Sixty-one days and counting: if your stash contains any material that is or may fall foul of the Government’s new laws on extreme porn, then that is how long you have left to destroy it or otherwise get rid of it. Because, courtesy of Consenting Adult Action Network (CAAN), The Register can reveal today that the law is going …
I'm sure the pedos are totally in favour of this new law.
Since it seems likely that the number of people who use "extreme" pornography that is fantasy (either non photographic or involving consenting adults only) vastly outnumbers those who use pornography that involves non-consenting adults, then this law will only serve to hide them.
I consider it unlikely that fantasy porn, however extreme makes people copy them, just as I don't believe watching Arnie films makes people go out and kill.
Will there be cases of latent pedophiles who only used non-photographic porn, deciding to buy the real thing because it is legally the same. (A bit like I think it's stupid that the use of a fake gun carries the same penalties as a real one).
The obvious consequence will be the use of live boot CDs that spin down the hard drive, have a big RAM disk and save nothing to any permanent medium. Power off and everything is gone back to default. These disks would of course be very useful for anyone fitting out an internet cafe.
They would also be quite sensible to use for any browsing of the internet given the level of threats out there. Also good for browsing non extreme porn that you don't want other household members to see.
Probably a good idea for anyone to use in fact.
So all in all I would think this new law will be very helpful for terrorists and pedophiles.
How can you tell when a Labour politician is lying?
The answer, of course, is simple: his/her lips move.
Some weeks ago (22/10/08) I sent an email to Martin Salter MP, in which I asked him what he had done with the evidence he had of snuff films having been made or of such material being put on servers in Guatemala, as he claimed in Parliament during the debate on the Criminal "Justice" and Immigration Act:
'It has come to my notice that, on 8 October 2007, during the second
reading of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, you stated to
Parliament that there is a commercial web site, run solely for private
profit, "whose server may be based in Guatemala" containing images
of "young women being captured, raped live on camera and
He neither replied not acknowledged the receipt of the email.
A little over a week later (02/11/08) I sent him a copy stating that there must have been some technical problem but, this time, I copied the email to an email-to-fax service for both his Parliamentary and constituency fax numbers. The receipts for the faxes came in first and then - wonder of wonders - I got a MDN receipt for the email.
He has seen the email, but he still has not bothered to reply; personally, I very much doubt that he ever will.
This foolish and wholly unnecessary law was bounced through Parliament on the basis of such twaddle, which only serves to shew that the present kakistocracy is just unfit to govern.
Argh - I think Have Your Say has leaked onto The Register.
There's some worthy ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com here...
BB dayorder 26-11-08
BB today speak sexcrime doubleplusungood speak sexcrimethinkers Goldstein supporters willbe sent joycamp speedwise 26-01-09. BB speak sexpiclookers Party uncomrades ungoodsex children thinkpol to check all computers ref sexpics arrest crimethinkers in miniluv. Allpraise greatleader BB for new happylife give Oceania.
Fisting, the anus, and likelihood
If our Divine Moderatrix will forgive a rather discursive, non-IT comment:
I was interested to see that the act refers to acts *likely* to injure, inter alia, the anus.
It happens to be a point of law that "likely" means a better than even probability. Moreover, one must establish this likelihood "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case, as prosecutions under Wakkyjakky's new law will be.
Now when in the context of sex we discuss the anus and injuries thereto, the pervs among us — and who isn't a perv among the El Reg crowd? — naturally think of fisting. I imagine Wakkyjakky thinks her new thought-crime will encompass depictions of anal fisting so she can throw all the Crisco users into the bin.
Well, I have news for those who enjoy such antics: it ain't gonna happen. In point of fact, injuries to the anus from fisting are quite rare, hence a depiction of fisting is not of an act likely to injure the anus, especially given that commercial porn pretty much requires its models for the gay market to be experienced at this particularly piquant form of penetration.
The point of this discourse is to draw everyone's attention to the fact that even quite extreme sexual acts are unlikely to harm the lucky recipient. Should anyone reading become aware of a prosecution looming along these lines, it becomes critical for the defense to require the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a greater than 50-50 chance of injury.
Wakkyjakky's thinking something is likely to cause injury is mere speculation on the part of a dirty-minded woman who clearly has serious sexual maladjustments, and has no place in a court of law.
No icon because it's a serious matter.
small problem here
the images must be both pornographic - to wit: a turn on; and offensive - to wit: a turn off.
Basically, anyone who considers any image to be in both categories is completely insane and should, for the betterment of society, be bound, gagged, hung, drawn, quartered, sauted and stuffed up an antelopes arse. (don't try to imagine that in 62 days time)
I for one welcome our orwellian brain reading nanny (but only to her facile and deeply offensive face)
Oh noes, there goes my art
Just as I had perfected artistic photography involving an animal, sex, cruelty and a politician it seems I am undone. Woe is me!
Do I need a lawyer yet?
Oh just call it exceptional porn
nowadays we can have exceptional anything, extreme is out and exceptional is in.
I don't know, it will be quite interesting, I am not sure there is any industry left in the UK that Labour hasn't royally fscked up. Leaving this country which going to the dogs, is getting more tempting every passing minute.
This country is just pantaloons, absolutely pathetic in so many ways, you know what it is, it is because Labour has taken their eye of the main goals of the country, and decided instead to micromanage everyone's life in the UK into obilivion, they are like some pesky annoying stazi neighbourhood watch. Never truer, has the phrase the UK burned whilst Tony and Gordon fiddled.
They may in fact need to prove that I personally was 'sexually aroused' by said image.
That would be a hard one, erm, to prove.
My partner has done a fair bit of modelling over the years, and some of her stuff would fall into this "extreme pornography" category, even although I'd not class any of it as remotely "sexual". Does this mean that my holding pictures of my partner, with her consent, I'm guilty of breaching this law?
It could be argued that even the photographer is guilty, if they hold onto the pictures.
A very ill-thought out piece of legislation.
How long you have to buy it and find a hiding place ??
"Sixty-one days and counting: if your stash contains any material that is or may fall foul of the Government’s new laws on extreme porn, then that is how long you have left to destroy it or otherwise get rid of it. "
Ha to those that think you are safe in scotland, Ha they are implementating somthing even more draconian adding a non consensual clause (even simulated) which means and form of B/D is out.
So if i was caught?
Would I be hung drawn and quartered... Just the thought of it turns me on.
The Government have (oh so kindly) offered a "defence" that if you were a "direct participant" in the images then you are allowed to possess them. Of course this rather ignores the principle of Presumption of Innocence since using a "defence" rather requires you to be *charged* with a crime in the first place. It means, therefore, that your partner would be allowed to possess the images, but not you!
There's also the small matter of your partner needing to *prove* that they were a "direct participant", so if those involved were wearing head to toe leather or rubber it would be rather difficult to show this.
And, yes, if a photographer takes pictures of people engaging in acts that could fall under this legislation, even though they are legally the copyright holder of those images, it would be illegal for them to actually own them!
People need to contact their MPs via www.writetothem.com and demand that the Select Committee that the Government hinted at when this law was going through the Lords (and then ignored) is set up to re-examine this whole issue and this ridiculous law is removed from the statute books.
after "enforcement" by jeff deacon
You pondered how long before 'government approved "Safety Software" to mediate (and report on) the use of the connection and the contents of the PC behind it' became the norm.... yup - it's predecessor is called, PHORM
Heres an idea for an experiment that can set out the boundaries of the law
"The point of this discourse is to draw everyone's attention to the fact that even quite extreme sexual acts are unlikely to harm the lucky recipient. Should anyone reading become aware of a prosecution looming along these lines, it becomes critical for the defense to require the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a greater than 50-50 chance of injury.
Wakkyjakky's thinking something is likely to cause injury is mere speculation on the part of a dirty-minded woman who clearly has serious sexual maladjustments, and has no place in a court of law."
Perhaps, in the interest of legal clarity the public should provide suggestions of what they think is normal (such as the "fisting" described above) and it should be tested out on wackyjacky herself to ascertain if there is an injury.
It could also be judged for public acceptability as well.
Can I suggest we start the experiment with the much loved chainsaw enema and then move from there?
Paris, if she will do it, it cant be bad
Celia's Cleaning Services Pty. Ltd.
Item: Removal of tea/saliva mixture from one (1) computer keyboard and one (1) LCD monitor
Amount: $AUD 24.50 GST inc.
Please remit the above sum within 30 days of invoice date. Thank you for your business!
Pr0n encrypted in hidden volume, financial documents placed in outer volume. Plausible deniability FTW.
(Double checks posting anon)
"The Government have (oh so kindly) offered a "defence" that if you were a "direct participant" in the images then you are allowed to possess them."
So you can have as much extreme porn as you like, as long as you've convincingly photo chopped your own face on to one of the participants? Now that really is sick.
Body piercing pictures
Body piercing sights have the most grotesque close up pictures of what appears to be torture to genitalia. I am also sure these sites and their pictures create arousal and are therefore pornographic. However removal of them would prejudice the people who earn a legitimate lvining from this. So is it an end to body piercing sites.
I am not clear on the arousal definition. How is this tested? A picture shown to 10 men and if more than 5 have an erection then it is pornographic. I therefore would chose 10 priests for my jury or even 10 women....
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- 20 Freescale staff on vanished Malaysia Airlines flight MH370
- Neil Young touts MP3 player that's no Piece of Crap
- Review Distro diaspora: Four flavours of Ubuntu unpacked
- Sysadmins and devs: Do these job descriptions make any sense?