don't and starve - great "choice" there.

But, just like American consumers buying shoes from poor workers in mexico, it's much easier for consumers of these videos just to say "they choose to do it out of their own free will" than to recognize the reality of the situation.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:47 PM on 01/05/2009

this law is so wrong.so you can get up to two years in prison for downloading one extreme porn image.yet there are lots of people convicted of downloading child porn who get less.so extreme porn is worse than child porn.threre is no evidence that watching extreme porn makes you violent.the man who klilled liz longhurst daughter was a nut.its fine to watch films like saw hostel but if you record the violent scenes on to dvd its a crime.this law has clearly not been thought out at all.why not ban alcohol if there think extreme porn can make some people violent.how many people die or are injured because of alcohol.how many people are arrested because of alcohol.fine some people dont like it find it sick dont watch it.i find the thought of two men together sick but i dont say ban it.its like people with mental illness lots of people think we are violent i have bipolar total myth.how will there enforce it.do you rerally think there will be intrested.child porn will be the main thing still.anyway just use ixquick broser and use a vpn.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:30 PM on 01/01/2009
- DWGRadio I'm a Fan of DWGRadio 5 fans permalink

Hey you, Whitehouse...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:03 PM on 01/01/2009

This story provides yet another example of why Britain is a mere "also ran" in the sphere of basic human freedoms. We Americans are very lucky to have a real Constitution. Good riddance to Britain back in 1776. "Special Relationship" my a**.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:43 PM on 01/01/2009
- OSA23 I'm a Fan of OSA23 4 fans permalink
photo

if people sit down and spend the time to truly educate them - 'sensuality' has always been viewed as a threat to the parameters and standards 'polite society': polite society meaning a state controlled by religious overtones....

people who are always quick to point an accusing finger at the so-called 'internet pervs' have become mind-melded by the image of some crazed mentally unstable individual sitting in some dark, damp, moldy basement spending 90% of his time surfing the internet and masturbating like it was 1999..... however, the internet has opened the doors and gates for people to explore an essential aspect of the human psyche that has become demoted into some type of unnecessary dross - sensuality.

and while the brits are about to undergo such a harsh treatment of their personal rights to engage in sensual relationships that consenting individuals should engage in - a priest of the catholic religion can continue to molest young boys and girls with impunity because the church that sets these ban in action are removed from ANY and ALL responsibility for their actions. people need to educate themselves and cease from making emotionally driven judgements in regards to sensuality.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:12 PM on 01/01/2009
- Riani I'm a Fan of Riani 7 fans permalink
photo

I find it amazing that supposedly civilized people can be so passionate about protecting their right to watch pictures of naked people .Grow up, get a date, stop perving over the pictures.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:33 PM on 01/01/2009
photo

You should grow up, and try to get your tiny mind around the concept that what you do in the privacy of your home is nobody's business, as long as you're not hurting somebody against their will.

Are you so naive that you imagine this law will be applied equally to everybody? If so, you need a history lesson.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:28 PM on 01/01/2009

I am so excited about this BAN!! Awesome.. This whole "privacy in your own home" thing is such bunk! If you have to be 18 yrs old to go into a porn shop why should this crap be beamed all over the place. People that don't have kids don't care... Why should they? They are to busy wacking off...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:22 PM on 01/01/2009
- meeneecat I'm a Fan of meeneecat 5 fans permalink

It doesn't outlaw what two people can do privately in their bedroom. It outlaws what a commercial studio can produce and distribute. There is a distinction. If my recent comment ever gets posted - read it. The current trend of porn is becoming very violent, and there are many people WITHIN the industry that are very wary of this trend and have publicly stated so. Perhaps the law should be a bit more specific, I don't know I haven't read it, and neither has anyone else here most likely...But my feeling is that it intends to outlaw behavior that is considered to cause harm on another person, threaten death, or could be classified as torture - i.e. extreme pain, asphyxiation, simulated drowning, waterboarding, etc... And YES, all of these methods of torture, which is currently illegal in most countries can be found widespread in commercial porn.

People sticking up for the porn industry really need to take a look at what you are defending. It's not about "regulating the bedroom". It's about outlawing things like torture that should never be occurring in the first place....but because the porn industry has been so poorly regulated as of late, extreme violence has been allowed to flourish. No person, like this girl, should have to die or endure torture, just so some other person can get their #&$@ off!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:45 AM on 01/02/2009
- meeneecat I'm a Fan of meeneecat 5 fans permalink

The "privacy in your own home" argument is indeed bunk. This has nothing to do with what consenting adults do in the bedroom. It's regulation of a COMMERCIAL industry. Are you so naive as to think that governments have no right to regulate COMMERCIAL industry? Or are your beliefs so right-wing that you feel all industries should be left unregulated and unfettered just as the neo-conservatives would like?

By the way - this is a ban on VIOLENT acts - aka, anything that could cause death or physical harm to a person. Basically - if you read the army navy guide on torture - this ban would outlaw things of that nature. And there is indeed acts that would be considered torture occurring in the industry - there's first hand accounts from workers being tricked or coerced into these acts, as well there's many many depictions of these acts in the videos themselves.

I'm wondering why some liberals here think that it's not okay to torture prisoners of war, but it's a-okay to torture s ex workers so an industry can make a buck and some guy can you know what himself?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:24 PM on 01/05/2009
- meeneecat I'm a Fan of meeneecat 5 fans permalink

The "privacy in your own home" argument is indeed bunk. This has nothing to do with what consenting adults do in the bedroom. It's regulation of a COMMERCIAL industry. Are you so naive as to think that governments have no right to regulate COMMERCIAL industry? Or are your beliefs so right-wing that you feel all industries should be left unregulated and unfettered just as the neo-conservatives would like?

BTW, this is a ban on violent acts -
I'm wondering why some liberals here think that it's not okay to torture prisoners of war, but it's a-okay to torture workers in these videos so an industry can make a buck and some guy can you know what himself?

(for some reason I can't use certain words here or my comments all get deleted by mods)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:49 PM on 01/05/2009
- rbryanh I'm a Fan of rbryanh 108 fans permalink

Freedom of expression and open communication within a society are anything but trivial. A state that's allowed to capriciously limit the behavior of individuals without proving a substantial impact on the public good will become a fascist state.

At this stage in Britain, anyone who dares supports free speech will be called a "pervert". Next, anyone who asks for actual proof that pornography harms children will be called a "child molester". Then, witch hunts will be conducted against citizens, politicians, and members of the media who don't toe the line.

Attempts to undermine civil rights often start with fear- and shame-inducing issues like unconventional sexuality, whipping up hysteria using unproved suppositions about the welfare of women and children. It ends with "enemies of the state" being vanished in the middle of the night for reasons that are never publicly revealed.

This has very little to do with sex or porn, and absolutely nothing to do with the death of a child.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:11 PM on 01/01/2009
- meeneecat I'm a Fan of meeneecat 5 fans permalink

I don't think looking at naked pictures is perverted or "dirty" I do however think you are right in the people (men) get so defensive of their pornography that they generally don't care how the women in the porno is treated. I've known many a porn addict deny that there is any wrongdoing in the porn industry. In other words, there is abuse in practically every industry you can think of, from shipping to nannying, and yet the porn industry can do no wrong. It's a good example of how "brainwashed" commercialism can make some people.

If you read my other post, and also do some research, you will quickly learn that there is widespread abuse in the porn industry, from coercion, to rape, to torture, and in the case here...murder. No one should have to endure torture or be killed just so some guy can get his &$#@s off. This law is not intending to "regulate the bedroom" as most people here have put it. It's trying to ban regulate the industry so that abuses such as torture do no occur. The porn industry has been poorly regulated and I think most normal people would agree that no employee should have to endure torture or life threatening acts of pain and violence so that some company can make a profit.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:01 AM on 01/02/2009

meenecat:

I think YOU need to do some more research!

Your comment "people (men) get so defensive of their pornography that they generally don't care how the women in the porno is treated." sounds like 1970's Dworkinite "All men are rapists" feminism and is offensive nonsense. How many men have you actually asked or are you just making a ridiculous generalisation?

Your claim of "widespread abuse in the porn industry" is equally nonsense, based on what looks like a very one-sided "documentary" and your implication that murder is part of this "abuse" is ludicrous. Graham Coutts (who killed Jane Longhurst) did not have anything to do with the porn industry (nor any mythical "snuff" movies)

He had been drawing nooses on pictures of women long before the advent of the internet (or even home video), he had played asphyxiation games with other partners, indeed, at his trial, a friend of JL told the court that JL had told her about these games she had willingly played with him, yet GC is being portrayed as a cold-blooded murderer and JL as his victim, instead of her just being the victim of a game that went very wrong.

From your posts it seems to me that you're more interested (like those who proposed this law) in using it as an excuse to try to regulate the porn industry and control what people can view and you, like our Government, are just exploiting a single tragedy to get your way.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:23 AM on 01/02/2009

Riani:

You miss the point, we are protecting the right of ADULTS to decide what they view without being told by the Nanny State "this is bad for you, so we're not going to let you look at it" (see the Great Firewall of China...).

The UK Government have picked a Soft Target because not many will stand up and oppose this law, but what those people (and you) don't realise is that once it's in place, it sets a precedent that the Government can declare a whole *class* of images to be "unacceptable" and then we are on a very dangerous path towards State Censorship.

Civil Liberties in the UK are under serious and real threat from a Big Brother Government (look for a documentary called "Taking Liberties" for more details), this is just another example of basic rights being whittled away by a Government which wants to control what we can or cannot see, require us to carry ID cards, keep all of our DNA on a database, record where we travel, who we call, which websites we visit...

Those who say "what's wrong with this law? It's not protecting anything I'm interested in" don't realise that ALL liberties are precious (I need to tell Americans this...?!) and threats to those liberties must be resisted before they are whittled away.

In the words of Pastor Martin Niemoller: First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:12 AM on 01/02/2009
photo

Slowly erode people's rights and they won't respond until the cliff is long gone from beneath their feet.

This law is the first step towards censorship of the internets and i shudder to think of who gets to decide what is "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character". By this definition it should be illegal to own pictures of Bush, Cheney, O'Rielly, Limbaugh, etc.

The government has no business inside the bedroom of consenting adults.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:52 PM on 01/01/2009
- lizziekw I'm a Fan of lizziekw 39 fans permalink

Hysterics out to ban pornography usually have the biggest, kinkiest porn stashes in their basements.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:33 PM on 01/01/2009
- igorz I'm a Fan of igorz 24 fans permalink

Oh great, now all of the British porno junkies will be moving here. Just what we need, more Brits.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:32 PM on 01/01/2009

Is not Britain one of the most watched (cctv) and so they give up more of their rights along with dna samples (bloodings). No suprise they move into the bedroom.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:19 PM on 01/01/2009
- paulfree17 I'm a Fan of paulfree17 11 fans permalink

It is so interesting that when it comes to sex every country with the possible exception of Denmark and Holland tries to out prude the next. From banning pornography in many countries to beating women for not covering themselves or talking to an unrelated male most ot fhe world equates sex with filth.

Even in politics you are far more likely to destroy a political career through a sexual dalliance (see Bill Clinton, Jim McGreevey, Gary Hart, Eliiot Spitzer, et al) then from anything involving corruption, starting wars under false pretenses, illegal spying or torture.

Show a set of genitals in a movie and it is rater X or MA and you must be 18 to see it. Show someones head getting blown off and the movie can get a PG-13 or maybe an R. How can we say that viewing pornography leads to rape while not considering that watching violence can lead to murder? If you believe the first then when will we start banning all movies and images that show someone getting killed?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:18 PM on 01/01/2009
- lisa12345 I'm a Fan of lisa12345 13 fans permalink

Holland has been reigning in parts of the red light district, actually.

Too many female sexual slaves.

In your first paragraph, you state that banning porn comes from equating sex with filth. You say it is done for the same reasons that people in the Islamic world beat women for not covering themselves (seeing sex as filth).

No. I do not agree with beating women for not covering themselves. Yes, beating women for not covering themselves is about a problem with sex/women's sexuality. Banning porn is not. I am comfortable with sexuality. I do not want porn banned because I am against sex. I am opposed to porn, not sexuality.

It appears that one of the biggest obstacles to discussing these issues is the fact that those who want porn legal keep reframing and reframing to make this about sex and not porn.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:17 PM on 01/05/2009
- lisa12345 I'm a Fan of lisa12345 13 fans permalink

"reining"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:32 PM on 01/05/2009
- meeneecat I'm a Fan of meeneecat 5 fans permalink

Lisa, You are right, that those who think the p. orn industry can "do no wrong" constantly try to re frame and twist the arguments so as to constantly accuse any critics of automatically being "anti- s. ex"...When in fact it's not about the s .ex at all.

The industry is heading in a decidedly violent direction...so much so that people, including producers at major studios have expressed concern about the violence.

Academics have done surveys, including watching the popular films being rented today, and sitting in on the filming at popular studios - what they found in many of the "extreme" varieties of videos was use of violence that would be classified as tor ture by the u.s gov't.

I said it before, and I'll say it again...isn't it interesting that the "liberals" here are against the use of tor ture by the gov't...but think it's okay when it's being used against women in p. orn films. Anything so that these people can get off, huh?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:43 PM on 01/07/2009
- lisa12345 I'm a Fan of lisa12345 13 fans permalink

One other thing--Denmark. You praise it, for not trying to "out prude" the next.

Denmark is starting to capitulate to certain aspects of Islam that have libertarians concerned.

That sounds worse than prudish. That sounds kinda scary.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:32 PM on 01/05/2009
- paulfree17 I'm a Fan of paulfree17 11 fans permalink

When Harvey Milk and Mayor Moscone were assassinated in San Francisco is 1978 the city councilman who killed them was acquitted based on the "Twinkie Defense". He killed two people due to a sugar rush from eating too many twinkies.

Last I saw Twinkies were still on the shelf.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:03 PM on 01/01/2009
- mystic I'm a Fan of mystic 18 fans permalink

The 70s were a terrible time in America. I recall in Texas (fancy that!!) where a judge had acquitted a murderer who had killed a man just for being gay, claiming "being gay was a provokative act".
I thought the Brits were not much ahead of us--they legalised gays in the military kicking and screaming only because of pressure from international human rights laws vviolations. The US doesn't care about international laws, after all we celebrate torture, hence the world reviles us. Deservedly. We are so arrogant and self righteous, and our silence makes us complicit. But the Brits are not far behind.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:46 PM on 01/01/2009
- lisa12345 I'm a Fan of lisa12345 13 fans permalink

I am not sure what you are saying, Mystic, if you approve of the ban or not.

But I will say this. I think when you say we celebrate torture, you are right. Americans tolerated this war, the reports of torture--sure, many complained, but it is not like we surrounded the pentagon by the thousands, demanding an end to the torture. I have been wondering where our tolerance for this comes from. Many places to be sure. One reason is that we are violent. We like violent entertainment, we like violent video games, we sentence people to death, we like weapons, we are hawks.

We need to rethink our violent ways, including our celebration of violent, sexual torture as a form of entertainment.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:28 PM on 01/05/2009
photo

Jesus Christ. More people died as a direct result of the financial collapse. But banning porn...that's what's really important at a time like now.

Morons

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:19 AM on 01/01/2009
- meeneecat I'm a Fan of meeneecat 5 fans permalink

Ha, that ol "isn't there more important things to be focusing on" defense. I find this one especially amusing, because it's as if the people debating this issue (or any issue) don't care about anything else in the world - which is obviously not true. I hear this type of comment all the time when someone doesn't want to listen to what the other person has to say. They just tort back with a "don't you have anything better to think about at a time like this" or "OMG! people are starving in ____, and you want to talk about _____"

I've just head this phrase and it's variations time and time again in my course of teaching to know that it's a particularly effective SILENCING technique, especially when the person(s) it's directed at doesn't know the purpose.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:53 AM on 01/02/2009

By the way, the kind of nutjobs who comprise the membership of the NRA support this kind of nonsensical, hysterical legislation while wanting to see to it that anyone over the age of five has access to a firearm. Can you say, "no sense of proportion"?

Incidentally, what did the murderer have for breakfast the morning before he killed his victim? Maybe we ought to ban that, too, because everyone is addicted to food.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:01 AM on 01/01/2009
- Marioth I'm a Fan of Marioth 32 fans permalink
photo

Welcome to a world without the First Ammendment.

This case was clearly decided on emotions alone. Porn is not the problem. The West's failure to address human sexuality in positive terms for all involved is the problem. We are a sex-negative culture that does not wish to discuss it. Ever. Not even when their own child's lives depend on it.

Only problem here: Silence = Death.

It claimed two members of my own family.

In short, Grow Up.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:57 AM on 01/01/2009
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect