Those pesky critters from CAAN (Campaigning Adult Action Network) are at it again, cheekily asking the government what the extreme porn law actually means for Joe Public. This week they are joined in their efforts by Ben Westwood, son of fashion designer Vivienne Westwood, whose outrage at the coming law leads him to suggest …
@The Other Steve
"There isn't an icon that suitably represents the populace rounding up all those who would seek to be our moral guardians and stringing them up from lamp posts, but there should be."
Oh yes there is.
Come to Canada
To all of you thinking about leaving England.
Come to Canada.
We need more educated and skilled people here. Especially, as our education and health systems are going to hell. Our Old Age Security pensions will soon be bankrupt and we'll like;y be taken over by the US of A for the oil in our western and northern provinces.
Oh wait, if you come here does that mean there'll be a spot for me over there.
@Definition of Extreme Porn
EP is any image that a "Reasonable Person" (ie a random clueless individual) believes looks like it "risks" doing "serious harm" to a person's anus, genitals or breasts.
Frankly, have you ever watched a woman waxing down there? I assure you there are plenty of "Reasonable people" who would wince at that and argue that to them yes it does indeed look like it risks doing serious harm to her genitals. Just hope that they're not in the jury if you took a photo of it and forgot.
"(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,"
No CBT or boob bondage?
To hell with that.
Oh and I forgot
Risks serious injury to breasts: Bulgarian airbags
Risks serious injury to genitals: Piercings, riding a big cock.
Endangers a person's life: nude bungee-jumping, sex while driving (yes, I know it's bluescreened but a "Resonable Person" has never heard of a bluescreen let alone being able to understand the concept), that Paris Hilton video with people doing cocaine in the nude.
Risks serious injury to anus: Anything anal at all. "Reasonable People" will be ~90% heterosexual and a jury only needs a ~90% majority to pass verdict. These "Reasonable People" will find anal porn painful to watch and thus conclude that it must hurt the recipient as badly as it does their eyes.
Who here is in favour of action against child porn ?
The idea is that by restricting access to such images, less images are produced and therefore less children are harmed to make the images.
"But but but that's different " I hear you cry - " kids aren't old enough to consent to these acts and are being abused".
Yes that's true, but have you ever heard of the "white slave trade" ?
How do you *know* that the extreme porn you are looking at is performed by "willing" participants ?
Answer - you can't, unless you're in the pictures and so is your wife/boyfriend/dog.
So someone please explain the difference in intent between this proposed law, and the law against indecent images of kids.
Let's extend your argument slightly.
How do you know whether the model on Page 3 of the Sun consented to being photographed topless? How do you know whether any porn star consents or is being sexually abused?
Your argument is an argument for a total ban on porn, not a selective one on the type of porn you don't like.
Re: Well then...
Sex with children is, and should be, illegal. Images of sex with children are illegal.
Sex between consenting adults is legal. Images involving consenting adults should be legal.
Now sure, there is some argument that if images of non-consensual sex between adults was widespread, that should be an argument for criminalising all of them. But:
Firstly, this would be an argument for criminalising depictions of adult sex, on the grounds that they might not be consensual or staged. This law does not target hardcore porn, instead focusing unfairly on acts that might be practiced by sadomasochists. Similarly, it would be an argument for banning all violent films, in case the participants hadn't consented and people were really being harmed.
Secondly, not a single example of "extreme porn" involving non-consenting adults has ever been produced (adult sexual slavery is a serious issue, but no link has been shown between this and the "extreme porn" sites). It certainly is not widespread. We might as well criminalise any film that shows someone dying, out of fear that it's a mythical snuff film.
Thirdly, there should at least be a defence where it can be proven that the participants consented. But under the new law, sadomasochists who photograph their own acts will be criminalised (the defence for participating in the image would not apply to sadomasochists, because the law does not consider their consent valid); you might have cases where only one partner is in the image, and it would be illegal for their partner to possess - not to mention say, a threesome where two of them decide to make a kinky picture, and then give to the third. Other examples would be images from BBFC legal films, or legal porn sites that are regulated, keep records, and where the participants turn up to court to say they consented (if you are going to quibble "what if they were threatened into it" - well, again that's an argument for criminalising _all_ pornography). Also consider staged acts - it can obviously be shown that the participants were in fact unharmed.
I would be more than happy with such a defence, even if the burden of proof was on the defendant - but the Government refused to allow such a defence, because this law is not about protecting participants, but about the depictions themselves:
"So someone please explain the difference in intent between this proposed law, and the law against indecent images of kids."
The Government themselves explain this - this law is not about protecting participants, it's about the claim that looking at images turns people into violent criminals. The Government's own Rapid Evidence Assessment couldn't find any evidence of people harmed in the production of "extreme porn", and instead focused on alleged affects of viewing material. The law came about after Graham Coutts murdered Jane Longhurst, because Coutts had access certain sites - that are known to be staged with consenting adults. Please read some of the House of Lords debates:
In responding to criticisms, Lord Hunt's justification is basically that these images are "disgusting". In particular, he states:
"I do not take this very liberal approach of "If it does no harm to the people taking part, why should we worry about it?" I do worry about it, and about the access that people have to that kind of disgusting material."
When asked if a crime is committed in their production, he states: "some would be covered by offences in this country and some would not, but they were all disgusting."
Whether people are harmed or not is irrelevant, because the Government's position is to do with the depictions themselves, not how they are produced.
Also see the Government's justifications under the ECHR ( http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/en/07130x-n.htm#index_link_206 ) - only one of the clauses refers to protecting participants (and even there, it states staged activities - not a single clause claims the existence of non-consensual injuries); the rest are about controlling images of consenting sadomasochists; that the material "may be harmful" to viewers; that the depictions should be banned because the activities are "not considered acceptable"; and Please Won't Somebody Think Of The Children...
If you wish to believe that viewing some material turns people into violent murderers, that's up to you - but please don't think that this is about protecting participants.
Consider, can you explain why a BBFC film is exempt from the law, but a screenshot from the same film isn't exempt?
60/40 chance of getting the law right
From the article: "The ambiguities inherent in the Act were highlighted when pictures from Madonna’s once controversial Sex book were laid before five lawyers, and two declared them potentially illegal."
I'm staggered that three lawyers were prepared to get off the fence.
What about the millions of Catholics who worship the image of a young man who suffers a prolonged and agonising death at the hands of sadistic perverts who get their rocks off by nailing him to a couple of planks of wood? Do they fall within the ambit of this legislation?
Jacqui, put the dunce's cap on and go stand in the corner, you gormless idiot.
You are as thick as those two planks.
I express my gratitude for the invitations to flee to Canada - though it should be noted that even Scotland will be safe for this law. Nevermind getting an international consensual on "extreme images" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3515797.stm) - extreme porn will in fact still be legal in Gordon Brown's own constituency!
(The new law will apply to England, Wales and NI, but *not* Scotland. As yet, they do not appear to have decided whether to introduce a similar law.)
Will doctors have to operate blindfolded?
"an offence to possess material that was "pornographic", depicted "explicit realistic extreme acts" as well as being "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character" ... hmmm - better keep my pants on then. Hang on - that statement is entirely written in the past tense... "material that *was* 'pornographic'" ... so anything that becomes permissible in the future will STILL be illegal.
So, the age old joke rears it's ugly head again, to wit: A sadist and a masochist meet in the pub, the masochist says, "hit me, hit me" and the sadist replies, "No!". Here comes another ill-conceived rule from the deranged puss ball known as Jackie Smiff's brain ... where the masochist, being of (debatable) sound mind is acting entirely within the law in making the (arguably) obscene request whilst the sadist, by refusing to participate, could be seen to have acted offensively towards the masochist... and thus, by doing nothing, has broken the law. Or am I mistaken and it is only when the situation is described in typeface (OMG - what have I done?)
I for one welcome our new cotton-wool encapsulated narrow minded bigot overlords - and urge them to phuk off before I staple their tits to a table. (Note that the act of stapling is not an offence, only the photo I take afterwards to remind me of how much fun it was.
Oh no! Think of the Children!
Oh, sh**! Just last week I was playing with my 3-year-old nephew and he pointed a bright orange (kiddie-sized) 'Colt .45' at me and made "bang-bang" noises! Since he's a James Bond fan and was pretending to be "Meester Bont" at the time, HE IS NOW A WANTED CRIMINAL!
Gun crime - check, it's a replica firearm.
Violent & Antisocial behaviour - check, he's disturbing the peace (making noise).
Terrorism - check, he "shot" me.
Identity Theft - check, last time I looked, "James Bond" was not a 3-year-old wearing Spiderman wellies.
Just as well we've played this game many times, so neither my wife or sister-in-law were taking pictures this time...
What's that, this new (proposed) law is retroactive? Gulp...
(And is it just me, or has anyone else noticed how Godrun Brown has suddenly found a brilliant way to get even more money from overburdened taxpayers - not only is he adding new taxes and increasing existing ones, he's making the changes retrospective even when he promised not to (mumble mumble car tax, cough cough))
I've got a John Williams Waterhouse print hanging in my front room of 'Hylas and the Nymphs' that I bought from Manchester art gallery, young guy on land looking at young naked girls (proof of age not on file but they all have small breasts) in water. The story is they entice him into water where they turn into monsters and consume him (Jason and the Argonauts).
Knowing the story, and how young the girls look, have I broken any laws?
I'm gay so the girls don't do it for me, but Hylas is cute, and knowing his grisly outcome could be constituted as extreme porn.
Anonymous - just in case...
Proof that Jacqie is a...
It's well known that Godawful Clown does not tax the stuff he enjoys (e.g. price of beer and wine goes up in budgets, but strangely whiskey does not), so it looks like his underlings do the same.
As the bill refers to "...an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals" it leaves off one obvious area of sexual pleasure.
From this, it is easy to deduce that Jacqie is a cock-sucker (QED).
(Please - I really need an image of being sick here - poor vulture is closest.)
"Anonymous - just in case..."
Oh no you're not... better start running!
Re: Oh noes
Hylas and the Nymphs wouldn't be affected, as the law covers "realistic" depictions. So films and other images of staged acts are at risk, but paintings are fine.
However, you should be more worried about another (proposed) law to criminalise all non-realistic sexual images of under-18s: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/28/government_outlaws_pictures/ . As you say, those paintings of naked young girls do not have their proof of age on file, and who can be sure that they are really 18 or older?
How would a photo of
Jacqui Smith with her eyelids stapled to her forehead being forced to watch Andrew Thomas having his tiny little John Thomas nailed to a bench fare under this legislation? I thought so, but how about we just do it now anyway, while we can and just burn the evidence after?
Like the terrorism laws it will be of Phi Alpha use for what the government PRETENDED it was for, and Not used for that at all, but will be used instead to stop people mocking Nu Labour politicians (beware, Bo Beau D'Or?) or even to close down public events they don't care for. It won't be possible to prevent anything (crooks don't obey the law, right?) , but it will be useful to stop us going about our business.
Rather like ID cards
Not quite how we imagine it...
I don't think they will use this new Act to rid DailyMailLand of rude pictures that make the children twisted.
They will use it against people who are already in strife with the law.
For example, if a driver doesn't have tax, they likely don't have insurance.
If a cannabis dealer is caught with cannabis in his home, there is a fair chance he may have something harder.
The scenario I'm trying to paint is this - people won't be arrested for simple possession of whichever material your average Daily Mail reader doesn't like. They will have been picked up or raided for something else, and a charge of possessing said materials will be tacked on the end.
Jails will then be fuller for longer. But that's another can of worms. :)
@AC XIV (or thereabouts)
"Jails will then be fuller for longer. But that's another can of worms. :)"
Meaning I suppose, that as most jails are already at about 150% of capacity, many more thugs, muggers, blaggers, terrorists & burglars etc., will be released early to make room for those found with naughty pictures.
Still, I suppose they will be company for the ultra-dangerous subversive OAP prisoners who've said "Stuff your council tax"...
Alien because there are obviously no intelligent life forms within the confines of Downing Street...
Re: Not quite how we imagine it...
"The scenario I'm trying to paint is this - people won't be arrested for simple possession of whichever material your average Daily Mail reader doesn't like. They will have been picked up or raided for something else, and a charge of possessing said materials will be tacked on the end."
More worringly though I think is the possibility of police raiding your computer for whatever reason, but when they can't find any evidence for what they originally suspected you for, this law is something they could do you for instead.
the Prime Dictator^H^H^H Minister and commandants^H^H^H loyal troops whipped to shreds with a razor embedded cat-o-9-tails and then dipped in vinegar... mmmm lovely. The image in your mind is legal - but this post isn't.