You are viewing IC as Guest

Page: 1 2 3 4

Extreme Porn Bill Published (34)

emark's profile

Replies

5 Jul 07, 9:01 PM
SusieStrumpet
5 yrs

So everyone with an illegal photo goes on the Sex Offenders Register. I reckon that means a third of the population would be on there if everyone was prosecuted and soon undermine and discredit the whole system. This is going to be a long haul so lets wait for some cases to show this moronic bill for the farce it is.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-22925...
"Hull - the place where the Gene Pool dried up."

5 Jul 07, 11:57 PM
emark
UK, 8 yrs

topscore wrote:
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)?

I'm curious by this too. E.g., consider the image at the top at http://www.trashcity.org/ARTICLES/DEATH.HTM . On the one hand, it's certainly true that one could say this appears to show a sword through her body. On the other hand, most people would realise it was obviously photoshopped, and you'd have to be a bit of an idiot to think it was real (but then again, those supporting the law seem to think all these "extreme porn" images like on Necrobabes are real...)

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?

Good point. Also note that the "appear to threaten" threshold seems to be interpretted very broadly, not just meaning cases which appear like you would likely die, but including "threats" in the more general sense of the term, so that a "threat" with a knife would count (if you ask me, they are misleadingly conflating two meanings of the word). So according to the example given in the bill ("sexual assault involving a threat with a weapon"), it seems that the scene you describe could perhaps fall under that.

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.

Although it relies on the police/jury believing you. It's not clear what evidence the jury are allowed to see in order to base their decision on, but if they believe that your interest was sexual, you'll be out of luck.

Three Years For Images of Simulated Acts?

Edited 5 Jul 07, 11:58 PM by emark

6 Jul 07, 12:51 PM
BadWulf
UK(TA), 6 yrs

So as a touchstone, this would render illegal huge swathes of the old insex videos do people think?

6 Jul 07, 2:56 PM
topscore
UK(NN), 4 yrs

emark wrote:

topscore wrote:
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)?

I'm curious by this too. E.g., consider the image at the top at http://www.trashcity.org/ARTICLES/DEATH.HTM . On the one hand, it's certainly true that one could say this appears to show a sword through her body. On the other hand, most people would realise it was obviously photoshopped, and you'd have to be a bit of an idiot to think it was real (but then again, those supporting the law seem to think all these "extreme porn" images like on Necrobabes are real...)

I think judges will have to develop some kind of doctrine of imminent threat else virtually any image will fall under the scope of the Act - and legislation framed too widely is unenforceable as the act forbidden has to be reasonably certain and reasonably ascertainable.

There is a problem also with non-photographic images. However 'pornographic' they may be in content it is going to be exceptionally difficult to argue that they are 'solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal' as they also clearly also have aesthetic merit.

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?

Good point. Also note that the "appear to threaten" threshold seems to be interpretted very broadly, not just meaning cases which appear like you would likely die, but including "threats" in the more general sense of the term, so that a "threat" with a knife would count (if you ask me, they are misleadingly conflating two meanings of the word). So according to the example given in the bill ("sexual assault involving a threat with a weapon"), it seems that the scene you describe could perhaps fall under that.

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.

Although it relies on the police/jury believing you. It's not clear what evidence the jury are allowed to see in order to base their decision on, but if they believe that your interest was sexual, you'll be out of luck.

In criminal proceedings the test is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It doesnt matter whether the Police believe you (meaning 'you' generically) - or indeed whether a jury totally believe you - the question will be whether it can be established beyond a reasonable doubt that you had the image solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal. If the image or images are stored amongst those which cannot conceivably be said to be provoke such feelings then, clearly, it cannot be reasonably certain that the image(s) in question are soley or principally for sexual arousal (though it can be conceded, of course, that in an other context that might have been their principal function and/or that they retain that residual power even when mixed amongst other images).

If the images are seized along with other images those other images can definitely be used evidentially.

As I remarked before, if I was a prosecutor I would hate legislation framed in this way. The definitions are dangerously broad and uncertain and there are very difficult issues of interpretation.

Top of the world, Ma

6 Jul 07, 4:02 PM
Obsidian
UK(SS), 8 yrs

BadWulf wrote:
So as a touchstone, this would render illegal huge swathes of the old insex videos do people think?

I have a horrible feeling that it will which is a great shame.

6 Jul 07, 6:21 PM
MistressAnath
UK(DN), 5 yrs
£

Bugger!

Go on....flame Me....it'll feel like home!
www.mistressanath.co.uk Erotic torture in opulant surroundings

6 Jul 07, 8:44 PM
waynej
UK, 6 yrs

(a) an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person's life,

Wouldn't this bit make illegal any scene ina movie where there is a gun to someone's head for example?

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. David Vincent - THE INVADERS

7 Jul 07, 2:24 PM
paulhooters
UK(DA), 5 yrs

MistressBloke wrote:

This law is far too primitive to be taken seriously.

I'm sorry, but because it IS too pimitive it MUST be taken seriously. It is not thought through, it is a knee jerk reaction to some percieved threat that probably doesn't exist and it is another aspect of the increasing disintegration of civil liberties and freedom of thought and expression.

We already know that the police (CEOP, the Child Explotation and Online Pornography Unit) can and do monitor the e-mail traffic of anyone they suspect of engaging in illegal peadophile activity, and rightly so. But this unit is equipped with the most sophisticated software and the best experts that can be found. They can, and will, if this law changes, be all over sites like IC like a rash. Just belonging to a site like this would make you a possible suspect in a crimiinal investigation. Your e-mails WOULD be monitored.

I work very close to the CEOP office and I see their staff around. One of them was wearing a t-shirt the other day which had the (to him) slogan "I read your e-mails" emblazoned on it. It made me shudder.

Just because I'm tongue tied doesn't mean I'm inarticulate.

7 Jul 07, 4:06 PM
beatabeatrix
UK(CV), 5 yrs

Well I shall be sorting out my suit with the litle arrows all over it!!Ball and chain....mmmm now there's a thought-will that be allowed?

Very depressing news....this site has talked about demonstrations and marches..any up date on these...I need to get my plackard ready!!

Stepping out of the page into the sensual world..... picture=63588

7 Jul 07, 5:46 PM
paulhooters
UK(DA), 5 yrs

And another thing (I have my dander up today. Don't take a photo, I might be arrested!),I know that this is a little bit of a drift, but why are there so few prosecutions of ABH, GBH in the domestic arena? It seems to me that you can beat up your wife and if she decides not to press charges then the abuser will "get away with it", but if I choose to beat my consensual partner with a paddle I run the risk of being arrested and her point of view is not considered.

A focus on where the need for legislation lays would be preferable to punishing those who are mutually enjoyiong a lifestyle choice (if you will excuse the expression).

Ooooh I feel so much better for that!

Just because I'm tongue tied doesn't mean I'm inarticulate.