CJIA - Films they will need to ban (50)

This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.

15 May 08, 1:13 PM
Little_Miss_Shy
UK(PO), 15 mths

* Banging head against a brick wall*
Just trying to lighten the mood, not start ANOTHER thread about whats wrong or right!
* Honesty is the best policy *

15 May 08, 1:47 PM
pointingfinger
UK(RG), 2 yrs
Y! This is the relevant bit of the new law when it comes to illegality of movie clips:
63
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 imagescontained in a recording of the whole or part of a classified work.
(3) But such an image is not an “excluded image” if— (a) it is contained in a recording of an extract from a classified work, and
(b) it 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.

15 May 08, 1:48 PM
pointingfinger
UK(RG), 2 yrs
Y! oh, and can I add Irreversible, and Hostel 2 to the list.

15 May 08, 2:09 PM
Delphius1
UK(PO), 2 yrs
Y!

littlenic wrote:
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.
You have to first clarify the word "produced". Because there could be two ways of defining when an image is produced. Would it be when the film is actually made, or would it be when the image is extracted from the original film?
You could argue that the film is BBFC approved, wasn't created for sexual arousal and therefore isn't pornographic, but the extracted image becomes pornographic at the moment of creation because the owner has extracted it purely because he finds that image sexually arousing.
The problem with the law is the lack of clear definition.

15 May 08, 2:15 PM
littlenic
UK(KT), 2 yrs

Delphius1 wrote:

littlenic wrote:
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.
You have to first clarify the word "produced". Because there could be two ways of defining when an image is produced. Would it be when the film is actually made, or would it be when the image is extracted from the original film?
You could argue that the film is BBFC approved, wasn't created for sexual arousal and therefore isn't pornographic, but the extracted image becomes pornographic at the moment of creation because the owner has extracted it purely because he finds that image sexually arousing.
The problem with the law is the lack of clear definition.

Yes, I can see that. The law *may* make it an offence to extract and store an image or clip from a BBFC-classified film if you've snipped that bit for the purposes of getting your rocks off on it.
But they won't ban the film, will they? You won't get done for owning the DVD.
I suppose I'm just reacting (again - stupid, stupid girl) to sensationalist, speculatory posts. They aren't going to ban Saw 4, Thelma & Louise or Se7en. Or any other mainstream, BBFC classified films.
"Yours is over there..."
Edited 15 May 08, 2:16 PM by littlenic

15 May 08, 2:18 PM
SemiTrainedApe
UK(LA), 14 mths
What about Carry on Cowboy?
Sid James shoots people dead in it, and Joan Sims was clearly produced to give us the Horn.
It's not illegal if the monkey's up for it.

15 May 08, 2:27 PM
Dimswitch3
UK, 2 yrs
littlenic wrote:
"(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.
An interesting thought here? Am I right in thinking the assumption of the act is that the material is produced for sexual arousal, but the jury have to find it "obscene"?
What if the jury find it sexually arousing - can something be both obscene & sexually arousing?
BTW there's an easy & follproof way to test if an image is seaxually arousing - simply to show it to someone and if he pupils dilate then they're turned on - you cannot override this reaction. It'd be interesting to see if Martin Salter, Vernon Croaker & Gordon Brownshirt would try this test with some "extreme2 porn.

15 May 08, 3:16 PM
Little_Miss_Shy
UK(PO), 15 mths

littlenic wrote:
I suppose I'm just reacting (again - stupid, stupid girl) to sensationalist, speculatory posts. They aren't going to ban Saw 4, Thelma & Louise or Se7en. Or any other mainstream, BBFC classified films.
Well littlenic you have obviously missed the point of this thread...
its called "light hearted fun".
* Honesty is the best policy *

15 May 08, 3:21 PM
Vanilla_Spectator
8 mths
Miss_Nintendo wrote:
Well littlenic you have obviously missed the point of this thread...
its called "light hearted fun".
I missed it too, and I apologise.

15 May 08, 3:24 PM
littlenic
UK(KT), 2 yrs

Miss_Nintendo wrote:

littlenic wrote:
I suppose I'm just reacting (again - stupid, stupid girl) to sensationalist, speculatory posts. They aren't going to ban Saw 4, Thelma & Louise or Se7en. Or any other mainstream, BBFC classified films.
Well littlenic you have obviously missed the point of this thread...
its called "light hearted fun".
Oh. Sorry. Perhaps you could edit your 2-word OP (in BDSM Activism, which has been full of similar threads recently) to make that clearer.
Lucky SemiTrainedApe rescued it, eh? He's a treasure like that.

"Yours is over there..."
Edited 15 May 08, 3:25 PM by littlenic

Next page


	©1997-2009 Informed Consent