Page: 1 2 3 4

IWF as a legal advice service (36)

This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.

DaddysTouch wrote:
In addition, it is only interested in UK-hosted material. Although extreme porn is illegal to download or view in the UK regardless of where it is hosted, the IWF can't do anything about that. So, if you upload your extreme picture to a site hosted in the Netherlands, they won't be reporting it. They will have no idea that the picture came from the UK, no idea that UK people might be looking at it, all they will know, even if someone flags it for them, is that it's hosted in the Netherlands.

Note that in the Girls Aloud case, they went after the UK citizen who uploaded it, even though it was hosted in another country. I can't remember how they found him - if one is careful, one can avoid being found, but in principle they are concerned with files uploaded by UK citizens too (even though they claim it's only for files hosted abroad).

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.

29 Jan 09, 11:17 AM
emark
UK, 8 yrs

Sirebel wrote:
Why do they limit their activities to sites hosted in the UK? They can add any IP address and URL to their block list.

AFAIK, they don't block obscene material at all - they only report the details to the police. Which makes sense for the OPA, because it's a publication law - prosecute the publisher, but no need to block it. Child porn is blocked because, I presume, it's illegal to possess, as well as to prevent distribution of the material.

Given that extreme porn law is a possession law too, it is interesting that they won't be blocking it at all.

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.

29 Jan 09, 11:31 AM
Sirebel
UK, 5 yrs

Seems you are right, they only block child abuse content.

However, I still don't see how the new law affects them in anyway. They could have operated this same service under the OPA (these images were always illegal to publish).

I don't know what's right and what's real any more

29 Jan 09, 1:36 PM
Smartarse
UK(CM), 7 yrs

Am I understanding this correctly? Anything illegal under the OPA now in someone's possession is classified as extreme porn and these things are classified as such: (Excuse me for snipping your quote Chris)

Backdooruk wrote:

rape
flagellation
torture with instruments
bondage (especially where gags are used)
dismemberment or graphic mutilation
activities involving perversion or degradation (such as drinking urine or smearing excreta on a person's body)

It seems to me that pretty much covers just about all BDSM activity. It would certainly cover the entire output from Kink.com. It would also cover a number of BDSM 'how to do bondage safely' sites. I'm now more confused than ever.

29 Jan 09, 1:42 PM
tiger_stripes
3 yrs

In the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2007, the Government cited the infamous Spanner case from the late 80's as justification for criminalising images of consensual sadomasochistic acts as "extreme pornography".

29 Jan 09, 9:58 PM
emark
UK, 8 yrs

Smartarse wrote:
Am I understanding this correctly? Anything illegal under the OPA now in someone's possession is classified as extreme porn and these things are classified as such:

Nope - the extreme porn law is a new law distinct to the OPA, and it's not true that anything illegal to publish is now illegal to possess. We won't know for sure what is covered by the new law until there are court cases. Supposedly the Government was meant to publish similar advice for the new law for the Crown Prosecution Service on its website, but it has yet to do so.

But yes, the law on publication is rather strict, so the Government's claim of "the extreme porn law only criminalises what's already illegal to publish", even if true, is not much consolation when it comes to BDSM. I'd say that the list is also out of touch with what many people often upload and view on the Internet (as you say, with kink.com). AFAIK there hasn't be a prosecution under the OPA for individuals uploading to the Internet - which is one reason why the Girls Aloud case will be interesting to watch ( http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/blogg... ).

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 29 Jan 09, 10:00 PM by emark