I thought the whole point about the legislation over extreme porn was to protect the innocent victims, the subjects of the porn.
ie... bdsm, child porn.
The usual argument, if you get rid of the market for it, then people won't carry out the acts.
It's rather crude link anyway, because people aren't paying for the photographs and the perpetrators would probably carry out the acts whether they had people to give the photos or not, as they're doing it for their own personal pleasure.
But shagging a dead animal? Who gets hurt there? Not the animal..it's already dead.
Might be different if the guy was killing the animals for the purpose of shagging them and taking pics.
The extreme law thing is a complete ass anyway, it was so vaguely defined, taking a picture of and S&M model, you know the kind of thing, (don't you?), girl in chains, leather to be published to make money for the photographer, an obviously arranged professional photo shoot, without any actual action taking place, could constitute extreme porn and lead to the photographer being arrested.
Ironic, but it's the coppers, the lawyers, law makers that are more into it than anyone else.