Is this a free speech issue?
Of course, violent porn, in the wrong hands, is dangerous, but then so is a double decker bus. http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/oct/26/photography-pornography-law However, should the user be responsible for this (as with child porn, which is illegal already, just like violent porn) or is this new law simply a knee-jerk reaction to a tragic murder by a psychopath? Moreover, is it a free speech issue as opponents claim?

No it's not a free-speech issue. That's just bandwagon-jumping. Banning violent pornography is something that affects a tiny minority of people - sick bastards, basically. If they are so psychologically damaged that the only way they can get their jollies is to look at women being tortured then they need help... or jailing for the protection of everyone who doesn't want to be involved with their sick fantasies. To claim that violet pornography doesn't affect the voyeur is the same as people claiming that violent video games doesn't affect children that play them - it's an abrogation of responsibility. To claim that they are not responsible if their 'art' gives people ideas that result in an innocent victim being kidnapped, raped and tortured is facile and ignorant. People like Westwood are idiots who couldn't give a Fuck about FAshion or anything else for that matter. To say that the purchasers of his books are all responsible people is pure rubbish and an excuse for him to continue with his crap. Sure there are people who indulge in s&m, bondage etc, who mutually enjoy it, but the problem with the material that is being referred to now is pushing the limits further and further towards the point of no return. Snuff movies aren't new and there are plenty of sick bastards who will pay good money to watch or even be part of them. Does that make them acceptable if all are consenting adults? It's only a very short step from extreme violence to murder and those who find that they can no longer get off on ever more violent porn will either want to participate or kill to get their fix. Once a game has been played a few times it frequently loses its edge. Violence is no different and with sexual violence there is always another step that can be taken... If Westwood, Emin et al have to find something else to do then that's tough shit, their work is appalling anyway.

Good points Tony.

Totally agree, Tony. In the evermore depraved society Britain has become, those seeking fame and profit fond no depths of depraved action too low. And each and every time yet another boundary in what is and is not acceptable is breached, we are given rafts of justifications to "Prove" a number of things: which always include the old favouries, "people want it"; "There is a need for this"; "It doesn't harm rational adults"; and the best one of the lot, "It doesn't deprave anyone!" Yeah, right. The simple reality is that most people's behaviour is infuenced in some way, minor or major by exposure to sick human behaviour. Soldiers in war, for example, are permanently scarred in some way by watching their mates being blown up. Impressionable people of limited intelligence are influenced in their attitude to other human beings whether male or female, by looking at film and or pictures of men and women being degraded and purposively maimed and injured. Unfortunately, continued exposure to such acts, desensitises normal human reaction and mores. Whilst I am obviously far from being a proponent of the "Nanny State", I have watched moral and behavioural standards in this spavined country, descend ever lower during the past thirty years. Invariably for profit. Despite the loud exhortations that it is art. What a morally bankrupt and sick society we have become.

It seems to be a normal argument to now say that any moral standard is a restriction of a human right. Expecting anyone to behave in a civilised way has become unreasonable. Witness the hordes of drunken arseholes in any town centre on a Friday or Saturday night that -*test*-('")ify to that. Free use of 'recreational drugs' made possible by the decriminalisaton, encouragement of the general population to adore celebrity scumbags who regularly 'transgress' and deserve our sympathy and support, followed by more adulation when they kick whatever addiction it is that they have this week which leads to more sponsorships, book deals and awards. The message is all wrong. Behave like an animal, be treated as gods. Take some dumb bint called Chantelle, who, apparently, was on celebrity Big Brother. She was set up to be someone famous and, inevitably became famous for being nobody. I saw a story in the Mail online this week when reading something else - she was in a side column. She fell out of favour after she was divorced by a 'popstar' she met while in the BB house, having had millions thrust at her for her wedding pics and all the rest of the crap. Now she is back in demand because...? She's had her tits done! That just about sums it all up!

For me, we now live in a sick society dominated by cheapness and tack. Sex has become a gratuitous commodity: simply an appetite to be served by banging down the emotional equivalent of a Micky D. I have watched was major companies have particpated in this gratuitous crap: for example, BT were delighted that purvs wanted to telephone ugly fat women with apparently seductive voices sitting at the end of a phone somewhere and talk dirty. We've seen an explosive growth in "Massage Parlours": visiting "Masseuses" with "Every taste catered for!" And now it's Lap Dancing and Table Dancing clubs. For, of course, the ubiquitous "Business Men". Places where they can go and spend £100 on bottles of "Champagne" probably worth a fiver. And pole dancing clubs and bars. And so on. Operated by sub-people like the incredibly tatty old fool with silly hair and offensive looks, Peter Stringfellow are feted as if they were someone special! If a man has the balls and wants a women to screw then find one: if he is too ugly or incapable then rent a whore for an hour. But please don't try and convince me that a "Club" is there for any purpose other than to sell sex to gutless wimps without enough integrity and ability to exercise their twisted libido in a proper direction. And please please don't insult me by trying to pretend that these bloody places are entertainment: and tasteful: and the girls are pure etc etc. "Music" is represented by a collection of talentless little underdressed tarts, standing on stage and miming sex acts and raunching their wares and knickers for all to see. And of course, it's all in the best possible taste! :roll: