British State Invents New Kind Of Porn. (New Law, number 014/3429456-254ngj-ftry-78923)


David Davis

There are no comments allowed on the Daily ToryGraph, on this matter. But I said this on facebook   instead:-

It will be intriguing to see whether, when the law that will be drafted and passed (as you and I all know instinctively that it will be) it will also apply to women posting pictures of their ex-boyfriends…for example, “doing this or that”, or “wearing something from my lingerie-collection”, and so on, and so on.
I bet you all £5,000,000,000 (each) that it won’t. Only “women will be protected” by this new, groundbreaking and far-reaching rectification of a crying injustice emanating from Tory Cuts, and that tragically and psychologically affects and damages millions of British women every year”….

You see…I can bullshit all the politically-correct stuff with the best of the Frankfurt School themselves. In fact, I can simulate the stuff better than they can, like Michael Caine imitating himself. He even sounded better than he would if he was acting… As indeed he did once on the “live” wire-less Tele-vision.

You can take the bet or not as it pleases you. (Form an orderly queue to drop your bank-transfer-notifications into my hat when the time comes, plus any “bearer-bond” Gold-Deposit-certificates that you care to adduce as part-payments.

I feel pretty safe making that monetary estimate of my takings.

Since human beings are Free Individuals, with Free Will (given by God of course…) nobody can force them to be deliberately photographed in any sort of position or act whatsoever. If they did agree, then it’s their lookout. If they didn’t and the photos were “made”, then a different crime, already very well understood and legally covered, was simultaneously committed, and there is no need for a “new law”.

About these ads

11 responses to “British State Invents New Kind Of Porn. (New Law, number 014/3429456-254ngj-ftry-78923)

  1. When comments on a political story are likely to be of a critical nature, the Telegraph has a tendency not to allow them.

    On the other hand, the paper always welcomes comments regarding “celebrities'” hair styles and football etc no matter what.

    Odd that.

    • I’ve noticed that too. It’s trying to compete with the Daily Mail – which is still also not behind a paywall yet – and the DT is failing. I only “keep it on” because I need some sort of realtime factual source of newspegs. And the DM doesn’t pretend to capture everything I want to rant about.

      • You pay for the Daily Telegraph? I don’t see the point. Between the BBC, Daily Mail, and Guardian websites, you can get your daily quota of news sustenance, surely.

      • To be fair, the DT is nowhere near as far into the toilet of intellect as Dacre’s torrent of excretia. I sometimes try to convince myself that the Daily Mail isn’t really symptomatic of a society in terminal decline, but always fail.

    • The DT mods are at least reasonably permissive.

      I don’t entirely blame them avoiding some comment sections. They know that they will invariably fill up with people saying angry and very politically incorrect things, and as part of the Establishment operating under Victorianism II, they have to watch the speaking of the unspeakable.

  2. Well of course this has several things going on in it. One of them is the Feminist/Familee Valews project to salami slice porn into nonexistence, since they can’t directly ban it all like Demon Drink or “narcotics” at the moment.

    But there’s an interesting question here anyway, of whether anyone has a right to privacy. I just don’t think they do; I think it’s a positive right, not a negative one, that is not a libertarian one. You have a right to be a private person in your behaviour, but if somebody finds something out about you, you don’t have a right for it not to be known.

    An interesting example would be bank account details. Do you have a right to keep them private? I don’t think you do. You have a right not to have your property (money) stolen. I.e. the crime is not in somebody knowing your bank details, the crime occurs if somebody uses them to raid your account. Like HMRC, for instance.

    Neither does one have a right not to be embarrassed. The idea is rather strange really. What we have here is the question of how to deal with living in a panopticon. And it seems to me that the only way to deal with a panopticon is to not be embarrassed.

    Let us suppose some ex girlfriend has a photo of me naked. Well, if it gets published on the net, it might be mildly embarrassing, but ultimately I would just say, “yes, I have a body under my clothes. There it is. Take it or leave it”.

    *shrug*

    There is no intrinsic reason that it would be any more embarrassing- and protected by some new law- than me with my spectacular bottle blonde mullet in 1985. Come to think of it, I’d probably prefer people see the nude one than the mullet. How the hell we ever thought they were cool, I cannot imagine. But we did. Sheesh.

    But really, what we haev here is another aspect of the Moralist Society; the public morality that differs from the private one. What really people are bothered about is that “revenge porn” may reveal that a young lady is not such a lady as she’d have others believe. In other words, in another strange Feminist inversion, the people most noisy about “slut shaming” are actually the most ashamed of sluts.

    Which brings us back to my usual puritanism schtick, and my observation that if you really care about “slut shaming”, the only response to “I have a photo of Jane with three guys” is “oh, good for her. So what?”.

    This? This is like pretending you’re combatting anti-semitism by banning the discussion of Jews, or something. Pure nonsense.

  3. The other thing, having mentioned the Daily Mail already, is that if we truly extended this principle of not being able to embarrass people in this manner, it would immediately make the tabloid press illegal. But presumably they will continue to be allowed to embarrass people with photographs; it’ll just be ordinary men who are prosecuted.

  4. One worry I have is one that the RevengePorNazis have I am sure already thought of.

    It is that an enraged woman or girl, angry at having either been jilted or else perhaps as seeing herself taken for a mug by some man she shortly fell out of love with, will fake up photos of herself in “exciting positions and clothing”.

    She will then “publish” these, shortly afterwards get some accomplice to “discover” them, and then will be blaming the ex-man for putting them up. The Police will inevitably arrest him because he’s male. He’ll then have to go through the whole process (the process is the punishment of course, as the ex-President of the Oxford Union recently found out) of trying to clear his name, losing his job, reputation, friends and stuff in the meantime. Because he’s a “man” and so he “must have taken the pics and published them”.

    A jury will find it very hard not to convict, and will be under severe pressure from judges and barristers and government. I see it coming.

  5. David, indeed. I must admit, I hadn’t thought of that. Considering the Progressivist habit of faking hate crimes (my favourite was the girl who carved hate speech into her own face, forgetting that mirrors reverse the writing, lolz) it’s bound to happen.

    Also, I must admit that this is not a genre of “porn” I consider much, but I’m sure the first example I ever saw was an angry girl who had posted naked photos of her ex to tell the world how small his winkie was. Of course in our Feminist discourse, that never happens, it’s only evil men doing it.

    It all reminds me a bit tangentially of reading something written about a century ago describing how women who wanted divorces would often get a friend to claim they had had an affair with their husband, thus labelling the innocent husband an adulterer. And while I’m on the subject oif bad behaviour, the same article casually mentioned something which we have all now forgotten- the origin of the phrase “to pour vitriol”. It was the then-still popular practise of angry women throwing sulphuric acid (vitriol) over those at whom they were angry- whether men or other women. The article opined that this was the only reason chemists stocked it for sale to the general public.

  6. Julie near Chicago

    Such shenanigans are already in the repertoire of *insert favored 4-letter label for truly nasty persons* a thousand or six years ago, where reputations, careers, fortunes, and family lives are wiped out or broken without repair, laws or no laws. (I do NOT mean that such laws are desirable! Just that mischief will be done either way.)

    This seems to be part of the human condition, and I doubt that libertarianism or any other philosophy is going to change that. One reason why there cannot ever be a Libertopia, over the long haul that is.

    Still, any statute law ought to be provably both necessary and effective in curbing criminal behavior on the part of persons and groups, foreign and domestic. (Where “necessary” means >necessary, that is ‘“absolutely” necessary.)

    There is an ongoing dispute as to whether a person’s or business’s reputation is rightly within the purview of statute law…. Reputation is, of course, part of any person’s social (or political) acceptability, and of any business’s stock-in-trade, an of any nation’s effectiveness in international agreements and conflicts, or of any private organization’s effectiveness in its chosen area of endeavour.

    It has been pointed out that a homosexual who has publically admitted to the condition has made himself blackmail-proof (in that regard anyway). From this it follows that those desirous of political office ought to admit to it if they are homosexual; it may hurt their electability with some, but it makes them black-mail-proof (as regards homosexuality per se), and if they are elected it will for the same reason remove a barrier to their doing their jobs honestly.

    There’s a whole essay that follows on from this….

  7. Pingback: Should the UK follow Canada’s revenge porn law?