Which Insex vids are "Extreme porn"? (32)

Take your hard drive to the local police and ask them to clarify matters.... ?

Seriously - no one can answer that except a jury.

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

For example in this Tamworrh case the judge deemed "Realistic damage to the genitals" as against the law.

I know for a fact this includes male and female genitals, as well as anus.

To be safe anything that, when viewed out of context, as depicting assault, assault with a weapon, rape, or sexual assault, should be avoided.

Only films where consent is given on camera, without appearance of duress, should be considered safer than those without.

The area I'm most unsure about are pornographic movies such as "Gag on this" et al. As this type of film shows women in potentially non consentual situations, especially when the video is edited to minimise bandwidth. Such videos when viewed out of context could be construed as videos of sexual assault or rape.

Edit: because autocorrect is a cock juggling thunder cunt.

The following statement is false. The previous statement is true.
Reality is a perception, normality an opinion.
No stranger to being beaten around the head with a concept. Where 'the concept' refers to a large stick.

Edited 29 May 11, 2:47 PM by stripped_warrior

Bollocks.

It is illegal to assault people.

It is not possible to consent to assault of any kind.

It is not illegal to film, buy, profit from or own footage of asault. Whether or not for sexual gratification.

This is not covered by the extreme porn legislation.

It is illegal to own/shoot/buy/profit from footage that involves injury to a persons breast, anus or genitals that was shot for the purposes of sexual gratification.

This is covered by the legislation.

Stop muddling these two seperate issues up and confusing people.

Cruel Goddess

The following statement is false. The previous statement is true.
Reality is a perception, normality an opinion.
No stranger to being beaten around the head with a concept. Where 'the concept' refers to a large stick.

Of course they are. And a jury has the final say on the sexual gratification point.

But assault and regular bdsm isn't covered by sexual legislation is the point I'm making.

You don't go to jail for spanking films, or I'd have been banged up long ago.

Cruel Goddess

Edited 29 May 11, 4:26 PM by Charlie_G

Yes, but you don't have access to the footage thats being talked about do you?

I would think that 'realistic' isn't really the relevant wording. "serious" is the problematic expression. 'realistic', I would think is to exempt things like cartoons, clear spoof, so on rather than theatrical realism vs clearly consensual. consensuality of the participant is AFACT irrelevant, even if they give a short interview at the start.

Its easy to define 'safe', in that if it doesn't involve anus, breasts or genitals or presenting a threat to life, its probably OK. The OPs discussion relating to insex frequently features these things in a way that I wouldn't consider 'serious' but an arbitrary jury might. Thats the problem.

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

Edited 29 May 11, 9:09 PM by Attitude_Adjuster

I don't believe (I'm no legal expert) that possesion of violent imagery is a punishable offence on it's own. (Anyone have knowledge or info regarding the possession of "happyslap" footage and potential legal outcomes or prosecutions?)

I can only give my opinion regarding BDSM footage, based on my own habits, which I base on what I understand of the law. Something that changes from time to time i admit.

@ Attitude_Adjuster:

Serious is a more accurate description than my own, and I pretty much agree with what your saying.

Sadly I don't have full access to the 'net, being on a phone, so I'm loath to goto high graphic content sites and ravage my monthly download to view Insex's content. I will rely on your description.

I would just recommend caution because as you say, a jury may deem it illegal. It cannot be relied upon that someone who is charged with possession of "Extreme images" is charged correctly, it has been commented elsewhere that it has been incorrectly applied before. There is also no way to know if there would be the chancemto educate the jury as to what extent consentual activity can reach.

When contemplating perception of something you have to consider the lowest common denominator. In this case imagine a jury of (correct me if I stray into the wrong political area) Guardian, Daily Mail, Sun and Daily Sport readers. Which is far more likely than getting a jury of your actual peers, people who have knowledge of BDSM activities.

The following statement is false. The previous statement is true.
Reality is a perception, normality an opinion.
No stranger to being beaten around the head with a concept. Where 'the concept' refers to a large stick.

http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/wp/?p=829

I 'think' there was another case that was dropped in a sort of happy slapping/ jackass stylee it was dropped when it was pointed out that it was a viral shock violence clip that had been doing the rounds for ages.

Same with Tony the talking tiger.....

these are not hardcore images they are the sort of nonsense that anyone can have on their computer or get sent on their phone.

Hopefully as there is a string of them that have been laughed out of court the police and cps will be a little more cautious about what they take a punt on.

But anyone with a large collection of images will have more borderline stuff pulled into the sack of potential charges becuase its 'obvious' that something borderline must be 'extreme' becuase there are other images there that are.

A bit like Child abuse level 1 images.... probably you or I could get away with a picture of a child in a swim suit.... but found on a computer with higher level images the assumption is it must fall in with the rest of the images. Becuase the only reason for a paedophile to have such a thing is becuase they see children as sex objects.

They think only reason someone into BDSM would have a violent clip is becuase they are turned on by sexual violence and therefore must sexualise ANY violence....

We're not credited with any sort of discernment.

Buy a copy of Beyond the Circle CAAN statement of principle.

You're not making sense.

'Violent' content is not illegal. 'Extreme' content is.

It is a legal definition.

You'll struggle to get your hands on 'extreme' content these days anyway, as most billing solutions are committed to responsible billing and police their sites.

You won't get anything that draws blood past CCBill, for example.

Cruel Goddess

Although not pornography they depict a more realistic rape content than many rape porn films do.