CJIA - Films they will need to ban (50)

This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.

16 May 08, 4:03 PM
MistressNikki
UK, 7 yrs

Mac_rame wrote:
Mmmm
I wonder..........
If everyone had these films, the full BBFC legal versions
And then copied just the good bits to a DVD just for the purposes of one handed watching...Ehem
When you are nicked and taken to court for posessing the snippets on DVD and you bring out the full versions too, that would be jolly difficult for the prosecution to get a conviction with a jury when the exact same images are legal in your right hand but illegal in your left if you happen to be wanking with your right while you watch them
Just a thought
Surely, even if no conviction under CJIA, in that case, they may get you under Copyright? Make sure those snippets are under 5% of the entire works people!
Love... The kind you wipe up with a mop and bucket.

16 May 08, 4:11 PM
mikeswitch
UK(CB), 6 yrs

MistressNikki wrote:
snip ...
I can't remember the name of the film, but there is a graphic "Drunk-Cowboy-rapes-girl-over-a-pinball-machine" scene right at the start... "The Witness" maybe? I've not watched it, it touched massive emotional rawness I wasn't able to face when it came out.

It was "The Accused"... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094608/

17 May 08, 4:54 PM
emark
UK, 6 yrs
Mac_rame wrote:
If everyone had these films, the full BBFC legal versions
And then copied just the good bits to a DVD just for the purposes of one handed watching...Ehem
When you are nicked and taken to court for posessing the snippets on DVD and you bring out the full versions too, that would be jolly difficult for the prosecution to get a conviction with a jury when the exact same images are legal in your right hand but illegal in your left if you happen to be wanking with your right while you watch them
It's indeed ludicrous - but this is explicitly covered in the bill, so a prosecution would not seem difficult when the law says it's illegal, no matter how ludicrous the law is (though perhaps a jury might refuse to convict anyway, if we are lucky).
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.

17 May 08, 5:22 PM
GotanGotan
22 mths Just to add another serious point to this; what frustrates me the most about the legislation is that we all know that mainstream movies deliberately use not-so-ambiguous sexual titillation, in particular soft-core bondage images, to sell more films; there's no difference in intent at all, it's simply a difference in intended audience and greater financial corporate muscle behind their films.
I recall one recent poster campaign for a film (whose title slips my mind at the moment) which showed the three main character's heads mounted on trophy plaques... but the woman, and the woman only had two pieces of tape over her mouth. Oh yes, of course in the film there's supposed to be a reason why she, and not the two men are gagged... she's a dumb gossipy nagging blonde; And we all know what women like THAT need, don't we, you fat white suburban males?
You've got blatant violence-porn like the Death Wish movies; you've got horror films with deliberately sexualised violence (hello woman-raping tree from Evil Dead I/II). You've got entire films whose only reason for existance is that one of your actresses is known for being hot (Paris Hilton, and before her, Jennifer Lopez). You've got incredibly subtle, but quite, quite deliberate sexuality where artistically it's irrelevant, such as the favoured Panty Shot Angle... The last one I can recall offhand was in "V for Vendetta", where Evey rolls off the bed away from the Preacher... shot for some curious reason, with a camera angle pointing right between her legs. I wonder how many re-shoots they did for a lack of enough wardrobe malfunction...?
Now that last one might sound a little paranoid; but as you already know, if I screen grab that, rename it too "School Girl Upskirt.jpeg", it'll fall foul of the new law. But the Wachowski brothers will have put more thought and effort into giving the audience a flash of white knicker than I could ever have done to simply make the screengrab of it.
But they can afford very, very good Lawyers... *sighs*

17 May 08, 6:32 PM
Satins_slave
UK, 24 mths
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.
Exactly, so one thing may turn one person on and may make another sick!!!! Who will be categorising the images etc and how will they be selected??

17 May 08, 8:01 PM
Kitti_Whitaker
3 yrs
Yes that's exactly why the law is really stupid. What turns someone on is so personal. Many things that are "designed to arouse" don't, and then they aren't addressing all that violence (in films) that will still be legal because it's not sexual.
Funnily enough while having "vanilla sex" with breathplay would be classed "sexual", breath play without it wouldn't. That's pure bdsm. Jane Longhurst should have read up.

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.

http://www.capellacafe.hu/kezdolap/galery/lollyp...
Edited 17 May 08, 8:09 PM by Kitti_Whitaker

19 May 08, 9:13 PM
nicad2
UK(BN), 2 yrs
Y!

Mac_rame wrote:
Mmmm
I wonder..........
If everyone had these films, the full BBFC legal versions
And then copied just the good bits to a DVD just for the purposes of one handed watching...Ehem
When you are nicked and taken to court for posessing the snippets on DVD and you bring out the full versions too, that would be jolly difficult for the prosecution to get a conviction with a jury when the exact same images are legal in your right hand but illegal in your left if you happen to be wanking with your right while you watch them
Just a thought
That's brilliant! Let's all upload our wanky clips to somewhere and make a big DVD of them! Anyone fancy hosting it? I would but I am too busy as I will be moving house soon.
--
David
Email: nicad_2 AT yahoo.co.uk www.geocities.com/nicad_2/aboutme/

20 May 08, 10:31 AM
the_saranwrap_kid
UK, 2 yrs
Would internet movie sites be banned under the law if they had stills from the films they are promoting/commenting on?
Wonder if sites such as imdb would fall foul.
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2601295104/tt0450278 chopping up a dead body in Hostel,
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1291163904/tt0498353 hostel 2
Can't find many explicit pix, but I bet there are some dodgy ones.
suzy
http://www.thedungeonclub.co.uk/ next event 14th June
Dudley Dungeon Munch hotline: 07908 874 1998
http://calendar.yahoo.co.uk/lilred_suzy

20 May 08, 2:17 PM
MsSlide
UK(RH), 10 yrs
£ Y!

emark wrote:
Just to clarify - classified works are exempt from the law. But a screenshot from a classified work, if believed to be made principally for the purpose of sexual arousal, is not exempt. (See Section 64, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld20070... ).
This is a great thread... My choice would be "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom", rated PG - all that whipping and graphic simulated snuff, not to mention the attractive blonde woman who is regularly tied to things! Actually, after a quick Google image search, here's a rather lovely screenshot of her tied to something, and I post it here purely for artistic merit rather than "principally for the purpose of sexual arousal" of course!
www.SlideRulesYou.com
Slide's Fetish Forum
Bitch Blog

23 May 08, 8:45 AM
nicad2
UK(BN), 2 yrs
Y!
Quoting myself from the Whitehouse thread... Here's a very good one we should report for actual proven harm done over a 2000 year period...

nicad2 wrote:
Just for the record, I find the Bible very offensive indeed. It's full of non-consensual BDSM and nasty prejudice innocent against minorities. And it's mysogynist and racist. A thoroughly nasty book that can be proven to have caused depravity and corruption throughout history since it was written on what can only be described as a truly biblical scale. More people have been tortured and murdered as a result of that book than any other publication in history, even Mein Kempf and Das Kapital. And the writings of the Marquis de Sade are not known to have caused any deaths or non-consensual torture at all. It's a jolly good read actually, my GF has a copy.
Under the CJIA the Bible would be banned if someone wrote it today. Actually we should bring a case against it under the CJIA just to prove what a daft act it is.
Even better - We should publish a book of nasty extracts from the bible (we can even include sexy erotic stuff from the song of Solomon etc) just to make sure it is completely illegal and get that banned (to make it a best seller).
Oh and whle I am on the subject, Al Koran is also pretty nasty and comes in a very close second to the Bible, hot on it's heels and rapidly catching up.

--
David
Email: nicad_2 AT yahoo.co.uk www.geocities.com/nicad_2/aboutme/


	©1997-2010 Informed Consent