But this bans the appearance of being injured so the person isn't injured at all it only looks like it. So that argument fails right there.
Should ann summers ban selling whips/paddles too?
Do you think boxing should be banned?
Police set to step up hacking of home PCs
- Thread starter riddlermarc
- Start date
But this bans the appearance of being injured so the person isn't injured at all it only looks like it. So that argument fails right there.
Should ann summers ban selling whips/paddles too?
Do you think boxing should be banned?
Not very likely, it would destroy their business. And people distributing real spyware/malware would use the same method/type as the police so they couldn't be stopped, and if they did you could just get the American version of the software.
By chance, I have just come across an article on how the current authorities use lies and bogeymen to put laws into place that are very different to what they're initially claimed to be. This is about the new laws on prostitution, but the general process is the same:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/04/worstall_s3x_trafficking/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/04/worstall_s3x_trafficking/
Regardless, it shows that consent can be a defence in the law.
A child can say yes or no, but they aren't developed enough to be able to consent, so they aren't actually consenting. I don't personally have a problem with bestiality, I cannot eat meat and then condemn that.
But the act you are commiting causes people to lose money at that time, regardless of what the after effects are, you can almost always justify something for the greater good.
Harm or such high risk of harm is what I personally would base law on. My point is that the law should only be based on the idea of harm and nothing else, it should be about protecting people from harm, no morals or values which vary among everyone should be involved. We many not like something but that doesn't not mean people shouldn't be able to do it, that's what freedom is about.
Last edited:
Not all rape videos are fake - in fact last year there was a real one on youtube before it was pulled.
My first question would be one of consent. My second question would be whether the person in handcuffs could actually get out of them unaided if they wanted to.
I'm indifferent on the subject. I don't like the sport, don't watch it and will leave a pub if it's on, but I don't think I'd go to the effort of banning it either. I'm not sure how my personal opinion on the sport comes in to this though. If it was a simple as to press a button to ban it (rather than hypothetically sitting there drafting the legislation etc etc) then I think I probably would, yes.
And what does that have to do with regulated videos made?
By banning the production on ones which are fake in this country, you force them outside/underground where they are not regulated and they are more likely to be real.
But you've said you can't consent to a crime.
That would be a no based on how handcuffs work mechanically.
So you're defending the freedom to masturbate to someone being beaten to death?
That's how it comes into it.
Not really, because it's unlikely that a case will ever be decided the same way again. I certainly wouldn't like to be the one relying on that case as my authority...
So you'd repeal s69(2) SOA 2003 and decriminalise allowing your dog to bugger you?
No it only causes people to lose money at that time if they would have otherwise purchased that item if they could not obtain it through infringement.
Yes that is what freedom is, but you only have to look at the HRA to see that basic freedoms do sometimes need to be limited on the basis of us not liking something. Under Article 8 you have a right to a family life, but if that family life includes incest (with, for the sake of not going down the same route twice, consenting over 18 year olds) then SOA 2003 can sweep in and say no.
That's an excuse not to ban anything though surely?
No I said you can't consent to assault. This is very obviously not true of every crime. For example, if you consent to rape then clearly it is no longer rape. If you consent to me taking your book then clearly it is no longer theft. The default position is that a person may consent to whatever they want - it is only in certain situations, such as physical harm, where the right to consent is removed.
No what I meant is that there are some handcuffs where there is a latch you can press to release them where such a latch is placed in such a place that the person in said handcuffs can press the latch themselves. These are often used, for example, in plays (and I would imagine BDSM). My second question, to be more exact, is thus whether the handcuffs are of such a type that the person in them can remove them without a key nor outside help.
I'm confused, you're defending a person's right to masturbate to someone being beaten to death, not I... Surely that makes my position completely consistent?
Firstly I do not object to divorce being legal. Secondly, please quote me saying such a thing. Thirdly, I'm not married so that would make zero sense. Fourthly, it's not comparable at all because all I did was ask you why you made such a statement - that's how a debate works - whereas you would be making an assertion without foundation. Fifthly, why are you bringing other threads in to this one?
Sorry for the quadruple post people
; keep noticing people have replied to something else I've said and forgetting to edit it in rather than reply.Boxing is a sport with rules. Violent pornography, isn't.
Consent of risk is something which is generally not a defense in law. Sport is an interesting exception because the players and spectators consent to risks associate with participating within the rules of that activity.
If someone is killed in boxing whilst within the rules of the match, no one will be liable. If someone is hit whilst unconcious on the floor on a boxing ring, that's a different matter entirely.
Consent of risk is something which is generally not a defense in law. Sport is an interesting exception because the players and spectators consent to risks associate with participating within the rules of that activity.
If someone is killed in boxing whilst within the rules of the match, no one will be liable. If someone is hit whilst unconcious on the floor on a boxing ring, that's a different matter entirely.
In the end the jury can nullify as they please.
Or make leather and meat illegal. As long as the animal isn't harmed I couldn't care less.
Or rented it. If the person can prove that they wouldn't have bought it then fine. Personally though I would change all copyright offences to civil matters, I don't think the criminal courts should be spending their time with such trivial matters.
No I don't see that they do. I see that the people who wrote the legislation think they do.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Some people who use handcuffs for this on a regular basis use this type mainly for comfort reasons:
Despite the look, if your hands are not together (I.e. on bed posts) they are rather difficult to get out of.
Which they do what...about once every two decades?
And how often do these cases come to court exactly?
Well that's simple then, just regulate and provide rules for BDSM media. There are already rules for pornography so why not have contracts etc. just like I assume there are contracts for boxing.
I think you know well that there is a decent amount of case law on this - so CONSIDERABLY more than once every two decades.