This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.
| Tue 13 May 08, 1:10 PM Dimswitch3 UK, 5 yrs |
As I understand it, the CJIB act puts emphasis on the context of an image or movie clip. An example is that if someone spliced clips from BBFC rated films they could still under the CJIB even though the original materail is legal. By the same logic, if you insert "extreme porn" into for example your holiday movie then it ought to be legal - (providing you haven't been to the OWK for your hols!). As an added benefit it'll reduce chances of been caught, I can't really imagine plod sitting through hours of home movies in the hope of catching a bit of smut.. | ||
| 13 May 08, 1:11 PM Degenerate  UK(M), 4 yrs    |
LOL!!! what a piece of ironic genuis! I wonder if it would work! you need to change your nick to geniusswitch
Sign porn petition (re CJIB & 'extreme images'! http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/extreme-images/ | ||
| 13 May 08, 1:18 PM xjames UK(SS), 5 yrs |
You'd have to get the said holiday film rated by the BBFC. Obligatory wanky Latin tagline: Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit | ||
| 13 May 08, 1:30 PM Dimswitch3 UK, 5 yrs |
No you wouldn't - you only need a BBFC rating to sell or rent video within the UK. | ||
| 13 May 08, 1:32 PM Tanos UK(M), 14 yrs  |
One way might be to attack the "realistic" test, by putting something in the film which makes it clear the sequence is staged. eg the word "staged" written on the bottom in felt pen at the start, and then washed off at the end. Or an S with a circle in it?
Kink.com scenes already have these "cheesy smile at camera to show I didn't die" bookend shots. Regards, Tanos (Edited to add: this may only work for films, since it appears the realistic and extreme test, unlike the pornographic test, could be applied to a single image, out of context. It may not even work for films, if they're allowed to take single frames out of context.) Edited 13 May 08, 1:52 PM by Tanos | ||
| 13 May 08, 1:37 PM Dimswitch3 UK, 5 yrs |
I bet the Daily Mail will claim these "cheesy smile" shots were taken before the participants were drugged, forced to act at gunpoint etc.
| ||
| 13 May 08, 1:39 PM xjames UK(SS), 5 yrs |
------------------- Exclusion of classified films etc. (1) Section 62 does not apply to excluded images. (2) An “excluded image” is an image which forms part of a series of images contained in a recording of the whole or part of a classified work. In this section— “classified work” means (subject to subsection (8)) a video work in respect of which a classification certificate has been issued by a designated authority (whether before or after the commencement of this section); “classification certificate” and “video work” have the same meanings as in the Video Recordings Act 1984 (c. 39); “designated authority” means an authority which has been designated by the Secretary of State under section 4 of that Act. ------------------- The upshot is, images in your holiday films are not exempt unless you get a certificate. Obligatory wanky Latin tagline: Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit Edited 13 May 08, 1:47 PM by xjames | ||
| 13 May 08, 1:39 PM Degenerate UK(M), 4 yrs |
wow their fantasies are even better than ours!!!! dirty perverts the lot of them. i liked toaks idea about making a film of sessions with a wider camera angle and all the fakedness obvious.
Sign porn petition (re CJIB & 'extreme images'! http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/extreme-images/ | ||
| 13 May 08, 1:40 PM Degenerate UK(M), 4 yrs |
yeah but sending them to the BBFC would be fun too!!
Sign porn petition (re CJIB & 'extreme images'! http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/extreme-images/ | ||
| 13 May 08, 1:40 PM Tanos UK(M), 14 yrs |
So ideally they should include the aftermath of puffed up eye socket, bruised limbs, glaring cane marks, and drooling newly-pierced tongue to show it really is a post-scene survival shot - and it needs taking quickly before those transient and trifling marks fade Regards, Tanos |
