It's a useful (from the police's point of view) way to prosecute someone who you suspect of something worse. If someone gets accused of an actual crime, but that can't be proven or turns out to be unfounded suspicion, them having some violent porn becomes rather more useful for the law.
No, I didn't mean that as a good thing generally. It's just a good thing if you're looking to find something to pin on someone.
I think it's a terrible law that is intended to be used in that way. If it was intended to ban something real and specific, it would say so. It's a law of principal just so it can be applied to whateever people want.
It does raise some interesting questions. If rape is okay in a mainstream film, then how about a faked rape in pornography where scenes before and after make it clear that it's consensual? Now what about the same pornographic clip but on a -tube site without the context that shows it's consensual? If that's not okay, then surely it's illegal to watch The Accused.
The accused is an interesting example as well, because my memory of that particular scene was that there were a lot of lingering and exploitative shots of Jodie Fosters chest. (I might be wrong, I saw it as a teenager, so my recollection of the boobs might be overly stressed in my memory.)
I wouldn't be surprised if anybody who gets accused under these laws puts together a mix tape of scenes that are available in mainstream films, and plays it in court to ask what exactly the difference is.
Because, the accused aside, I can think of a half dozen movies I've seen where the rape scenes were unquestionably shot and designed to titillate the viewer.
But then, I suppose the legislating and controlling of pornography is an age-old battle waged between Those In Power (who want it to be restricted only for their own personal entertainment, and not available to the proles) and we the people.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
But then I seem to trust the police a great deal less than most.
no subject
I think it's a terrible law that is intended to be used in that way. If it was intended to ban something real and specific, it would say so. It's a law of principal just so it can be applied to whateever people want.
It does raise some interesting questions. If rape is okay in a mainstream film, then how about a faked rape in pornography where scenes before and after make it clear that it's consensual? Now what about the same pornographic clip but on a -tube site without the context that shows it's consensual? If that's not okay, then surely it's illegal to watch The Accused.
no subject
I wouldn't be surprised if anybody who gets accused under these laws puts together a mix tape of scenes that are available in mainstream films, and plays it in court to ask what exactly the difference is.
Because, the accused aside, I can think of a half dozen movies I've seen where the rape scenes were unquestionably shot and designed to titillate the viewer.
But then, I suppose the legislating and controlling of pornography is an age-old battle waged between Those In Power (who want it to be restricted only for their own personal entertainment, and not available to the proles) and we the people.