'Human Centipede'-Sequel - so horrifying BBFC refuses to classify it.

[shavedape]

The same way they prevent child pornography, real violence and other sick stuff from being sold/shown...? View attachment 4479

Child pornography involves the violation of children who obviously cannot consent to participation in such things. It is and always should be illegal.

Awhile back I did read somewhere about the issue of whether or not child porn anime should be illegal since it doesn't actually involve children in the making of it. I'm gonna point to the Japanese here for coming up with this twisted variant. :roll: It's certainly not something I would ever watch nor do I really want to defend something so disgusting, but at the end of the day it's a cartoon and not an actual film involving children. I don't see how fiction created by and consumed by legal adults can be banned. Regulated yes, banned no.

 

[shavedape]

And here I thought u meant an active body under direct Government control like a ministerial position or something.

Just curious, do you think you should be allowed to purchase and view this DVD or are you okay with this government-sanctioned body denying you that right?

(I'm not talking about their ability to regulate this movie such as the rating it gets but simply about your right to purchase it to view be it a DVD or even a theater ticket.)

 

[YoshiKart64]

I would ask you to define "art" but it would be a moot point as the aesthetics aren't at issue here. We're talking about fictional content here, not definitions of what is or isn't "art". It's perfectly fine to regulate what children (who are not legal adults) can view but that regulation stops at the point a person becomes a legal adult. The last thing we need is the government telling the adult citizenry what they can or cannot view or read (or participate in) when it comes to fictional content.

And I see no explanation of what a "very real risk to the general population" is nor do I see how such measurement could be valid as it automatically removes the rights of individuals to participate in not only commerce but their own entertainment activities. If someone is inspired to go out and kidnap and murder other humans simply because they watched one of these movies then that is not the fault of the movie, it's the fault of the person doing the kidnapping and murdering. After all, movies don't kill people, people kill people. It really is that simple.

About most things I would agree with you, but did you read WHY they banned this? The movie is essentially a way of glorifying torture for sexual pleasure and linking the two, there literally is no other aspect to it.

I mean:

One scene involves him wrapping barbed wire around his $#@! and raping the woman at the end of the centipede, having become aroused by the sight of his victims being forced to defecate into each others' mouths

I'm very pro-free speech but there are lines that shouldn't be crossed. It has nothing to do with art, its morality in my opinion.

[NOTE: My earlier comment about it going 'beyond art' has now been clarified here]

 

[Tropicana]

Just curious, do you think you should be allowed to purchase and view this DVD or are you okay with this government-sanctioned body denying you that right?

(I'm not talking about their ability to regulate this movie such as the rating it gets but simply about your right to purchase it to view be it a DVD or even a theater ticket.)

Knowing that I'm not going to be fixated about creating a real life version of a human centipede, sure, in theory I should be allowed to purchase and view it, if this film interested me.

However, equally I know there are many who are that unstable and may be just as happy to kidnap me and force me to be part of their real life human centipede, so to protect me from those nutcases, I'm content with the organisation denying me or anyone the right to obtain this movie legally. Therefore to protect the majority of the population from the questionable minority, there's no choice but to ban this film.

 

[Gatefan1976]

I've gotta side with Shaved on the censorship point. It's not a film that would ever interest me in terms of wanting to watch it, yet If I am to believe in the ideal of "freedom of speech" then I cannot see where I would have a leg to stand on because I happen to find this particular concept grotesque.

 

[Mr. A]

Child pornography involves the violation of children who obviously cannot consent to participation in such things. It is and always should be illegal.

Awhile back I did read somewhere about the issue of whether or not child porn anime should be illegal since it doesn't actually involve children in the making of it. I'm gonna point to the Japanese here for coming up with this twisted variant. :roll: It's certainly not something I would ever watch nor do I really want to defend something so disgusting, but at the end of the day it's a cartoon and not an actual film involving children. I don't see how fiction created by and consumed by legal adults can be banned. Regulated yes, banned no.

Hmmm... I'm not sure that's the only reason why it's forbidden. Maybe it is. I don't know, interesting comment nonetheless - including the anime stuff. Have to think about it.

 

[shavedape]

About most things I would agree with you, but did you read WHY they banned this? The movie is essentially a way of glorifying torture for sexual pleasure and linking the two, there literally is no other aspect to it.

I mean:

I'm very pro-free speech but there are lines that shouldn't be crossed. It has nothing to do with art, its morality in my opinion.

[NOTE: My earlier comment about it going 'beyond art' has now been clarified here]

Yoshi, I admit I'm playing "Libertarian Devil's advocate" here and have to say that I'm not really gung ho for obvious reasons. I'm simply defending the rights of individuals to create fictional products and that is all.

As for "glorifying torture for sexual pleasure and linking the two" that still remains in the realm of fictional content and not in reality. It's disgusting, revolting, depraved and immoral but that assessment doesn't change its nature -- it's fiction, i.e. it is not real. To ban fiction simply because it is disgusting is wrong. Regulate to protect children, yes (because they can be psychologically harmed by viewing such trash, no doubt about it), but to ban thought and voluntarily-engaged-in expression and/or the right of legal adults to view such expression is wrong. The state overstepped its bounds on this one.

Now if an adult wants to make a case that viewing this movie (or similar ones) is psychologically damaging then that would be a case for the courts to take up and rule on. I don't know what criteria they would use to make a judgement as where is the invisible line that divides acceptable from unacceptable? How could they rule against this movie when others like "The Hills Have Eyes" or "Saw" or "Hostel" contain incredibly disturbing content also? Food for thought.

 

[shavedape]

Knowing that I'm not going to be fixated about creating a real life version of a human centipede, sure, in theory I should be allowed to purchase and view it, if this film interested me.

How about creating a "Saturday Night Daisy Chain"?

However, equally I know there are many who are that unstable and may be just as happy to kidnap me and force me to be part of their real life human centipede, so to protect me from those nutcases, I'm content with the organisation denying me or anyone the right to obtain this movie legally. mTherefore to protect the majority of the population from the questionable minority, there's no choice but to ban this film.

Tropi, I luv ya buddy but you went off the rails on this one. Your argument could be applied to just about any movie in existence. Think about these examples -- and I'm being serious here:

The latest Jennifer Aniston movie could inspire a minority of wacky middle-aged women to come into our lives and stalk and harass us. So in order to be protected from that Jenifer Aniston movies must be banned.

Any/all horror movies must be banned because there are nutcases out there who might don a hockey mask cut me (or you) up with a chainsaw. Or, barring that they might drug me (or you), kidnap me (or you) and chain me (or you) up in a basement along with several strangers. This nutcase will then force a series of tests on me (or you) that involve making choices about sawing off my (or your) own leg or perhaps I'll (or you'll) be forced to choose which life to save from all the other kidnap victims in the room during a sick game of Russian Roulette. To protect me and you and other sane people, horror films must be banned.

Alcohol should also be banned because someone could drink too much and run me over and kill me -- or you or just about anyone. To protect the majority of sober individuals from being killed by people who were seduced by the neon sign of a pub, alcohol must be banned.

I could go on and on with examples but I trust you get what I mean. We can't ban fictional productions based on something that might happen due to being influenced from viewing them. All we can do is make criminal those acts if they actually happen. The only exception to this would be the Jennifer Aniston movies. Those should be banned for obvious reasons.

 

[YoshiKart64]

I get your arguments, I do agree with them for the most part, but I am concerned about where that line should be drawn. Should we allow an animated movie to be released where children are abused in the same fashion as this movie, simply because its fiction. At what point do you say, as a society, that something shouldn't be tolerated.

That's why I bring up the issue of free speech vs a moral stance.

 

[shavedape]

Hmmm... I'm not sure that's the only reason why it's forbidden. Maybe it is. I don't know, interesting comment nonetheless - including the anime stuff. Have to think about it.

Oh I wouldn't say it's the only reason child porn is illegal, just that it was one of the reasons, one of the central reasons. One doesn't have to examine the subject further to know the whole subject is wrong and not debatable.

As for the sick anime stuff it's not really something I care to defend, I just find it an interesting question due to the fact that it's adult created and consumed. I view it on par with porn movies that use adult actors but role play taboo subjects. It's gross and disgusting but if no one is being forced to participate in its creation nor is anyone being forced to consume it once created then why should such movies be banned (if they are that is)? Regulated yes, banned no.

My point is, many people are using the "it's disgusting" claim as an argument but they fail to consider how flawed that method of "reasoning" is. Just because one finds something disgusting that isn't a basis for banning that thing. One must have legitimate reasons and not simply the emotion of disgust to go on.

 

[Joelist]

Yoshi, I admit I'm playing "Libertarian Devil's advocate" here and have to say that I'm not really gung ho for obvious reasons. I'm simply defending the rights of individuals to create fictional products and that is all.

As for "glorifying torture for sexual pleasure and linking the two" that still remains in the realm of fictional content and not in reality. It's disgusting, revolting, depraved and immoral but that assessment doesn't change its nature -- it's fiction, i.e. it is not real. To ban fiction simply because it is disgusting is wrong. Regulate to protect children, yes (because they can be psychologically harmed by viewing such trash, no doubt about it), but to ban thought and voluntarily-engaged-in expression and/or the right of legal adults to view such expression is wrong. The state overstepped its bounds on this one.

Now if an adult wants to make a case that viewing this movie (or similar ones) is psychologically damaging then that would be a case for the courts to take up and rule on. I don't know what criteria they would use to make a judgement as where is the invisible line that divides acceptable from unacceptable? How could they rule against this movie when others like "The Hills Have Eyes" or "Saw" or "Hostel" contain incredibly disturbing content also? Food for thought.

You forgot to include "Spice World" in the list of movies with incredibly disturbing content...

 

[shavedape]

I get your arguments, I do agree with them for the most part, but I am concerned about where that line should be drawn. Should we allow an animated movie to be released where children are abused in the same fashion as this movie, simply because its fiction. At what point do you say, as a society, that something shouldn't be tolerated.

That's why I bring up the issue of free speech vs a moral stance.

I believe those very types of animated movies have been produced already in Japan. I don't know about anywhere in the West to be honest. It's not really a subject I'm eager to study but I did read about it awhile back and found it an interesting question to ponder -- disgusting, but also interesting from a legal perspective.

Trust me, I would prefer such anime not be created but I can't let my disgust color my decision making process when it comes to the preferences of others. Since we're talking about behavior that doesn't involve anyone who doesn't consent (and obviously not children either) then who am I, or you, or anyone to censor another persons thought and expression?

This is an age old argument of course. I remember reading about a porn ruling by the Supreme court here in America many decades ago where one of the justices stated: "I can't define pornography but I know it when I see it." This is a cop out on one hand but on the other hand it makes a hell of a lot of sense. I don't think that I have to perfect answer here nor do I expect that I will anytime soon, rather, I just don't like to see government over reach it's boundaries when it comes to individual liberties. The banning of this movie strikes me as such.

 

[Mr. A]

Tropi, I luv ya buddy but you went off the rails on this one. Your argument could be applied to just about any movie in existence. Think about these examples -- and I'm being serious here:

The latest Jennifer Aniston movie could inspire a minority of wacky middle-aged women to come into our lives and stalk and harass us. So in order to be protected from that Jenifer Aniston movies must be banned.

Any/all horror movies must be banned because there are nutcases out there who might don a hockey mask cut me (or you) up with a chainsaw. Or, barring that they might drug me (or you), kidnap me (or you) and chain me (or you) up in a basement along with several strangers. This nutcase will then force a series of tests on me (or you) that involve making choices about sawing off my (or your) own leg or perhaps I'll (or you'll) be forced to choose which life to save from all the other kidnap victims in the room during a sick game of Russian Roulette. To protect me and you and other sane people, horror films must be banned.

Alcohol should also be banned because someone could drink too much and run me over and kill me -- or you or just about anyone. To protect the majority of sober individuals from being killed by people who were seduced by the neon sign of a pub, alcohol must be banned.

I could go on and on with examples but I trust you get what I mean. We can't ban fictional productions based on something that might happen due to being influenced from viewing them. All we can do is make criminal those acts if they actually happen. The only exception to this would be the Jennifer Aniston movies. Those should be banned for obvious reasons.

Oh I wouldn't say it's the only reason child porn is illegal, just that it was one of the reasons, one of the central reasons. One doesn't have to examine the subject further to know the whole subject is wrong and not debatable.

As for the sick anime stuff it's not really something I care to defend, I just find it an interesting question due to the fact that it's adult created and consumed. I view it on par with porn movies that use adult actors but role play taboo subjects. It's gross and disgusting but if no one is being forced to participate in its creation nor is anyone being forced to consume it once created then why should such movies be banned (if they are that is)? (Regulated yes, banned no.)

My point is, many people are using the "it's disgusting" claim as an argument but they fail to consider how flawed that method of "reasoning" is. Just because one finds something disgusting that isn't a basis for banning that thing. One must have legitimate reasons and not simply the emotion of disgust to go on.

Shaved, I agree with your answer to Tropi, and I even second your motion to ban all Jennifer Aniston movies, but I think Tropi is right for other reasons than he mentioned or he failed to word more convincingly.

I assume only people who appreciate child torture would be interested in seeing a cartoon glorifying it. The same goes for this centipede movie Tropi is describing. If one has to be sick (not in the good sense) in order to appreciate a product, then there's something wrong with the product and actually no good reason for it to exist.
The problem, of course, is defining what is "sick"?

But just because it may be difficult to draw a line on an issue, that doesn't mean a line shouldn't be drawn. That's a popular rhetorical device, but it's based on a logical fallacy.

 

[shavedape]

Shaved, I agree with your answer to Tropi, and I even second your motion to ban all Jennifer Aniston movies, but I think Tropi is right for other reasons than he mentioned or he failed to word more convincingly.

I assume only people who appreciate child torture would be interested in seeing a cartoon glorifying it. The same goes for this centipede movie Tropi is describing. If one has to be sick (not in the good sense) in order to appreciate a product, then there's something wrong with the product and actually no good reason for it to exist.
The problem, of course, is defining what is "sick"?

But just because it may be difficult to draw a line on an issue, that doesn't mean a line shouldn't be drawn. That's a popular rhetorical device, but it's based on a logical fallacy.

I'm not really arguing with you here as I tend to agree, but thought it interesting from a legal/libertarian perspective. I do think anyone producing or viewing a child torture cartoon is definitely sick, i.e. mentally deranged. But can they be legislated against for the content of their heads? Can we criminalize thought? Should we? If so, how does one decide what is criminal in this regard? Hell, who decides? And more importantly how do they ferret out this type of verboten thought?

As much as I'm for freedom and personal liberties I'm not all that motivated to argue the point I admit. It's kind of hard to gin up interest in supporting disgusting pervs. Regardless of my apathy here the bottom line is that we can't give up control of our liberty simply because we're disgusted by a subject. It really isn't that big of a stretch to go from condoning government censorship of fiction to condoning censorship of myriad other things in our lives. At any rate this is the same old clash of what society deems acceptable verses individual liberties. Hell, there's a reason they have tall fences around nudist colonies and that's because society at large doesn't approve of public nudity. So yes, I can see the need for regulation here, but not necessarily government censorship. We are talking about fiction after all, something that is not even real.

 

[Mr. A]

I'm not really arguing with you here as I tend to agree, but thought it interesting from a legal/libertarian perspective. I do think anyone producing or viewing a child torture cartoon is definitely sick, i.e. mentally deranged. But can they be legislated against for the content of their heads? Can we criminalize thought? Should we? If so, how does one decide what is criminal in this regard? Hell, who decides? And more importantly how do they ferret out this type of verboten thought?

As much as I'm for freedom and personal liberties I'm not all that motivated to argue the point I admit. It's kind of hard to gin up interest in supporting disgusting pervs. Regardless of my apathy here the bottom line is that we can't give up control of our liberty simply because we're disgusted by a subject. It really isn't that big of a stretch to go from condoning government censorship of fiction to condoning censorship of myriad other things in our lives. At any rate this is the same old clash of what society deems acceptable verses individual liberties. Hell, there's a reason they have tall fences around nudist colonies and that's because society at large doesn't approve of public nudity. So yes, I can see the need for regulation here, but not necessarily government censorship. We are talking about fiction after all, something that is not even real.

I guess we aren't going to be able to fight on this issue. You keep agreeing with me and you are making so much sense I'm having a hard time nitpicking your arguments... :icon_lol:

OK, I changed my mind. Jennifer Aniston movies are great and she deserved the "Decade of Hotness" award. There, take that! ri:

 

[Bluce Ree]

I guess we aren't going to be able to fight on this issue. You keep agreeing with me and you are making so much sense I'm having a hard time nitpicking your arguments... :icon_lol:

OK, I changed my mind. Jennifer Aniston movies are great and she deserved the "Decade of Hotness" award. There, take that! ri:

I have no idea how that woman keeps getting work.

 

[Rac80]

I have no idea how that woman keeps getting work.

She spends a lot of time on her knees!

Spoiler: for bluce

now get your mind out of the gutter bluce...she's praying! :facepalm:

 

[shavedape]

I have no idea how that woman keeps getting work.

Jennifer Aniston has made a career out of playing Jennifer Aniston. I don't think she's ever once played a character other than herself. She isn't bad looking so one can only assume she is bucket loads of crazy and that's why she drove Brad Pitt away. Sad really.

And I was trying to tie Jennifer Aniston in with the subject of this thread so this post wouldn't get the OT boot but I admit it's rather hard. Tempted as I am to crack a joke about her staring in a "Centipede" movie (she'd play the middle "link" where, thankfully, we wouldn't have to hear her speak) I can't bring myself to do it. It's just too tacky.

 

[Bluce Ree]

She spends a lot of time on her knees!

Spoiler: for bluce

now get your mind out of the gutter bluce...she's praying! :facepalm:

:laughing:

 

[shavedape]

I guess we aren't going to be able to fight on this issue. You keep agreeing with me and you are making so much sense I'm having a hard time nitpicking your arguments... :icon_lol:

Admittedly I'm coming from an abstract, somewhat "Ivory Tower" perspective here. Like you said though society ultimately decides what is acceptable and it draws lines, legal and otherwise. Sometimes our legislators get it right and sometimes they don't. That's just how it is.

Wurd