CJIA - Films they will need to ban (50)

Thu 15 May 08, 11:48 AM
Little_Miss_Shy
UK(PO), 14 mths
Edited to clarify that this is JUST A BIT OF FUN and not another chance for us all to quote the law over and over and over and over.......
1) Saw 4
* Honesty is the best policy *
Edited Thu 15 May 08, 3:27 PM by Little_Miss_Shy

15 May 08, 12:00 PM
emark
UK, 5 yrs Just to clarify - classified works are exempt from the law. But a screenshot from a classified work, if believed to be made principally for the purpose of sexual arousal, is not exempt. (See Section 64, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld20070... ).
Also there are possible issues such as people having an uncut/non-BBFC version they imported or whatever.
But yes, finding examples from BBFC films that would be illegal if that same image was produced elsewhere is useful, as it can show up the absurdity of the law.
Also it would probably be helpful to state what is being depicted in these films, so people can judge whether it might fit the definitions or not. Otherwise we just end up with a long list of films.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/extreme-images/ - Petition against "extreme porn" law!
See http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ and http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_... for more details.
Edited 15 May 08, 12:01 PM by emark

15 May 08, 12:11 PM
Vanilla_Spectator
UK, 6 mths Se7en? I'm thinking of the lust bit. That's sure to involve serious injury to the genitals. Oh, and life threatening injury, too, if I remember correctly.

15 May 08, 12:13 PM
Degenerate
UK, 21 mths
yes great idea. anyone who has clips from films which are illegal to possess when the law commences will need to dispose of the clips and buy the original films if they want to continue to legally enjoy them.
absolute insanity isn't it.
Is that rape scene from thelma and louise likely to be criminal is it was snipped? I love that scene, nice gritty (acted) rape over a car then the bastard gets shot!
that's a really well known film. the general public may switch onto this idea the more materials we can show them which they might own themselves already (or even get aroused by).
De
Sign porn petition (re CJIB & 'extreme images'! http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/extreme-images/
Backlash: http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/index.html
CJIB Wiki: http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_...
Edited 15 May 08, 12:14 PM by Degenerate

15 May 08, 12:19 PM
littlenic
UK(KT), 23 mths
Were either Saw 4 or Se7en produced as porn?
Edited to add: or Thelma and Louise?
"(3) An image is “pornographic” if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal."
Just because these films might turn people on, that's not what they were created for.
"Yours is over there..."
Edited 15 May 08, 12:20 PM by littlenic

15 May 08, 12:20 PM
Degenerate
UK, 21 mths
how on earth they are going to prove motivation in many cases (why was something produced) I have no bloody idea. i expect the govt would find a lot of the images I have disposed of already pornographic, and yet I took them as souveniers, they were never used for wank material. how this stuff will be proved or disproved in court is anyone's guess. let's hope the CPS agree and refuse to bring cases to court where the 'criminal' is not dangerous. even better lets hope they decide this law is so silly they can't do it.
De

Sign porn petition (re CJIB & 'extreme images'! http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/extreme-images/
Backlash: http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/index.html
CJIB Wiki: http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_...
Edited 15 May 08, 12:21 PM by Degenerate

15 May 08, 12:21 PM
littlenic
UK(KT), 23 mths
But the answer to my specific question is...?
"Yours is over there..."

15 May 08, 12:22 PM
Degenerate
UK, 21 mths
if you snip scenes from a film for use as porn and this can be proved and the images contained are illegal in that instance, it won't matter why the film was made. what will matter is that someone has a part of it snipped and is using it as porn.
Sign porn petition (re CJIB & 'extreme images'! http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/extreme-images/
Backlash: http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/index.html
CJIB Wiki: http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_...
Edited 15 May 08, 12:23 PM by Degenerate

15 May 08, 12:26 PM
emark
UK, 5 yrs Firstly, the issue would not be the film itself, but an extracted image or clip. The jury would have to decide if the image "is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been extracted (whether with or without other images) solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal."
There are two issues here that are unclear to me.
* Does the jury have to believe _also_ that the original production is "pornography", or just the purpose of extraction?
* Even if they do, one question is what context are the jury allowed in deciding whether the image is pornographic - are they allowed to be told it's from a film? The wording of the law suggests otherwise, it's simply: "An image is "pornographic" if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal." I.e., if an image looks like it's produced principally for that purpose, it doesn't matter whether it really was produced for that purpose or not. Or at least, that's how it reads to me, no one really seems to know.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/extreme-images/ - Petition against "extreme porn" law!
See http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ and http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_... for more details.
Edited 15 May 08, 12:29 PM by emark

15 May 08, 1:01 PM
magicalautopsytour
UK, 2 yrs
it's definately a grey area.
i found certain scenes in almodovar's "matador" highly erotic. so will that be ok as long as everybody's not me?
wi respect,
h/b
"he likes to shout it twice a day... once before work and once after sex..."
combat scrawls from the idiot bastard son of bill hicks and van der graaf generator

15 May 08, 1:11 PM
Vanilla_Spectator
UK, 6 mths
himbitch wrote:
i found certain scenes in almodovar's "matador" highly erotic. so will that be ok as long as everybody's not me?
Something I've been wondering is how on earth a vanilla jury is supposed to know whether or not a BDSM-oriented image is "of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal." Possibly context might help, but there are still going to be plenty of tricky cases where a vanilla jury can't reasonably be expected to know.
The more I think about this, the more it looks like some jurors are just going to go by their own prejudices

Next page


	©1997-2008 Informed Consent