
Fifty Shades of Grey Would Be Banned in UK? - Tinned_Tuna
http://coderinaworldofcode.blogspot.com/2013/07/50-shades-of-grey-made-illegal-in-uk.html
======
EliRivers
As I understand it, it's either now illegal or will be illegal (in the UK) to
sell/possess/something footage of two consenting adults who are not engaged in
rape, but are simulating rape. They simulate this through force, words,
threats, all that sort of thing. So if that's illegal, even though it's
provably not an actual rape (depending on who made it, obviously, but in
theory we could call up the participants to check, or if they let the cameras
keep running someone will shout "Cut" and they stop and go for a coffee), what
protects similar scenes of simulated rape in books (if indeed they should be
protected)?

I must say the idea of FSoG being banned does make me think there's an upside
to this :p

~~~
king_jester
> As I understand it, it's either now illegal or will be illegal (in the UK)
> to sell/possess/something footage of two consenting adults who are not
> engaged in rape, but are simulating rape. They simulate this through force,
> words, threats, all that sort of thing.

This is already a really dangerous thing. Rape is sex without consent and rape
doesn't always look like a struggle with violent resistance. If enforcement
looks only to a violent struggle as a requirement for labeling porn as rape
porn, that gov't is reenforcing existing stereotypes about rape and sexual
assault.

~~~
peterwwillis
How someone depicts rape or how stereotypical it is is irrelevant. The
dangerous component here is the limitation on freedom of expression. This
horse has been beaten to death 10 million times, but here's a distillation of
the argument:

If you ban, for example, all simulation of racist themes, you eliminate a
certain kind of harmful imagery, which is a good thing. But this also prevents
one from educating people as to why racism is wrong, by showing a depiction
and how harmful it can be. It would ban things like movies about the life of
Malcolm X or Martin Luther King Jr or Emmett Till.

As relates to rape, this would ban Lifetime movies which show the gritty
horrible reality of rape and the subsequent damage it does to people's lives.
That violent struggle is a stereotype of rape that hides non-consensual sex as
a form of rape is irrelevant to the main point: _this law destroys our ability
to educate and our freedom of expression_.

~~~
king_jester
> That violent struggle is a stereotype of rape that hides non-consensual sex
> as a form of rape is irrelevant to the main point: this law destroys our
> ability to educate and our freedom of expression.

I totally agree with your point. However, promoting stereotypes about rape
does diminish our ability to educate about the facts and experiences of
survivors and makes it so that causes of and solutions to rape as a form of
institutional violence become obscured.

------
skinofstars
I think a more notable example included in that is A Clockwork Orange, which
clearly depicts (simulated) rape. Is this classic now going to be illegal to
distribute online in the UK?

~~~
lukifer
Others, off the top of my head:

    
    
      - Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
      - Secretary
      - Compliance
      - Kill Bill
      - Pulp Fiction (or does it not count when men are raped?)

~~~
merlincorey
Who was raped in the movie Secretary? They got happily married.

In the original short story, it is, well, quite another story.

~~~
lukifer
Not rape, but sexual assault. It becomes consensual, but it doesn't really
start that way.

~~~
merlincorey
This will surely be unpopular here but...

So enthusiastic consent doesn't work for you?

I'd agree the initial contact could be considered sexual assault, if it
resulted in her feeling that way. Instead she enjoyed it and wanted it to
continue, and continue they did. He wanted to stop because he felt like he was
crossing a line and she wanted to keep going. That's about as enthusiastic as
it can get without being explicit.

~~~
lukifer
I'm talking about those who want this law, and ultimately would see the film
in the wrong light. I have no problem with it at all.

~~~
merlincorey
Fair enough!

------
deelowe
How much of this is the old political trick of creating a law that is overly
broad and nuanced only to come back and refine it to something slightly more
specific later? Perhaps the plan all along has been to create something that
will cause outrage so that people don't complain when the next version comes
around that's only slightly better, but still worse off than before.

~~~
petercooper
That was broadly true of British obscenity laws for decades (centuries?). You
couldn't publish anything that was obscene or that could disturb people but
just _what_ that meant was poorly defined and pretty much up to judges and
juries.

I actually kinda like that typically British approach though since it allows
tastes to move with the times without actually rewriting any laws. What's
"obscene" in 2013 is not the same as in 1940, for example, but it does take
court cases to set precedents.

------
DanBC
It is not banned in the UK.

The proposed laws are stupid, but making shit up is not useful for discussion.

We went through the same nonsense when the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was
introduced, and yet we can still walk into shops and buy American Beauty and
other films.

------
w_t_payne
Phase 1. Set up a surveillance state & keep a record of everything that your
victims/subjects do.

Phase 2. Pass legislation that people cannot meaningfully object to, yet is
worded so vaguely and in such woolly terms that it tars a significant section
of the population with the same brush.

Phase 3. Profit!

.... Finally, a 3-step plan to profit that does not involve underpants!

------
theboywho
So now the UK is turning into saudi arabia ? or is it iran ?

Anyone who is choked when they hear about alcohol or porn banned in these
countries and is not choked by this move from the UK government has a serious
mental problem.

~~~
boothead
I'm guessing that the being choked will also be illegal...

~~~
jbigelow76
Only if it turns you on.

------
peterwwillis
Food for thought: The Bible contains depictions of rape. Maybe this law isn't
so bad after all...

~~~
quantumpotato_
That will be interesting.

------
zimpenfish
Been a while since I read it and, honestly, I wasn't really taking that much
notice but I don't remember any forcible or coercive rape in FSOG.

~~~
Tinned_Tuna
Rape is sex without consent. Force and coercion are related, but not actually
required for rape.

~~~
zimpenfish
I don't remember any non-consensual sex either but like I said, it's been a
while.

~~~
noja
Maybe you were so harmed by the content of the book, that you got amnesia.
Luckily Cameron will save others from that same sorry fate.

------
infinita740
My kindle contains The Pillars of the Earth (Ken Follett), so now I can't
travel to uk without violating the law?

Quoting from wikipedia: "The book was listed at no. 33 on the BBC's Big Read"
(2003)

Everybody is a suspect, when will we start to learn from history?

------
jlebrech
wouldn't that logic mean that both the koran and the bible are banned too?

~~~
Mordor
Perhaps we could close all the churches, synagogues, mosques and temples to...
protect the children.

------
nicholassmith
Plus they're big on removing child pornography so we can also say good bye to
Lolita as well.

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
As I recall it Lolita is discreet with the intercourse depictions; it's never
"graphic" as I gather is 50 Shades.

~~~
nicholassmith
Good point, but we don't know how much is too much yet.

------
alayne
This is the first I've heard about books being banned. I'm extremely skeptical
of this claim.

~~~
merlincorey
I think they [the author] are intentionally exploring it. In fact, a good
portion of the article is on the definition of "depict"[1], which would
probably include books by most people's understanding. The other point is
being available online - which books are via kindle and other services.

> Also falling into firmly into this category is Burgess' "A Clockwork
> Orange". Once again, it's available for Kindle, it definitely depicts rape,
> and it's read world-wide by millions.

This is both a book and a film - extremely famous, and has a rape scene. Is it
going to be illegal (once again)?

Earlier, in the same section he says:

> Given that many contemporary novels (and less-contemporary) novels do deal
> with sexual abuse and rape, some of which explore the idea of "rape fantasy"
> (Herein referred to by the more accepted name, "ravishment") between
> consenting partners means that a large portion of those with an interest in
> BDSM and kink will fall into this category.

So, whether novels will be included or not, there is definitely already media
which is currently legal and consumed by law abiding citizens who have no
predilections or desires to rape anyone that may suddenly become illegal. This
is a problem, in my opinion.

I'm glad I have the first and second amendments... for now.

[1]
[http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/depict](http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/depict)

~~~
jschuur
Who is intentionally exploring it? What makes you think this? Can you provide
credible news sources to back up this claim that Cameron's intended anti porn
measures (which have already seen conflicting pieces on opt-out vs opt-in)
will be applied to books?

Other than a sensationalist blog post by someone whose passion for free speech
led them to wildly jump to unfounded conclusions, which doesn't help the
legitimate discussion around this topic at all?

~~~
merlincorey
> Who is intentionally exploring it?

The person you assigned the identifier "someone whose passion for free speech
led them to wildly jump to unfounded conclusions" which is far too long of an
identifier, if you ask me, but that's not really the point either.

> What makes you think this?

The fact that I read the article makes me think that the person who wrote the
article is exploring said concept.

> Can you provide credible news sources to back up this claim that Cameron's
> intended anti porn measures (which have already seen conflicting pieces on
> opt-out vs opt-in) will be applied to books?

Can you provide the quoted text from the article we are discussing which makes
this exact claim? I never said it did, I said it was exploring the
possibility, and to back that up I included relevant passages and information.

Furthermore, I made the point, which you ignored, that whether or not books
are included, there is currently media that is being consumed and possessed by
people in the UK which will certainly be considered illegal very soon. Can you
tell me your stance on how good or bad that is?

------
drunkenmasta
and goodbye, Irréversible, Stockholm International Film Festival's winner for
best film.

------
Fizzadar
Cameron was looking good until recently with his crackdown (however slight) on
our disgraceful benefit system. And now he looks to censor the population
under the guise of protecting children (teaching them how to protect
themselves is probably a better option). This country is rapidly going
downhill as our freedoms are slowly reduced.

\--

That said, an opt-in porn filter for parents is always going to be a
good/useful thing. But we all know any determined individual (and I'd suspect
many young-ish people) will bypass these blockades in no time at all, just as
we have with Kickass/TPB.

------
idw
It's likely that this will be an extension of s63 of existing 'extreme
pornography' ban in s63 etc. of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/part/5/crossheadi...](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/part/5/crossheading/pornography-
etc)

That only covers images (including video) and does not cover films that have
been classified as a 15, 18 etc., i.e. most commercial/cinema films.

------
calgoo
What about all the prison rape scenes in movies?? Will this make them illegal?
Or as they are same sex, they don't count? Would be interesting to see if they
classify them as perversion or something similar instead of rape. With this
current government, it would not surprise me if they say that a same sex rape
victim is asking for it or something...

~~~
rbehrends
Unlikely. Anti-pornography laws generally only apply to imagery whose purpose
is to be titillating [1]. There's just too much content of a sexual nature
that is perfectly legitimate (arts, sciences, and journalism in particular).

[1] See, e.g., the Scottish law after which the legislation is supposed to be
modeled:
[http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/03/extremeporno...](http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/03/extremepornographyguidanc/Q/pno/2)

~~~
workbench
> purpose is to be titillating

Who decides where the line is drawn?

~~~
rbehrends
The courts. See the link.

In practice, this definition has rarely [1] been a problem. There are more
serious concerns.

For example, a real problem with possession-based laws (as opposed to
distribution-based laws) is how comparatively easy it is to frame innocent
people [2]. Law enforcement likes possession-based laws, because they are an
order of magnitude easier to prove and prosecute.

[1] Which is not to say "never".

[2] [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-
london-11397515](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11397515)

------
auctiontheory
"Possess" should also be in quotes, as this law applies to online pr0n.

------
laichzeit0
Wow, what a nanny state.

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
... compared to?

~~~
cmircea
Somalia.

------
astine
Oh no, this new wave of UK anti-porn zealotry will ban even legitimate
literature like 50 Shades of Grey... Give me a break. 50 Shades of Grey is a
porn novel. It's a porn novel that made the best seller list, much to the
first world's embarrassment and I'll bet you anything that it's what prompted
this law in the first place. There are a lot of legitimate reasons to be
concerned about this new proposed law, but I won't shed a tear for 50 Shades.

~~~
spiek
I think you are missing the point. It seems that the author used 50 Shades of
Grey to illustrate his "If everyone is a criminal, no one is" point. Literary
merit aside, 50 Shades of Grey was a massive hit, and also pornographic,
meaning that lots and lots of people read it, and lots and lots of people are
now "criminals".

Also, in terms of freedom of expression how is 50 shades of grey any less
significant than any of the other books he listed?

~~~
astine
"Literary merit aside, 50 Shades of Grey was a massive hit, and also
pornographic, meaning that lots and lots of people read it,"

Which is probably something that the UK government does not want happening
again.

"and lots and lots of people are now "criminals"."

No they're not, unless they decide to share copies of the novel online. I must
have really missed it if there was something about retroactively enforcing
laws.

There are legit concerns here, but fsog isn't one.

~~~
spiek
FSOG (nice acronym, it's a pain in the ass to type out) demonstrates that
there a wide segment of the population that is willing and interested in
reading material which the government is attempting to criminalize. I misspoke
when I said they "are now" criminals, I should have said they will be
criminals.

>Which is probably something that the UK government does not want happening
again.

Also, this gets my hackles up. Why should they not want it to happen again,
besides pointless and absurd moralizing? People have been writing smut for
thousands of years. The first books printed with Gutenberg's printing press?
Porn. What's different now?

