Tiger sex case - new extension of extreme porn law (27)

http://www.anorak.co.uk/233035/strange-but-true/...

What struck me was the reference to a non-bestial image. So far, I think, the new law has been used almost exclusively to deal with animal-sex images. This may be the first featuring a consensual human picture - if so, a worrying development.

I'm guessing rather carefully is the answer!

Sign up to CAAN's statement www.caan.org.uk
Spanner Trust SM campaign - can you join in? http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/239250/0
Get up, stand up - Bob Marley http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zTxUxFjLB0

Such as having sex with a tiger?

Activism a bit slow this week ?

ETA The tiger porn guy rather than the op.

Edited 8 Dec 09, 3:52 PM by MrDelphian

On another note, is this the first case for someone to plead Not Guilty?

One thing that's still not clear to me is if a ruling on one case can act as any kind of precedent, or argument, for future cases - I've heard different people claim different things.

(Heh, I can't help thinking that sex with a tiger would itself risk serious injury to one's genitals, in which case I can't help wondering if both charges refer to the same image...)

ETA: It's also interesting to note that when it comes to child porn charges, surely no publication would dare make the same kind of light hearted joke. Whilst I may not leap to the defence of animal porn, it's also absurd to compare it to child porn, and I'd argue that many people do not see them as comparable, simply by noting how animal porn is something to joke about (sheep shagging, etc).

Even the Telegraph have put it in the "How About That" category, which they describe as "From the unusual to the funny and the downright bizarre, we bring you a sample of weird news from around the world, along with cartoons, blogs and games... because news doesn't have to be serious. " The law is indeed a joke, but it's a shame it actually is serious.

Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement

Edited 8 Dec 09, 10:19 PM by emark

back to sleep to dream of calvin and hobbs....

That gives a whole new meaning to being fond of pussy.

Mind you if it's true the guy has definately earned his stripes.

"Rather carefully?", probably after a very long paws more like!!

Everythings going to be ok, as long as I have enough beers:
Courtesy of Homer.J.Simpson

Legally a precedent can only be set by a higher court - appeal court, divisional court, Supreme Court etc. - giving a legal ruling on a matter of law, usually on an appeal.

However in reality, especially in the case of laws where there is a degree of subjectivity such as deciding whether something is obscene or not, an ordinary case, especially a high profile one before a jury, can set a precedent. The Lady Chatterly case is an obvious and probably apposite example. It was a decision by a jury in a single case, and should have had no precedent value whatsoever for other prosecutions, but the reality is that by itself it virtually put a stop to prosecutions of written material for obscenity.

A case is only going to have that effect, though, if it gets a high degree of publicity to the extent that it comes to be seen in the eyes of the public and the legal establishment as a test case.