Backlash Press Release on "Extreme Porn" Case (22)

verte wrote: Lady_Anna_Bradford wrote: I'm pleased he listened to Backlash. I'm also hoping his Not Guilty plea will mean the meanings and definitions of this law will now be thrashed out in court for the benefit of all. Is that selfish? In an ideal world, for US the best thing would be if it went to Europe .... but really, this is about getting someone a fair trial who should never have been tried in court at all and hopefully alerting other law firms and solicitors to the law who might be dealing with similar cases. I'm really glad we have the resources to provide that help. I'd also like to thank Jane Fae for alerting Backlash to the second case and being instrumental in putting us in touch with the defendant.

Don't want to appear pessimistic but Spanner going to Europe didn't help one little bit. It set in stone the principle that what we do in private between consenting adults is not accepted by the wider community and they don't like the idea of us doing it.

However, we have seen in previous cases that pleading guilty gives the judge few options and so changing his plea is probably a good thing if the judge wants to send a message to the police trying to manipulate the system (by leaving out the sound track etc).

Is there any information about what these images contain? I understand that it is porn featuring two consenting adults but there are several clauses that would make it extreme porn. If it is necrophilia or related then I think you're doing the guy a disservice.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see this bill repealed but you don't do that in court. If the image is defined as extreme by the court then they must find him guilty or the law means nothing.

No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. Abraham Lincoln

"Holland's case gained notoriety as he had previously been charged with a second, separate extreme pornography charge relating to a video clip purportedly depicting a sexual act between a human and a tiger. This charge was withdrawn when it was discovered that the prosecutor had failed to listen to the video's soundtrack, whererin one of the “actors” made a comment about Tony the Tiger from the Frosties commercials, proving the video was an elaborate joke and the tiger was not real; leaving the prosecution deeply embarrassed."

"The second and more serious charge alleged that Holland had downloaded and viewed a six-second clip of human-on-human extreme porn.

According to Holland, this was sent to him as a joke - he viewed it just once, but made the mistake of not getting round to deleting it."

So we're talking about human on human.

The tiny morsal that is knocking about (which I can't link to, cos I can't find it) is connected to what we call edge play. It's definatly not necrophilia.

*Choose Freedom* Sign up to http://www.caan.org.uk
@The_Poly_Group

No idea how accurate this information is.

Incidentally, even for the "necro" clause, I'd say it's not so clear cut as one might think. No known cases of real snuff porn exist, so in practice such material would be most likely be people pretending to be dead (and hence, whilst it may not be my thing, it's nonetheless a fetish between consenting adults) - as with the website Necrobabes, that was mentioned by the Government. Unfortunately the law still covers fictional material, but there would be questions such as what constitutes "realistic", and what counts as "sexual interference".

Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement

Edited 31 May 10, 2:54 PM by emark

Nobody can or should give further information, as anything said could be used against him or us in a court of law (it can bias a case). Please try not to second guess the facts.

These are the facts:

Andrew Holland still faces charges for possession of extreme pornography featuring consenting adults as a stand alone case. He has changed his plea to not guilty. He is currently facing a possible year in jail.

Backlash and their legal people are supporting Andrew Holland to defend his case. People at both Backlash and CAAN have further details about the images.

Having taken advice, I can say in an official capacity for the information of CAAN supporters.. I'm satisfied with supporting Andrew Holland to fight this charge, so please do everything you can to support related community activism.

Clair Lewis AKA Degenerate (or Dennis queen)

National Convenor Consenting Adult Action Network www.caan.org.uk

Sign up to our statement of principles for the freedom of consenting adults to express themselves! http://www.caan.org.uk/sign.php
Please see our new website: http://www.caan.org.uk/

"Well-behaved women rarely make history"
http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk
http://www.kinkysalonlondon.co.uk

Edited 31 May 10, 3:37 PM by verte

I would appeal to ICers not to make assumptions about the images and use these assumptions as a basis to doubt Backlash and CAAN's ability to assess whether or not a case is worthy of our support. Of course, if you would like to be more involved in this kind of decision-making, I think I can safely that both organisations welcome such support.

"Well-behaved women rarely make history"
http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk
http://www.kinkysalonlondon.co.uk

"(7) An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following—

(a) an act which threatens a person's life,

(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals,

(c) an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or

(d) a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),

and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real."

~* Raku wa ku no tané; ku wa raku no tané. *~