back to article 'Extreme porn' law could criminalise millions

If you use the internet for any purpose that might be construed as other than respectable – be afraid. Be very afraid. Almost unreported, the UK Criminal Justice Bill is slowly wending its way toward becoming law. It includes a section (Clause 63) on "extreme pornographic images" that may, or may not, affect a very large …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Pirate

WTF ???

>>"the Minister is in danger of leading his Government into becoming the thought police

I thought the govt. ALREADY ARE the thought police !! Gordon We-are-watching-you Brown will have it no other way !!

0
0

@david g

No mate, China does *NOT* criminalise the individual for watching porn !! They just (try) to block the porn sites !! It is only in "DEMOCRATIC" Britain that individuals are criminalised for watching *undefined* porn because porn is whatever *THEY* say it is !! Of course, this gives a lot more work to our lazy, underutilised police forces especially when their pay has not only been capped but fiddled to be less than bargained for while the MPs blow millions on *their* expenses !!

I'm sure this will do Brown's election prospects an immense amount of good !!

0
0

Now I get it

"See the work of Professor Milton Diamond PhD from the University of Hawai'i

<http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_ovrvw.html>

He concludes: "It is certainly clear from the data reviewed, and the new data and analysis presented, that a massive increase in available pornography in Japan, the United States and elsewhere has been correlated with a dramatic decrease in sexual crimes and most so among youngsters as perpetrators or victims"

"

So this law does the opposite. Ofcourse this is what the Government intended. They want a massive INCREASE in sexual crimes. You have to understand that it is the intention of the government to make our lives worse.

0
0

The silver lining....

Hey.. look on the bright side.. with a law like this, everyone might be spared the pain of encountering two girls, one cup. That might almost make it worth it...

Wow, I hate my "friends" who expose me to such horrible things.

0
0
Coat

Where's Mr. Fawkes...

...when you need him?

It sounds like the UK Government are using their own form of terror tactics. Bunch of Gestapo thugs.

Anyway - the enforcement should be on the side of the provider, not the recipient. How many times have you been duped by an insidious link that takes you to some whacked out page?

If you've any sense, get out of the UK and live somewhere else (as I did). YES, the grass IS greener on the other side. You'll find there are better things in life than Walnut Whip's, Curly Whirlies and Paxo Stuffing (but a good curry is hard to come by).

0
0
Silver badge

@What if it is... ahem... self made porno??

This will be, to some extent, ok, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (who is pushing this for the Government) has introduced an amendment which will allow a Defence of Consent but *only* as far as it says:

"(2) It is a defence for D to prove—

(a) that D directly participated in the act or any of the acts portrayed, and

(b) that the act or acts did not involve the infliction of any non-consensual harm on any person,"

In other words, if you take a photograph of two people engaged in a legal and consensual act, but which would still fall under the definitions given, you would not be "directly participating" in the acts shown, so whilst the people in the picture would legally be allowed to own a copy, you would not and would, thus, still be a criminal.

I have written to Lord Hunt pointing out that all he needs to do is change the word "and" at the end of paragraph (a) to "or" to correct this anomaly.

Also Baroness Miller and Lord Wallace have brought forward an amendment to include a test of obscenity. Since Labour have been saying since the start that they wanted to make this law part of the Obscene Publications Act, I'm hoping that they won't oppose it.

For the details of the law as it stands see Clauses 62 - 66 here <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/051/08051.i-vii.html>

For the Amendments currently being put forward see: <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/051/amend/am051-a.htm>

For how to lobby the Lords, see <http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=630>

0
0
Thumb Down

1984 seems to...

... have arrived at last in the UK.

>(6) An “extreme image” is an image of any of the following—

>(a) an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life,

and all that springs to mind is all the images in The Bill of armed police threatening a suspect. Cops with guns are definitely life threatening!

Does this mean that they ( the ubiquitous 'they') are going to ban all those violent cop shows where guns are aimed in a threatening manner at suspects?

0
0

Remember where they came from...

While I agree totally with the anger against the loss of freedom we are suffering, don't forget that the labour party descend from the puritan 'roundheads' by way of methodism, a little quakering and a wonderful excuse (the EU) for changing our law and freedom (that we can do anything that is not expressly forbidden) to the european napoleonic code ( you can only do what the law specifically permits). This means masses of spies (wardens? who report to the police anything you do to the police;) (about that bit of paper you put in the waste bin etc) who then have to follow it up (burglars? sorry we're busy) surveillance every where ( soon in your TV). The law only works on the continent because the police ignore it until someone is suspected of real wrongdoing, then they can hold anybody for as long as they like.

The government are committing treason with their current actions but no-one seems to want to charge them. They know it and one of them let out the other day that the law of treason will be changed soon.

Don't blame me...I didn't vote for them because I have seen them mess up the country every time they took it over!

0
0
Silver badge

bad law

Best last minute hope now is to write to the Lords ( http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/doitnow.html ) before Wednesday 30. Or write to your MP. The Government want this to be law by May 8.

Dennis: "So the Act will criminalise the depiction of activity "which threatens a person’s life". Doesn't waving a knife around threaten someone's life? They are not actually hurt. Merely the threat.""

Yes - in fact, the Explanatory Note of the bill gives as an example a (possibly staged) depiction of "sexual assault involving a threat with a weapon." So this is just not life-threatening injuries, just a roleplay with a knife will be illegal, if the image is sexual.

AC: "I can imagine a scenario whereby someone like 'Mary Whitehouse' is in charge of deeming what's extreme or not.".

In fact, mediawatch-UK - the organisation set up by Whitehose - has been campaigning in favour of this law, and even wants any image of adults having sex to be illegal to possess.

AC: "Two of the 5 studies considered 'acceptance of rape myth', Linda Lovelace's video is considered as rape in these studies. You then view these videos and determine that it isn't rape. But then under these terms, you're now in the deviant category, because you accept the rape myth of this video (by denying the rape)! So it's a no win, either the porn is bad (because it's rape) or the porn is bad (because it made you deviant into thinking it wasn't rape)."

The Rapid Evidence Assessment also referred to Linda Lovelace as evidence that people were harmed in the production of pornography - it stated her claims as fact, without any alternative viewpoint offered, nor did it point out that "Deep Throat" is now a legal BBFC film in the UK.

Jeremy: "Before you shout "thought police", have a read of the bill, which says that "extreme" means one of the following: snuff movies, genital mutilation, necrophilia and bestiality. These are all things that most of society would agree are extreme and shouldn't be lawful. Aren't they?"

No it doesn't, it covers staged and consensual acts, most notably those practiced by those into BDSM. The Government has yet to produce a single example that anything like snuff films or adult porn involving non-consensual violence exists at all - it's an urban myth.

Mook: "At the very least it's fair to say that "rape fantasies" propagate misogynistic myth."

There are more problems than just the vagueness of the bill. Whether or not rape fantasies propagate any myths, should people be locked up for their fantasies? Much of the problem with this law is that all of the anti-porn arguments (which may or may not be valid) are being used as support for a very bad law. Should consenting adults who roleplay something like sex at gunpoint not be "worth defending"? However much I may personally dislike it, I will always defend someone's right to do it.

AC: "I'm pretty sure it wouldn't matter if it was home made and consentual."

It would certainly fall under this law.

Dave Morris: "Hey.. look on the bright side.. with a law like this, everyone might be spared the pain of encountering two girls, one cup. That might almost make it worth it..."

Although note, you risk being criminalised for now possessing the image - it's a law on possession, not publication.

0
0
Thumb Down

Censorship!

Tonto Popaduopolos wrote: "The subjects of paedophilia and pornography seem to get all of you a bit hot under the collar. You can certainly tell which contributors were only using one hand to type."

Tonto, where is your evidence that anyone on here is a paedophile?

You are innocent until proven guilty. And to be guilty, you must commit a crime - that is, you must harm someone.

You don't imprison people who have done nothing wrong. If someone views an image or video online - that they didn't pay to have made, and that they didn't place there - then regardless of its content, it should not be an offence.

People view executions online, beheadings, war atrocities, suicides caught on camera, etc.

According to your logic, these are all murderers salivating at the prospect of killing someone.

While the government tells us what is crime and what is not a crime, it can wage wars with impunity. Many children in Iraq - and those that fled Iraq - are now having to prostitute themselves to survive, while U.S. and U.K. corporations rake in billions.

This is about those in power having free rein to commit appalling crimes against humanity, to impoverish millions, to inflict serious psychological trauma on thousands upon thousands of children, while the masses are labelled deviant, and in need of control.

www.markcurtis.info for an analysis of the deviant behaviour of our government (Mark Curtis is a British historian and journalist).

0
0
Stop

What Next!?

Are we soon not going to be allowed to have sex a certain way?

If it's not the missionary position you're having EXTREME sex!

They're trying to stop us playing the games we like, drinking the amount we like, the porn we like, eat the food we want to, smoke the things we want to.

The goverment must save us from ourselves by wrapping us in cotton wool and making us a carbon copy of the person next to us till we have no individual character.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

@Tom

"If think that loading a panel will pass right under the pubics noses without detection, you're sorely mistaken. How ever you think you can out-smart the public i'll never know."

It looks very much like The Party have succeeded in doing both those things. "The Public" are unaware of the loaded panel and are a much larger group than those who've read this comment page.

Fuck, they ignored a million people marching in the streets. Do you think they'll take any notice of people they can conveniently label as "deviant"?

0
0
Dan
Thumb Down

Definition

@Previous poster: So the Act will criminalise the depiction of activity "which threatens a person’s life".

Added to the idea that the scenes should have some form of non-educational sexual context, and Voila, the James Bond scene where the hot chick suffocates guys between her legs becomes illegal.

I am typically inclined to think that those who think up these f***wit ideas are misguided, mistaken fools who are simply wrong, but the rate at which civil liberties are being sewn up certainly suggests something more sinister...

0
0
Flame

The point...

...what is it?

Is this one to stop illegal porn (i.e. kiddie porn) or is it to just "clean up" our stree- I mean internet for the conservatives?

I'm a little lost.

It won't really stop all the (actually) illegal stuff anyway, that's all done on the peer-to-peer networks already - and that's pretty damn hard to police.

...so what was the point again?

0
0
Silver badge

@The Point...

> ...so what was the point again?

The point was that, after the murder of Jane Longhurst by Graham Coutts, the Government's knee jerked as certain puritanically minded MPs saw the opportunity to grab some headlines by exploiting a mother's grief and, at the same time, bring in a law to ban "filth" which they don't like.

The fact that even they admitted there was no evidence to prove a link between viewing "violent porn" and this crime (and, as has been mentioned above, the work of Professor Milton Diamond has shown the opposite is actually the case) was dismissed as irrelevant.

This law will be debated for the final time in the Lords tomorrow, see my links above for how to lobby them to ensure that at least there's some sanity included by introducing a test of obscenity with the Amendment proposed by Baroness Miller and Lord Wallace.

0
0

Stupid representatives

You cannot legislate morality. Work on acts which directly damage individuals, instead of acts which may disgust you because you are an imbalanced know it all.

0
0
Coat

OK, a hardware ban....

**IDEA**

Let's put a ban on selling left-handed computer mice....After all, what possible purpose can they serve except helping viewing pr0n to "enhance the users Internet Experience"TM (unless you're pretending it's with someone else)?

-apologies to all southpaws, though. They'll just have to make do.

(It's the dirty mac)

0
0

Dosnt this mean?

(a) an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life,

Would make it illegal to watch a whole raft of mainstream movies that I can think of:

Clockwork Orange and Reservoir Dogs come to mind.

Stupid, unenforceable laws just make the Government look stupid.

Anyway, isn't there a potential conflict with the human rights act, maybe a Lawyer can give their opinion.

0
0
Thumb Up

@Dougthethug

Actually, we've seen Paris "south of the tweed" if you get my drift...

This reminds me of the old'un: <Groan_filter>

Newlyweds, members of a church sect ask one of the elders about which "sexual positions" are acceptable to our church?

After a moment's thought, he replies "Well, all are. Except standing up, for that might lead to dancing"

</Groan_filter> (I said "groan", not "grumble")

0
0
Paris Hilton

Pr0n a subject very close to a geek's heart

Obviously. 168 replies, Christ Almighty, you guys must spend a lot of time typing one-handed.

Personally, I think that some people are just too damn frigid. It should be made a crime NOT to possess pr0n, extreme or not. That Harriet Harman for instance. She needs a damn good seeing to that one and force fed a diet of Ben Dover for good measure.

Harriet Harman, phoar, never mind the coat, pass the kleenex.

0
0
Thumb Down

Saudi here we come.

Let me just put my dishdashas on.... Saudi here we come !

No women on the street alone, no drinking, no porn. Government web filtering.

Welcome to 21st Century Britain (or is that 16th?)

Doubleplus good.

0
0
Bronze badge

Illegal trade restrictions?

As I see it, if you import a copy of Madonna's cheap Basic Instinct ripoff "Body Of Evidence" now you get put on the sex offenders' register whereas if you buy it here you're fine because that release has passed the censors. Doesn't matter if the import version is cut more, it's not the version with the BBFC classification so it's illegal.

0
0

@Pr0n a subject very close to a geek's heart

"Obviously. 168 replies, Christ Almighty, you guys must spend a lot of time typing one-handed."

169, including your comment.

170, including mine.

Ho hum.

0
0
Paris Hilton

@Andus McCoatover

That's very close to the much shorter joke:

Why don't Free Presbyterians like sex?

They're afraid it will lead to dancing.

With this legislation I see a market in Scotland for server farms which serve remote users in the rest of the UK who VNC in for "educational" images. No local storage and remote lonely users means legal $$$.

Paris, because once you get south of the Tweed it starts to get sticky.

0
0

What about...?

What about violent films? They sometimes involve acts of hideous violence that "threaten lives", and do far more than appear to result in "serious injury". In fact they go to lengths to be as graphic as possible and very often exalt those performing the violence. And what of computer games such as the newly released Grand Theft Auto? If the threat of copy-cat violence is true then what singles out pornography as the greater threat to society?

0
0
Thumb Down

We want your soul

your cellphone your wallet your time your ideas

no barcode no party no iodine no beers

your bankcard, your license, your thoughts, your fears

no simcard, no disco, no photo, not here

your blood, your sweat, your passions, your regrets

your office, your timeoff, your fashions,your sex your pills your grass your tits, your ass your laughs your highs, we write it all

We want your soul x 5

Your Cash, Your House, Your Phone, Your Life, Your Cash, Your House, Your Life

Tell us Your Habits, Your Facts, Your Fears

Give us your address, your shoe size, your years

your digits, your plans, your number, your eyes

your skedule, your desktop, your details, your life.

Show us your children, your photos, your home.

Here, take credit, take insurance, take a loan.

Get a job, get a pension, get a haircut, get a suit.

Play the lottery, play football, play the field, sports on two

well show you things well show you swings

we'll buy you things,drugs,big yard birds

well sell you crap well charge you fat

were gonna find big guns & a drunk in your kitchen

We want your soul x 5

Your Cash, Your House, Your Phone, Your Life, Your Cash, Your House, Your Life

Your thoughts Your emotions Your loves Your dreams Your checkbook Your essecnse Your sweat Your screams Your security Your soberiety Your innocence innocence society your self Your place Your distance Your space

go back to bed america your government is in control again here watch this shut up...you are free to do as we tell you.....you are free to do as we tell you

We want your soul

Here's boy bands here's matters, here's Britney, here's Cola

Here's pizza, here's TV, here's some rock and some roller

Watch commercials, more commercials, watch Jerry, not Oprah

Buy a better life from the comfort of your sofa

Here's popcorn, here's magazines, here's milkshake, here's blue jeans

here's padded bras, here's long cars, here's football shirts, here's baseball caps

here's live talk shows, here's video games, here's cola lite, here's Timberlake

here's fingertips, here's colegen, here's all night bars, here's plastic hips

We want your soul x 5

Your Cash, Your House, Your Phone, Your Life, Your Cash, Your House, Your Life

go back to bed america your government is in control again here heres amerikan gladiators watch this shut up...go back to bed america heres amerikan gladiators here is 56 channels of it, watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin skulls together & congratualte you on living in the land of freedom here you go america you are free to do as we tell you.....you are free to do as we tell you

We want your soul x 5

We want your soul x 5

Your Cash, Your House, Your Phone, Your Life, Your Cash, Your House, Your Life

no cookies no stray no drop-outs no gays no leftys no no lunnies no opinions no way no bankers no teachers no facts no freaks

no skaters no tweekers no truth

We want your soul x 5

0
0
Flame

I thought we had all the puritans!!!

I thought all of those damned puritans were shipped over the pond to the US. They sure make life hell over here. We only get violence, and hillbilly reality shows no nudes on the tube unless you have skinamax.

fire because they like to burn things............

0
0
Silver badge
Paris Hilton

@ Graham Marsden

Erm... Feminists Against Censorship? Now that has GOT to be the top organisational oxymoron of the age! What will we see next? Marines Against Guns? Police Against CCTV? The mind boggles...

On second thoughts though, Marines could be against guns if they wanted to be the only ones to have them, and police would be against CCTV if it's not under their control, so Feminists Against Censorship may not be such a surprise after all...

Paris because she doesn't know whether she's for or against anything either.

0
0
Paris Hilton

So what happenned?

April 30 is over. Deafening silence.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Feminism

You have a particularly blinkered view of Feminism, Mr Roper.

0
0
Silver badge
Boffin

@Steve Roper - Feminists Against Censorship

I suggest you do a little thinking and a little research before you make yourself look even sillier.

Feminism is about women saying "we have the right to make up our own minds about what we say and do, and that includes what we do with our bodies".

FAC object to other women saying "no, you shouldn't appear in porn because you're pandering to men and letting the side down", their view is that if a woman chooses to view or appear in porn that's their business, why should anyone else (including any other "feminist") tell them that they shouldn't?

And, FYI, when I put a petition against the Extreme Porn laws on the Number 10 Downing Street website, it was signed by over 1,800 people and at least 25% of those signatories were women.

See http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/ for more details.

0
0

How to fix this

ISTM that there is a straightforward scheme that should sort this out nicely.

First, we identify which sanctimonious authoritarian faulty reasoners in the Commons and the Lords were daft enough to vote for this harmfully stupid legislation.

Then, we e-mail them all with attachments containing images prohibited by the proposed legislation -- those dinosaurs without e-mail we post USB sticks containing same.

The instant the legislation passes, we bring prosecutions under the new act against every single one of the venomous gobshites who voted for it.

All it needs is a bit of organization and a massive fighting fund for legal fees.

All the best,

John.

0
0
Coat

@Graham Marsden

I think the problem with the public perception of feminism is that certain self proclaimed feminists have taken the name to push their own agenda, which is not what necessarily what the original idea was all about.

I would think that most people would agree that feminism in its simplest state is generally agreed to be a good thing (Women should be treated equally to and have the same opportunities as men)

Where it gets messy is when it becomes a religious fervour, and fundementalists get involved. Thats when it really goes to crap.

Religious fundementalism is as similar as it is bad. The intial tenet of most religions is" Play nice boys and girls or (Insert deity of choice here) will punish you either in subtle ways in this life, or in the next"

Trouble is the emptiest vessels make the most noise, so both these reasonable ideas become soiled.

Mines the coat with the sticks of semtex and the detonator trim

0
0
Anonymous Coward

@How to fix this

Better option. This law prohibits owning versions of many legal films other than the version passed by the bbfc which is surely an illegal trade restriction.The US release of Madonna's Body of Evidence (aka cheap Basic Instinct ripoff) may be tamer than the UK release but it still contains people fucking on broken glass and isn't exempt due to bbfc classification.

Trade restrictions people take seriously.

0
0
Black Helicopters

Lack of clarity - RIP act

This government in particular has been particularly bad for passing laws where the offences aren't clear - probably in order to give their lawyer chums work drawing the lines later on. When questioned, time and again we hear the relevant minster saying "it is not the intention of this act to ...". So it was with the religious hate crimes act: comedians were worried that they could be hauled up for the sorts of gags which Dave Allen thrived on.

And then, earlier this month, we hear that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers act was being used by councils to spy on parent who had (shock horror) applied for places for their children in popular schools. During the passage of this act, Jack Straw used the "it is not the intention of this act" line whenever criticised for the lack of clarity and limitation in the powers. Repeat after me. It is not the intention of a piece of legislation which matters, it is the specific provisions. If you start talking about the intentions of a piece of law, it is almost certainly bad law.

I can see this act being used as a handy "we know he's a villain, let's find something we can bang him up for" catch all. Indeed, I'm sure that a picture of a naked child with terrible burns ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/TrangBang.jpg ) would fit the bill.

0
0

porn/extreme porn, and laws

...And here I thought I was safe, with pictures of my pets on my hard drive.

--Glenn

0
0
Silver badge

Feminism

"Erm... Feminists Against Censorship? Now that has GOT to be the top organisational oxymoron of the age!"

Believe it or not, there are some feminists who are anti-censorship, and not anti-porn, and so on.

The radical feminists would have us believe otherwise - they claim that to be a feminist, you must oppose porn, support this law, support criminalisation of all sexual images, and tell women what they're allowed to do with their bodies, and anyone who doesn't can't be a feminist, and therefore support oppression of women. So the last thing we should do is give into this idea, and let a vocal minority of radical feminists dictate what feminism should be about. If we accept that idea, then we accept a world where sexual images are criminalised in the name of "equality".

Several of my friends are feminists, but strongly oppose this draconian law.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: So what happenned?

"April 30 is over. Deafening silence."

The law was passed, without only minor next-to-useless amendments by the Government. The sane amendments to restrict the bill, proposed by Lord Wallace and Baroness Miller, weren't voted on.

The debate is at http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2008-04-30a.245.0 .

Approx 1 week until images showing staged acts between consenting adults can be a criminal offence to possess.

0
0
Unhappy

I'm about to be imprisioned because of my photos of me...

I have a photo of me taken 39 years ago, i had some 1 or two weeks of age, and was on bath by mom, and my father took the picture... I guees it's extreme porn in voge... so, I better settle some bussiness before going to jail, as this is how it's getting all this situation...

On the other hand, I better call my lawyer, as it were some coercion on my acts, I swear good I didn't wanted to bath that day!!

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums