What about those episodes of Star Trek: Voyager with hot Vulcan on Klingon Pon Farr action!
It seems likely that the government thought that passing a new law on extreme porn would be the last word on the matter. Recent events in Birmingham suggest that this may not quite be the case. Restrictions on the possession of material deemed to be “extreme” and “pornographic” were introduced in the Criminal Justice Bill in …
What about those episodes of Star Trek: Voyager with hot Vulcan on Klingon Pon Farr action!
Hands up every teenager / male who owns porn. (You all do don't deny it)
Hands up every teenager / male brave enough to admit to their parents / partner they have a porn stash.
Now hands up any teenager / male brave enough to take that collection to the local police station to ask them their advice on that porn stash...
What no hands?
I am comforted by the comment that CPS and law courts decide, not politicians. At least then reality has a chance to kick in.
What we need now is the BBPC.
"The British Board of Porn Classification"
"However, they further pointed out that when it came to interpreting the law, Ministerial statements were largely worthless."
So nothing new there then!
I do like the name of the opposition group, "Backlash"! I take it, there is a very obvious reason why they have that name?!
Could the Criminal Law Justice Unit please explain a 100% foolproof method of completely deleting and/or destroying digital data to us? It occurs to me that if I own an image which is now illegal, merely telling Windows to delete it will not remove it completely from my hard drive; and I could still technically be prosecuted for it.
I'm too busy re-evaluating my art collection to think up witty comment.
At least with the change from 16 to 18 it was easy to define what was what - not very easy to confirm of course, but with this b*ll*cks no-one has a clue what the basic definition is, let alone whether an individual image contravenes...
Honestly if we had these people and the women who started it around during Shakespeare era all his plays woudl be banned as some nutcase could hear them and then act on his impulses.
I can see another Operation Spanner on the horizon - vast amounts of public money spent prosecuting people and ruining their lives based on what the government considers to be obscene, regardless of the individuals' consent.
This is not a traditional law, British subjects, for the use of, as used between 1000-2000 AD. It is a Police State Enabling law.
It will not be applied to anyone unless they come to the attention of the authorities, perhaps for walking down the street after a pub fight, for leaving the lid of your rubbish bin open after 6:00pm, or for just being lippy.
Then, as well as trying to do you for any real or imagined crime they were called away from their nice warm Police Station for, they will search your home looking for the odd joint (Drug Baron), dirty picture (Porn King) or A-Z (Terrorist Bomber). That lets them take all your money under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
It will not surprise anyone to find that the recipients of this service will predominantly be in possession of thick curly hair, dark skin, or a burka.
With all these opportunities, I wonder why the Police made such a fuss about needing to lock people up for 42 days without charge. I had assumed that it was because it takes 6 weeks for the average black eye, multiple contrusions and broken ribs to heal.
or at least a link to a site with some nice examples on it please.
Mines the dirty mac
surely the best definition is anything that you can masturbate too. then there will be nothing on tv, the radio or t'internet and we will live in a highly civilised and cultured world............
Plod; That's extreme; That's extreme; That's extreme; That's not extreme; That's extreme; That's extreme; That's extreme; That's extreme; That's not extreme; That's extreme; WOW! That's _really_ extreme; That's extreme; That's extreme; That's extreme; That's extreme; That's extreme; That's extreme; That's extreme and That's extreme. Right Sir, You're nicked.
If there was a positive correlation, then locking up XY men would save XX women from being raped. Of course that leads to (XY-XX) men being locked up unjustly.
So (XX-XY) people's lives are better because of this law. So say 10000 men are locked up and one *would* have gone on to commit 2 rapes, that means that -9998 (negative 9998) people's lives are better as a result of this law.
But now what happens when the Japanese study on this is considered, men who use porn (including stuff classed as extreme) are less likely to commit rape (basically their lust is satiated). Well then 10000 peoples lives are worse by this law, and changing the threshold of 'extreme' has no bearing on the outcome, if you define it so that a million men are locked up, it would still have no positive effect.
So it makes no difference where the threshold is set, it could be set as 'show of ankle = extreme' and it would never have a net positive effect. The definition of extreme has no bearing on the problem it is supposed to fix. So instead the threshold will be set according to politicians beliefs systems.
So we get some fat ugly men hating slappers in power and 100,000 men will be in jail unjustly, or we get a more worldly experienced mixture of men and women in relationships and 100 men are unjustly locked up. No matter what there is no positive outcome from this. At the base of it, consenting adults are doing stuff to other consenting adults and other consenting adults are viewing it for sexual excitement and nothing in that has anything to do with Hm.gov.
if everyone, two weeks before the new law comes into effect, takes their entire porn collection down to the local police station and sits, patiently, going thru each image/clip/movie, one-by-one with plod.
Just to be sure.
one would hate to be doing something illegal.
It's easy. The proposal defines 'extreme' content as the visual depiction of
"(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."
All you have to do is train as a medical doctor, spend several years gaining experience in an A&E or Trauma unit, work as a Police surgeon and/or forensic pathologist for a while, cross qualify as a vet just to be sure, then gain legal status as an expert witness in such matters. You then MIGHT just be capable of deciding if the content you have (whoops) already viewed, on a website which is perfectly legal in its country of origin and hosting, could fall into one of the above categories and thus render you open to criminal charges and subsequent loss of employment, end of marriage, arrival of neighbourhood mob with flaming torches...
Mine's the slightly grubby white coat with the stethoscope in the pocket.
From TFA: "However, they further pointed out that when it came to interpreting the law, Ministerial statements were largely worthless. The courts would look at what was written into statute: not what was handed out in the press releases."
This point needs to be repeated and drummed home into public understanding - the *only* thing which matters is what the *law* says. It was not the government's (stated) intention when passing RIPA to enable councils to spy on people who applied for places for their children in popular schools.
so some pictures will be illegal and ultimately it will be tested in court ! isn't this just censorship enforced by law ? Who is harmed by pictures? If illegal acts are distributed in picture form its all the easier to find out who is responsible, certainly more so than if they never made the pictures in the first place. There is no "harm" in having these pictures per se, and the law is purely a populace controlling one.
The only reasonable way to handle this would be to distribute a set of limit samples to all police stations, so that they know what is allowed within the law and what is prohibited.
These limits samples should consist of images that are "only just allowed" (only moderately nasty) and images that are "prohibited but only just" (Extreme - but not THAT Extreme).
Every police officer should then spend some time getting familiar with both sets of images so that they will be able to make informed judgment in stead of just going by what their personal preferences are.
Ideally a special "field kit" including a subset of these images could be carried by every police officer, so they can make comparisons in the field when encountering potentially extreme porn images in church murals etc.
An online version would make it easy for "Joe Public" to compare his filth with the official Extremity guideline.
"However, they further pointed out that when it came to interpreting the law, Ministerial statements were largely worthless."
The last part of that is almost universally true...
all those Mood Pictures videos will have to go.
Mines the one with the tawse in the pocket.
as the guy said - it's just a law that the police will use as a tick box to arrest someone they don't like.
child pronz? No
anything that a weird person may fap too that includes people that maybe children? (swimming videos. gymnatics, etc) no
potential terrorist material? Nope
extreme pronz? Woohoo we got a tick, you're going on the sex offenders register!
Soon add, drawings of something that may be a child or flat chest in pronzor?
Face it, you upset the filth (police or politicians) your going to jail.
It occurs to me that 90% of what comes out of japan is quite possibly illegal.... the ironic thing is all the stuff we'd consider "normal" over there is heavily censored....
If more than two thousand people do it worldwide then it can't be extreme can it, because thousands of people do it.
Thus, spanking etc bondage, and S&M aren't extreme.
However, eating the shit from rent boys is extreme, thus, if the rent boy photographed the politician eating shit, then he's committing an offence, but the politician eating shit isn't, because he's not photographed it.
This will be my defence in court for possessing spanking pictures. I'll call Mark Oaten as a witness. I'll ask the Jury if they think my possession of porn is worse than his actual behaviour, and then ask them why I'm being prosecuted while he walks free.
I do however, have a question. If you're filming yourself having sex with your girlfriend, and she dies during the act, are you then guilty of possession of images of necrophilia.
I foresee the government looking unbelievably stupid here.
Great article (obviously we're biased ;) ) and wonderful to read so many agreeable messages in response. We're still shocked how many people do not realise the porn law is changing.
CAAN are collecting images for advice seeking missions as well as people to get involved behind the scenes and on missions, please help if you can.
For more information or to join in with actions, either on the streets or from what's left of the privacy of your own home, please contact Consenting Adult Action Network at email@example.com or visit our webpage at http://consentingadultactionnet.spaces.live.com/
Except the 16/18 criteria for "indecent" images is the only clear thing about that particular legislation. Nobody can tell you what indecent means, and you might not know that anyone would think something indecent until the Home Office produced the Paedofinder General to testify in your case. It is not what you think matters but what someone wreathed in official expertise can persuade a court under the circumstances.
The new law, while still madly overbroad claptrap, is a darn sight clearer than that.
I note that the web's most downloaded woman's homepage now features two videos which will shortly be illegal on a par with animal porn.
One is a spoof of 24, the other of Hitman. Both feature women getting it on with guns aimed at them. I cannot see any clearer evidence that this law goes too far.
Is an image of a carcrash extreme porn?
What if you can clearly see that there are dead and/or injured people in the car?
- Again No
What if somebody gets turned on by viewing it? (somebody did get hurt)
What if some of the bodies seen on the image are naked?
- Don't 'no'?
... and underage?
What if a cartoon shows a man looking at an image of a carcrash while jerking off?
Please send all your Extreme images to everyone that voted Yes to the bill. Then they can tell you what they intended.
"the Police are tied up viewing people's smut"
If they prefer being tied up while doing it, why not?
I'm going to email my entire Pron collection to my MP, the Home Office, my local police station etc, so they can vet them and send me the clean ones back.
Wonder what kind of a drain on resources it would be if everyone did that?
Alternatively, just print out a few examples (couple of hundred should do) with the words "Is this legal" printed on it and send them in plain brown envelopes to the above people/organisations to vet.
The act of deleting shows intent to comply.
You'd be let off in my court.
The people who prevent that act of deletion from totally removing the image, now there's a thing, step forward Bill ........
Perhaps the government could have a site where we could see images of what is, and, what is not, legal. Maybe add some forums where we can post images and have senior judges, politicians and members of the public decide if they are eye-wateringly illegal.
If this law is put into practice, the US will have an extra state.
This is just puritan god-told-us-to-do-it idioticy.
Note to self, encrypt the folder called Extreme alien porn
"Therefore, if government assurances that the new law criminalised nothing that was not already illegal to publish, those attending the demonstration should be safe."
If the new law really "criminalised nothing that was not already illegal" then why the f**k do we need to have a new law? Why not just ..... oh, I don't know ..... enforce the existing ones?
And if there was some problem with enforcing the existing laws, then how is merely creating a new law going to help?
How would one, and I'm just asking for a friend remember, apply for a job as a tester in such an establishment as the British Board of Porn Classification?
Obviously, they should offer a hotline, where you can submit (e.g. by mail, email, or fax) your smut and then the police specialists can sort it through and give their objective thumbs up or down. The younger, highly motivated police stuff should be capable of browsing a considerable amount of pics/day if offered appropriately private workspace!
Then they should stamp the non-offending stuff with some CrownSOAP (seal of approval) to make sure it won't be misidentified in the future. Long live the Queen!
"This change in the law meant that people had to consider and, if necessary, delete or destroy material which until then had been legal to possess.”
When the law came into effect a few years ago I always wondered what libraries that keep old newspapers would do with their back issues of The Sun, which used to regularly feature 16 and 17 year olds on page 3. Not to mention the newspaper themselves archive, which will now contain lots of "child porn". Maybe The Mirror could do an expose on them.
An image deemed to be obscene is of you and your partner for example?
Could they arrest you for having pictures of yourself???
But check your parts boxes for old HDDs from systems from your teenage years. are they PROPERLY erased? Not just formatted!
Seriously, I one cracked a Danish extreme BDSM site and pretty much every JPEG would have you nicked under this bollocks (I refer you all to Dodgy Geezer's post - I feel exactly the same) and I got umm..... Well, it took 20 hours on dialup with Teleport Pro. 10 years ago. There might have been more but the connection was dropped and I didn't want to risk a hefty phone bill.
Of course, having struck digital gold (I was a randy young buck of 16) I subsequently lost it all to a drive failure. But then along came P2P and the "Pornoholic" years. :-)
Serious bit: The Gov. wants a fucked up fragmented weakened mass of individuals (as opposed to "society") that don't cause democracy and whose views are fed to them daily by media and sensationalist labels (like "Extreme Pornography User!"). They have a flawless track record in intelligently undermining democracy in all its forms, while "spinning" things to look like they are intending the opposite.
Therefore it can be said with some certainty that this law is intended partly as a psychological tool. Perhaps by denying people the ability to freely explore all areas of the human psyche, they are attempting to weaken the ability of poeple to form rational, thoughtful, intelligent opinions on "emotive" issues like this?
As an added bonus, Mr + Mrs Daily Dumbness will simply not bother to give consideration to "Users of Extreme Pornography" and their representatives, should they ever come across discussion of, or information about the issues. Especially since Extreme Pornography is a Gateway Porn to harder, even more illegal types of Porn. It was OK when it was legal, though. You know, like Pot is a gateway drug. Good thing we (the people, globally united, in joyfull democracy, remember?) dealt with that by banning it, leaving our happy heroin-free ethanol-drenched utopia!
Plod; That's extreme; That's extreme; That's extreme; That's not extreme; That's extreme; That's extreme; That's extreme; That's extreme; That's not extreme; That's extreme; WOW! That's _really_ extreme; That's extreme; That's extreme; That's extreme; That's extreme; That's extreme; That's extreme; That's extreme and That's extreme. *Twitch* *moan* "Would you pass the kleenex please?"
"The act of deleting shows intent to comply."
- Oh no it doesn't; it is a sign of a guilty party trying to cover up the evidence,
No, no. This bans the bulk of American porn. Lots of guns in American porn. Nude with guns = Extreme porn.
So Two girls one cup does not involve animals...Check
Nope - no corpses... Check
Danger to genitals...hmmm nope safe there too.
Cool, so Two Girls one Cup is not extreme porn, I feel safer now that they are protecting us from the extreme kind.
Paris because...well duh!
I mess around with CGI.
The prosecutors would hate having me on a jury on one of these cases. I can recognise all the standard CGI models of women.
Few of the people who make the CGI porn images seem to bother to change the faces.
Oh, and I used to be a farmer. I've some idea how real animals stand and walk.
Finally, and this may be a 5-point quirk, I find it quite easy to look at a "shocking" image and ask rational questions about how real it is. Why isn't the jet of blood pulsing with the heart?
( . ) ( . ) < ASCII boobs of a 12 year old.
You're all going to jail! :D
It has been stated in one of the referenced El. Reg. articles "UK to outlaw cartoons of child sexual abuse" from 28th May that several police forces would like to outlaw "Manga" under this legislation, and then it gave a wholy inaccurate description of Manga.
Manga is effectivly a generic term like "Comic" is in English. Like "Comic", there can be many different genres of Manga. I very much doubt that anybody would equate "Viz" with "Bunty" (if it is still published), and the term also covers "Commando", "The Amazing Spider Man", and "The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers".
What the Police meant was that they wanted to ban the more extreme forms of Manga (seijen and gekiga), and I assume the equivalent Anime which is known as Hentai. They must learn to differentiate, both in their nomenclature, and identification, of the different generes.
By banning generic "Manga", they would actually ban a huge amount of perfectly legal childrens comics.
Unfortunatly, to cloud the matterm, the Japanese people as a whole have a completely different outlook on life. Because they still have shared baths, nudity in normal day-to-day life is perfectly acceptable, so is also acceptable in printed material. This extends to explicit underwear images (so called "Panty Shots"). But child nudity and underwear images, even in a naieve form is considered forbidden in this country. So even manga produced for young children *could* be considered as falling foul of some of the UK laws. And you could not just ban by title, as you may just get one such image every 4 issues.
I very much doubt that much of the Manga that gets into this country (as sold by Waterstones, Borders and Ottikas, as well as specialist comic shops) would even cause most of the population to bat an eyelid. But some might. The Clamp title Chobits, aimed at 15+ tenage girls, but read by many, actually has a few images of a physical act, performed by a young man on a robot that has the appearence of a teanage girl, that may by some be considered as abuse. Is the fact that the character is a robot enough to escape the law? I don't know, and I doubt that the Police will either.
And what about when a character that is supposed to be a post high school girl (18+), but is drawn to appear much younger is shown in a state of undress. This is again common in Manga, and probably would not cause any distress to the population as a whole, but is questionable.
The eminent UK comic strip writer Alan Moore (League of Extraodinary Gentlemen, V for Vendetta, Swamp Thing, and Constantine to name but a few) has actually left the country, because the legislation would seriously effect some of his work (a illustrated book called "Lost Girls" explores the childhood exploits of several female characters from other authors is likely to be banned from both sale and ownership under this legislation). And I'm sure that the British Library (which has a copy of every book published in the UK with an ISBN number) should be prosecuted as well.
These laws are obnoxious, and ill thought out. Much like a lot of the legislation that the current administration put together. We are heading for a situation like in the 60's when there was not enough guidance to police the Obscene Publications act consistantly. If I did not know any better, I would suspect that this administration are trying to enact laws that will allow *anybody* to be arrested, and once arrested held for up to 42 days while they have their homes searched.
And while I am about it, people better check their photo albums and boxes for any pictures of their own children in a state of undress (or dare I say it - nudity) as these are probably illegal as well. And what about the cover of the Yes album "Yesterdays".
I am an American. I have a large porn collection. I have never come across anything involving a gun.
Surely many of the young women photographed were acknowledgedly 17? What about the archives, the proofs, the negatives? What about all the drive-by web popups with girls 16 and over? Those get cached, or? What about the servers of faceparty.com? What about just plain porn? This is going to stress out a lot of conscientious people. It's as though Andrea Dworkin and Mary Whitehouse rose from the grave and took over parliament.
"Could the Criminal Law Justice Unit please explain a 100% foolproof method of completely deleting and/or destroying digital data to us? "
How about telling us how to reliably find it in the first place.
Perhaps they should make available, as a free download, the entire forensic toolset as used by the enforcement agencies, complete with full instructions, such that we can see "what they will see" if they search our HDDs. If you hit delete on a picture a couple of years ago - you can't get it back but I'll bet they can!
.......the likes of a quality family sport like boxing? Two semi naked men being paid to be brutalised and beat the hell out of each other, like hard as nails manwhores, with the extremely high likelyhood of bodily damage and in some cases even death.
You can argue all you like that it's not porn, however, if someone were to have that on TV, be naked him/herself and 'entertaining pam & her 5 lovely daughters' or 'tickling the trouts gills', then how exactly does that differentiate itself from extreme porn? You've even got to subscribe to PPV's for the high level *ahem* manwhores, I've heard rumours** there are porn websites where you have to subscribe for PPV's too......
**.....can't confirm this rumour, I've never paid for my porn with probably the exception of this internet connection, but I'm sure someone out there actually pays.
Paris, because I wouldn't half..........
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017