 |
IC : Weblogs : emark : "Extreme Porn Bill Published"
1 2 3 4
 Extreme Porn Bill Published (34)
emark's profile
Posted by emark on Thu 5 Jul 07, 12:13 AM
The Extreme Pornography Bill has been published (as part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill), which will criminalise possession of certain pornographic images.
Quick summary: Staged/fictional images are included; the threshold no longer requires "disabling" injury; even though classified works aren't covered, an extract from a classified work can fall under the law; their list of what could come under this seems to be broader than previously expected; the Spanner case and "sado-masochists" are referred to as justification for the law.
The relevant bit (emphasis mine), from section 64:
| (6) An "extreme image" is an image of any of the following- (a) an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person's life, (b) an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals, (c) an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse, (d) a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal,
where (in each case) any such act, person or animal depicted in the image is or appears to be real. |
* The consultation response stated "serious disabling injury", and it was this which satisfied many who were originally opposed. The bill does not mention disabling at all. It's still "serious" at least, but that's undefined. We're basically back to the original proposal of GBH, with the addition that it now covers acts which would be likely to result in such injury, and "serious" seems less well defined than "GBH".
* This covers images of fictional violence (staged acts or faked images). (See the repeated references to "appears to"; note that they refer to "image" (not "photograph" or "pseudo-photograph", as I believe is the case for child porn), and explicitly state "produced by any means"; also paragraph 803 of the explanatory notes refers to "staged activity").
From part of the explanatory notes, we have a list of what will fall under this (paragraph 384):
* Acts which threaten or appear to threaten a person's life; this could include depictions of hanging, suffocation, or sexual assault involving a threat with a weapon. (Breathplay would also surely be included.)
* Likely to result in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals: this could include the insertion of sharp objects or the mutilation of breasts or genitals (unclear whether mutilation is broad enough to include cutting).
In addition, note section 65 "Exclusion of classified films etc.":
* Classified works are not counted (okay, makes sense, but why should there be a risk that classified works might come under the law? This would mean an image in a BBFC-approved film is legal, but an image of people reproducing the same scene could be illegal!)
* But, an extract from a classified work would still be covered by this law, if it was determined that the reason for extraction was for erotic purposes! Yes, make a set of stills from a standard Hollywood violent film for your pr0n folder, and get three years in prison!
In fact, what makes this point even more bewildering is that, for the possibility of extracts to be illegal, they are surely admitting that there must exist classified material which would otherwise fall under the proposed law. What happened to "already illegal to produce or distribute"?
Furthermore, the Government states that these clauses would cause an interference with the European Convention on Human Rights, but gives justifications for why this is necessary. These include:
"It is not possible at law to give consent to the type of activity covered by the offence, so it is therefore likely that a criminal offence is being committed where the activity which appears to be taking place is actually taking place."
So there you have it - the Government believes S&M should remain illegal, and is happy to pass new laws based on that ruling.
Additional justifications include:
* For staged activity, that it is justified to meet the "legitimate aim of protecting the individuals involved from participating in degrading activities" (which seems to ignore the possibility that people consent to taking part in staged acts - or is it saying their consent isn't valid there, either?)
* That it is justified in order for "breaking the demand and supply cycle of this material, which may be harmful to those who view it" and "banning their possession can be justified as sending a signal that such behaviour is not considered acceptable".
* That children and "vulnerable adults" may inadvertently come into possession of such material.
As well as up to three years in prison, offenders will be included on the Sex Offenders Register.
Thoughts? Anything I've got wrong? Anything I've missed?
I'll be writing to my MP again. See http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk for more details, or see the Activism forum on this website.
Update now that the law has been passed:
* The "appears to" references are removed, but replaced with "portrays, in an explicit and realistic way", so this still covers staged/faked material, so long as it looks "realistic".
* Two minor amendments, which I cover here. Edited Wed 16 Jul 08, 10:21 PM by emark
Replies
5 Jul 07, 1:47 AM
MostlyHarmlessParty
UK(AL), 20 mths
|
This is so stupid, a lot of the output of Hollywood could argubly be classified as extreme porn under this law - certainly "A Clockwork Orange" could be (again).
I don't look at any of this kind of porn so I don't really care that much but it's illustrative of New Labour's totalitarian tendency.
Surely this is an early draft and will be subject to countless revisions before it becomes law, assuming it ever does.
What about the BBC News showing graphic images of maimed people and war? These images would be illegal on some tacky website with a scrolling text bar and premium rate dialer software but yet they are legitimate on the news.
http://images.google.com/images?um=1&tab=wi&q=pl...
As for the activity side of things - well, sheesh, that's just mad.
Has anyone seen the new match.com tv ad? There's a female "teacher" with an "adult schoolboy" pitching for match.com - S&M is obviously implied (she's holding and flexing a cane). Where would this advert stand under this legislation? It is clearly encouraging people to sign up to commit "crime" (sic).
There no international standard and images are circulated on a global basis so virtually anyone looking at porn can pretty much stumble on these types of images even if all they're looking for is just plain old erotica (i.e. via google images search).
The time will soon come where it will be impossible not to break the law, New Labour just keep introducing so much legislation, soon it will be pretty much illegal to breathe without a licence. Putting a wife who likes to dominate her husband on anything like a par with a sex offender is utterly ridiculous.
This law is far too primitive to be taken seriously.
The stuff about animals is probably a good idea though. The law in general just goes too far in its ambiguous scope.
http://images.google.com/images?um=1&tab=wi&q=pa...
http://images.google.com/images?tab=vi&q=the%20k...
Another point being that google displays many, many thousands of thumbnails of these types of images, so what's going to happen to google if and when this law comes into effect? Edited 5 Jul 07, 2:28 AM by MostlyHarmlessParty
|
5 Jul 07, 3:34 AM
prettyname
UK(NW), 8 yrs
|
"But, an extract from a classified work would still be covered by this law, if it was determined that the reason for extraction was for erotic purposes!"
I know. When I read the above a few days ago my first thought was that their whole proposal in the first place months ago was to try to ban images of real torture, real victims etc and that they've lost their own plot.
But on second thoughts the above quote says that all they've actually set out to do is to ban wanking. Makes you go blind, don'tcha know. ~“Nothing is ever the same as they said it was. It's what I've never seen before that I recognise.” Diane Arbus~
~"it's what you see other times that's interesting"~ foxxx~
www.tracieart.com : www.londonalternativemarket.com : www.chesterfieldconclave.com
|
5 Jul 07, 4:55 AM
MostlyHarmlessParty
UK(AL), 20 mths
|
prettyname wrote:
But on second thoughts the above quote says that all they've actually set out to do is to ban wanking. Makes you go blind, don'tcha know.
|
So does fighting, so why not ban boxing? All those voyeurs high on testosterone and lager cheering as two men or women pummel each other senseless.
It's all based on vote-gaining value judgements and full of contradictions. |
5 Jul 07, 9:09 AM
Whipkick
UK(CB), 6 yrs 
|
Several thoughts on this.
First, that what ever the final version after it has passed through the Commons and Lords committees that it still leaves a law which is open to interpretation. So that each individual picture would have to be judged. No doubt this will leave grey areas for the Police and CPS. In that one force will probably take a view different to another. [despite guidelines]
Second, it mentions over riding the European Human Rights convention and why. But this will ultimately leave it open for such a challenge. If some one can afford the cost.
Finally, who do you trust? Will mentioning BDSM cause you to 'red flag' for possible investigation. Or will we see an operation 'ore' for BDSM sites? With those entering the site traced with IP identification & follow up? We still have no idea how actively the Police will pursue this.
The chance to do something about it is now! So take the opportunity to write to your MP or support in what ever way you can those organisations fighting on your behalf. Make a cash denotation, as they will all need further funds to fight this issue even if you can't get directly involved [because of work, life etc.] The only way housework could be done in this place was with a shovel or, for preference, a match!!!
|
5 Jul 07, 9:18 AM
MostlyHarmlessParty
UK(AL), 20 mths
|
Whipkick wrote:
...it mentions over riding the European Human Rights convention and why. But this will ultimately leave it open for such a challenge. If some one can afford the cost.
|
Cameron has already pledged to remove any future Conservative government from the European treaty on human rights in order to leave the UK free to pass draconian anti-terror laws. |
5 Jul 07, 9:42 AM
The_Big_Bear
UK(DL), 20 mths
|
Isn't this all so depressing?
It seems, to an intelligent observer, that just about everything is wrong with this bill. Out of a genuine desire to prevent repetition of a disgusting crime, the "law" turns to a rather pathetically stupid crusade against what it thinks may be possibly involved in contributing to the chances of .. .. .. (just sort of lost the will to complete that sentence!)
It used to be a principle of law that you could only prosecute people for what they DID, not what they THOUGHT. Now it seems the law is prepared to turn on even those who MIGHT think evil thoughts.
But, will this bill be stopped? Will reason, common sense, and a little bit of bloody intelligence for christ's sake, win? I doubt it. Once these sort of measures get to the stage of being debated by politicians, and discussed though interminable committees, there is a certain dull momentum that just keeps them grinding unstoppably on.
It seems really sad to me that most of the "boring old farts" that will now be driving this on will themselves have been young people in the 1960s. They will have benefitted from what seemed at the time to be the dawning of a new age of enlightened tolerance and understanding. 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' had just been published in paperback after a long court case found that it wasn't "obscene" despite the use of "four-letter words"! It seemed that the cobwebs of hypocritical victorian censorship were being blown away. And now these same people - the "permissive" generation - are turning into censors themselves. Sad!
So bloody sad, isn't it?
Fucking depressing!
Carpe diem, carpe nox noctis!
|
5 Jul 07, 9:58 AM
emark
UK, 5 yrs |
MistressBloke wrote:
Surely this is an early draft and will be subject to countless revisions before it becomes law, assuming it ever does. |
I'm not entirely sure how these things work - there's a good guide to the process at http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page29.asp ; we've just had the First Reading. Note that it says that it "is not a 'rough draft'. It is a refined version, the one that the government wants to have passed by Parliament", although there is still time for debate.
Three Years For Images of Simulated Acts?
|
5 Jul 07, 1:23 PM
topscore
UK, 21 mths
|
emark wrote:
Section 64:
| (6) An "extreme image" is an image of any of the following- (a) an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person's life, (b) an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals, (c) an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse, (d) a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal,
where (in each case) any such act, person or animal depicted in the image is or appears to be real. |
|
This legislation is very oddly framed.
1: What is going to be the test of "appear to"? Objective (what a reasonable person would think) or subjective (in the eye of the beholder)?
2: What are the parameters of "likely to result" going to be? Eg, a knife on a table, a knife in hand but some distance from a body, a knife in proximity?
3: The 'extreme' acts are limited to genitalia, anus and breasts. This means that other 'extreme' acts (eg, cutting - slashing even - of back) are not included.
4: 'Serious' is nowhere defined. Eg, are petechial injuries 'serious'? Is medical opinion as to what constitutes 'serious injury' going to have to be solicited every time a prosecution is mounted? Is it going to be possible to produce a consensus amongst medical practioners as to what constitutes 'serious injury'?
Given these shortcomings it is difficult to see how the legislation can be effectively enforced in many cases. The prosecuting agencies are being done a disservice by sloppy draftmanship
As the image has to be 'pornographic' in order for there to be a prosecution (ie, solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal), my suggestion would be that anyone just stores images of these types in a folder containing lots of war photographs with the line being, if questioned, that they are merely other examples of the human capacity for violence and are kept as a reminder of what it is to be homo sapiens sapiens. Top of the world, Ma
Edited 5 Jul 07, 1:24 PM by topscore
|
5 Jul 07, 2:09 PM
therealwakka
UK(LS), 23 mths
|
Some of my favourate pictures I have taken involve nails and other items through slaves breasts 
sigh, its a sad day to say the least
So now I'm a criminal,
I can not wait until I get chance to leave this country
Alas thats around 15-20 years away when i can afford my house abroad |
5 Jul 07, 5:28 PM
Jezzebelle
UK, 7 yrs
|
It really does beggar belief, put into context Ted Bundy and the like had no internet access and still managed to perform some of the most horrendous 'sex crimes' known to man kind. Coming soon for all your pervy and non pervy print needs, bespoke design and print...
http://www.psprintanddesign.co.uk
Dreaming permits each and every one of us to be quietly and safely insane every night of our lives.
- William Dement
|
Next page
|
|
