Posted by emark on Thu 4 Dec 08, 12:13 PM to emark's blog.
The Government has released guidance on the law criminalising possession of "extreme" pornography, now due to come into force on 26 January 2009, at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/announcement26110... (direct link at http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/extreme-pornograp... ).
Legal for the participants to possess, but not for the photographer: There is a defence in that it is legal to possess an image that you "directly participated" in, if the act is one that one can legally consent to (so this defence may not apply to images of S&M, due to the Spanner ruling). People had noticed that the wording of "directly participated" might not include the photographer. I'd assumed that this was sloppy wording, but here, the Government states that this is their intention: "The defence cannot be claimed by onlookers and this will include those filming an activity if they are not also direct participants in the activity". (If you're at a play party and someone's taking pics, it's your legal duty to take part!)
On the definition of pornography: "The Act defines a pornographic image as one which must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal. ... It is not a question of the intentions of those who produced the image." Clear as mud! "Nor is it a question of the sexual arousal of the defendant." As far as I can tell, it's not about what an image was really produced for, it's about what a jury thinks it must have been produced for, judged either solely from the image, or also from the context in which it was found. So an image might be viewed as porn, even if you have proof that the purpose of its production was otherwise. The guidance also confirms that the same image could be legal in some contexts, but illegal to possess in others (e.g., on your hard disk amongst other sexual images?).
On serious injury: The only explanation given to the terms "Life-threatening" and "Serious injury" is to say that they aren't defined by the Act, and will be up to the jury to decide. It also states that "serious injury" is not to be taken as equivalent to GBH, which some had assumed. On the positive side, this gives more control to a jury. On the negative side, it risks "serious injury" being interpreted (by police and/or jury) more broadly than GBH. The law seems now broader and more vague than both at the consultation response (where it was acts likely to result in serious disabling injury) and the original consultation (where it was acts of GBH - with no "likely to result in" qualifier). Now we have "likely to result in serious injury". The guidance gives the same examples that the Government had previously given: life-threatening could include "depictions of hanging, suffocation, or sexual assualt involving a threat with a weapon" whilst serious injury could include "the insertion of sharp objects or the mutilation of breasts or genitals".
More information on illegal material: The guidance refers to www.cps.gov.uk, "about material they will consider for prosecution under the Obscene Publications Act" and www.bbfc.org.uk, "about the sort of sexual material they refuse to classify". I presume the former is here, which includes "flagellation", "torture with instruments", "bondage (especially where gags are used)", "activities involving perversion or degradation" whilst the the BBFC will not classify "the portrayal of any sexual activity which involves lack of consent (whether real or simulated). Any form of physical restraint which prevents participants from indicating a withdrawal of consent", "the infliction of pain or physical harm, real or (in a sexual context) simulated" and "any sexual threats, humiliation or abuse which does not form part of a clearly consenting role-playing game. Strong abuse, even if consensual, is unlikely to be acceptable". This does not mean that these things come under the new law, but the list does nothing to reassure when it comes to the question of whether possession of consensual BDSM material may be caught by the law. They say that they can't give a list of material that may be illegal because there is a "very wide range" of pornographic material - what happened to this law only covering a very limited amount of material?
The guidance assures us that it isn't aimed at the BDSM community - they say No, it's aimed at everyone...
Who to report material to?: The guidance states that the IWF will be dealing with material online, whilst material elsewhere should be reported to the police ("Hello, Officer? There's a naughty picture I found in a book in Waterstones. Please come quick, it's an emergency, someone might get killed!")
ETA: However, the IWF have stated that they will only be dealing with material that's hosted in the UK! ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/12/iwf_inve... )
The Government is not shy of admitting the chilling effects of this law - if we think material is illegal, we "should delete it", it tells us, or "destroy it and dispose of it responsibly". Does burning books count as responsible?
Anything I missed?
Edited Mon 29 Dec 08, 6:23 PM by emark
| 4 Dec 08, 3:05 PM bedsguy40 UK, 7 yrs  |
Obviously most will agree with the law regarding corpes, abimals, the other sections are deliberately ambiguous, they will be changed later, and do not assume that if you oppose the EU that you will have a Jury.
The EU has already secretly brought in the death penalty, hidden in the foot note of a footnote, These acts are coming out because the EU wants ways of getting those who oppose it laws and politics to be put onto the sex offenders register, have their names and adresses put on line, without details of the specific offence 'the mob' will simply be told they are sex offenders living near you so the mob (or the Govt Dr David Kelly) will rid of them for the dictators that are the EU. | |||||
| 4 Dec 08, 6:09 PM ForestPines UK, 7 yrs |
Err... no, they haven't.
If you actually go and read the site you've linked to, it says:
and also
and
Hope this helps - have a nice day! | |||||
| 5 Dec 08, 1:50 PM redcat 9 yrs |
making the act of necrophilia illegal was brought in on a basis of no evidence but much ickiness factor. the making possession of images of necrophilia illegal is just as flawed as making pictures of S&M illegal to possess. It affects a different tranche of the BDSM/fetish community... those into sleepysex, objectification etc and also a cross over into the horror fan/goth community. Chances are if you find a picture of a necrophiliac act it is staged by consenting adults. (this girl would hazzard that real instances are kept in the same folder on Martin Salters computer as the folder he keeps his snuff movies in). At what point a photograph of someone having sex with their eyes closed becomes necrophila we just don't know. In this girls humble opinion its a shame we are not fighting/did not fight all clauses of this law that concern any sex that COULD be construed as consensual. So you are quite right...not ALL of us agree with the law regarding corpses.
| |||||
| 5 Dec 08, 8:37 PM Degenerate  UK(M), 4 yrs    |
Thanks for posting this emark, have linked to it. De VOTE FOR CAAN and help raise our profile:
http://www.londongayfetishawards.com/ | |||||
| 6 Dec 08, 12:19 PM ms_chatelaine UK(SW), 4 yrs |
"The Government is not shy of admitting the chilling effects of this law - if we think material is illegal, we "should delete it", it tells us, or "destroy it and dispose of it responsibly". Does burning books count as responsible?" -- emark Well put, emark!!! Not only is it astonishingly ridiculous, it's downright frightening. Men are like a fine wine. They begin as grapes, and it's up to Women to stomp the shit out of them until they turn into something acceptable to have dinner with. Edited 6 Dec 08, 12:20 PM by ms_chatelaine | |||||
| 7 Dec 08, 12:11 PM vikkiw UK, 4 yrs |
| |||||
| 8 Dec 08, 11:12 AM MasterOfMe UK(WD), 6 yrs |
I think the EU death penalty thing is a bit off topic - although I will mention that giving members the right to impose their own death penalties is very different from the EU imposing one. TBH the EU is about the only defense we have against the lunatics currently vomiting forth laws over in parliament - the convention on human rights in particular is one of the reasons we still have any rights left at all! | |||||
| 9 Dec 08, 7:57 PM bare_ass_boy4F UK, 5 yrs |
i'm really worried about this new legislation because the wording is so vague and i'm not really sure what's illegal and what's legal. can someone tell me.... is spanking porn now illegal too? or is this aimed more at the rape/mutiliation/snuff end of the spectrum. do people think websites will start to specify whether their material is "uk safe" or are we taking the law into our own hands everytime we start surfing the net? | |||||
| 10 Dec 08, 1:06 AM MasterOfMe UK(WD), 6 yrs |
Spanking is probably safe - unless you are talking the heavy canings leaving marks or other 'extreme' forms. As you say it's all very vague though. | |||||
| 12 Dec 08, 12:17 PM emark UK, 8 yrs |
However, note that the material that the BBFC refuse to classify on the whole includes a lot more BDSM material - see the list of what they won't classify even for R18: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/classification/c_R18.php
There is also the problem that the scheme only seems it could work for sites where the BBFC can pre-approve content. For websites where there is user-generated content, e.g., people putting pics on their profile, or posting to forums, then I can't see how the BBFC's scheme could work. Also note that although a BBFC rating means the image is exempt from the law, it does not mean that the image would be the kind that would be legal under the law. In particular, an extract from a BBFC approved video could still come under the law again. Sign the statement against criminalisation of possession "extreme" images. See http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ and http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_... for more details. Edited 12 Dec 08, 12:23 PM by emark |
