Reverse logic on CJIB?? (29)

This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.

13 May 08, 3:34 PM
sirguym
UK(HR), 3 yrs

Dimswitch3 wrote:
This leads to some bizarre anamolies. For example it's illegal for a UK sex shop to sell an R18 DVD by post, yet if you order the same video from Holland it can be mailed to the UK and nobody has broken any laws!

Usually what happens in these circumstances is that your order is sent back to the UK by encrypted email to their agent who burns a copy off and posts it to you, in order to evade UK customs. He is breaking the law, but nobody else is; but (s)he is a little difficult for the UK authorities to find.
Academy Incorporated: turning fantasy into reality Miss Prim's Muir Academy, Muir Academy For Maids, The Academy Club and The Tawsingham Society: fast friendly, helpful, discreet service, with integrity www.tawse.com www.muir-academy.com guy@tawse.com PO Box 135, Hereford, HR2 7WL, UK +44(0)143

13 May 08, 6:27 PM
Attitude_Adjuster
UK(M), 2 yrs

Dimswitch3 wrote:
This leads to some bizarre anamolies. For example it's illegal for a UK sex shop to sell an R18 DVD by post, yet if you order the same video from Holland it can be mailed to the UK and nobody has broken any laws!
nope but customs can just keep it if they like

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

13 May 08, 10:46 PM
Dimswitch3
UK, 2 yrs
Gauthaur wrote:

Dimswitch3 wrote:
This leads to some bizarre anamolies. For example it's illegal for a UK sex shop to sell an R18 DVD by post, yet if you order the same video from Holland it can be mailed to the UK and nobody has broken any laws!
nope but customs can just keep it if they like

You do have a right of appeal, but most people just order it again - cheaper & more likely to succeed. Not sure on current practise but I doubt customs (now HMRC) are even bothering to look for smut in the post, when you can transmit an exact copy ofa DVD over the internet in a few hours.
Point is that foreign DVD suppliers have a massive advantage over UK suppliers for UK based customers.

13 May 08, 11:00 PM
emark
UK, 5 yrs xjames is correct. The only way to apply this in reverse is to get a BBFC classification for your extreme image.
But this does raise a serious question for film-makers who produce material that might fall under the new "extreme porn" law - how would they avoid breaking the law _before_ their material is sent for classification?
The standard method of "the BBFC tell you what to cut, and at no point do your risk breaking the law" doesn't apply here. Film-makers of such material would be immediately at risk since it's a law on possession!
It seems to me that this BBFC exemption is only going to be useful in practice for already published material - for new material, film-makers would be taking a risk.
Extending censorship laws from publication to possession is not merely closing a loophole as the Government claim, it's a whole new draconian era of censorship.
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.

14 May 08, 9:58 AM
sirvere12
UK(NG), 24 mths
Y! Just got this from David Cameron's Office. Don't know if I'm telling y'all what you know anyways but for what it's worth.....
Thank you for your email about the provisions in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill relating to extreme pornography.
During the Bill's progress through the Lords, the Government conceded that there were elements in this section of the legislation that were unclear. They have now removed from the offence images which 'appear' to show an act, instead requiring that the acts must be portrayed in an 'explicit and realistic way', and that the people and animals shown must be such that a reasonable person looking at the image would think that they were real. This is intended to ensure that only graphic and convincing scenes are caught within the definition.
The images must also be 'grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character'. This removes the possible paradox of making something illegal under this Bill which could legally be published under the Obscene Publications Act.
We are confident that these changes address some of the major concerns with this piece of the legislation, however, now the Bill has received Royal Assent it is unlikely that we will have the opportunity to revisit this again.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to write.
Yours sincerely,
Anna Biles
Correspondence Secretary
David Cameron's Office
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

14 May 08, 12:03 PM
ToakReon
UK(RH), 8 yrs
Y!

sirvere12 wrote:
The images must also be 'grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character'. This removes the possible paradox of making something illegal under this Bill which could legally be published under the Obscene Publications Act.
If we could just get them to state that the images have to be obscene AS DEFINED UNDER THE OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS ACT in order to be illegal then that would be a major victory.
Unfortunately they have avoided every effort to specify that "obscene" is as per OPA definition, wishing it instead to be an "undefined term of objectionableness". Secondly it has to be "grossly offensive, disgusting OR otherwise of an obscene character" and that "or" is telling. It doesn't need to be obscene at all - merely ANY ONE OF "grossly offensive", "disgusting" or of "obscene character".
More weasel words which mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
I am getting so bloody angry about this. This government is playing us all for fools and not even playing well - and I'm almost as angry that David Cameron is letting them do it.
Toak
FEMALE, BONDAGE-FRIENDLY MODEL SOUGHT. I am seeking to update my "How To" shibari bondage pictures (see my profile pics, the clothed blonde tied in red and black) with a model more "enthusiastic" about BDSM, and who is happy to be photographed nude. MEMO ME if this is you.

14 May 08, 12:08 PM
xjames
UK(SS), 2 yrs

ToakReon wrote:
I am getting so bloody angry about this. This government is playing us all for fools and not even playing well - and I'm almost as angry that David Cameron is letting them do it.
Toak
I think there are enough statements by ministers in the public domain (including Hansard) that when the courts have to assess what parliament intended by this law, precedent may well be set which sets a higher bar for CJIA images than the OPA.
As for Cameron, fwiw (which ain't a lot), this is what he sent me:
Dear James,
Thank you for your email about the provisions in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill relating to extreme pornography.
During the Bill's progress through the Lords, the Government conceded that there were elements in this section of the legislation that were unclear. They have now removed from the offence images which 'appear' to show an act, instead requiring that the acts must be portrayed in an 'explicit and realistic way', and that the people and animals shown must be such that a reasonable person looking at the image would think that they were real. This is intended to ensure that only graphic and convincing scenes are caught within the definition.
The images must also be 'grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character'. This removes the possible paradox of making something illegal under this Bill which could legally be published under the Obscene Publications Act.
We are confident that these changes address some of the major concerns with this piece of the legislation, however, now the Bill has received Royal Assent it is unlikely that we will have the opportunity to revisit this again.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to write.

Obligatory wanky Latin tagline: Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit

15 May 08, 3:03 PM
mikeswitch
UK, 5 yrs

Strangely (not) ... those were the same words sent to me by my MP - who just happens to be a shadow cabinet member.
At least it would appear that they have a co-ordinated policy on something!

15 May 08, 8:02 PM
grahamm
UK, 8 yrs
Y!

sirvere12 wrote:
Just got this from David Cameron's Office.
So have I! It's a bog standard cut-and-paste response that doesn't really answer questions and just tries to fob the writer off.


	©1997-2009 Informed Consent