‘Rape porn’ possession to be punished by three years in jail, David Cameron to announce

[nomorenomore08]

499. But what I'm talking about here is recordings of *actual crimes*. *Not* anything fictitious.

"Irreversible" for instance contains a horrifying rape scene, but no one - even, most likely, if they saw it out of context of the film - would ever mistake it for a real sexual assault. Viscerally, emotionally, they might respond to it in a similar way, but intellectually they would still know it was fiction.

What the laws in the U.K. - including the current laws already on the books - are attempting to address is recordings of actual rape and torture, something less analogous to a violent movie than to child pornography, in the sense that the creation of such material depends upon, and encourages, actual crimes against human beings. If all this stuff were only "simulated" then I don't think it would even be an issue, particularly.

And yes, of course there's a big difference between fiction and reality. That's been my whole argument all along. But when it becomes all but literally impossible to tell one from the other - as in the case of "real" vs. "fake" rape porn - then obviously that's a problem.

As I said, probably the best thing people not involved in nefarious activities can do, is to more clearly differentiate their own simulated acts of violence from the real thing, using disclaimers and so forth. I'm not talking about feature films here - in that case such disclaimers would be unnecessary - but rather the sort of videos (DIY, handheld camera stuff) that might be mistaken for actual rape porn, which unfortunately is not all that uncommon a phenomenon, worldwide.