hmm
Anon is depressed CAAN doesn't seem to have a view on drawings that may be under 18.
Other then that this anon is strongly anti-censorship in all forms and believes in CAAN.
Man could face prison over six second 'extreme porn' clip
A man has been warned he faces a custodial sentence after pleading guilty to possession of what prosecutors described as "extreme porn" at Mold Crown Court last week. Campaigners against the extreme porn law are now waiting with some concern to see what the court decides when the accused, Andrew Robert Holland, of Coedpoeth, …
-
-
Tuesday 23rd March 2010 09:45 GMT Keith T
Was the technician perhaps looking for porn or credit card information he could steal?
I don't want to make excuses for illegal porn, when the porn is illegal.
But there is a second crime here, and one that directly calls into question the integrity of computer professionals by asking if police are allowing a criminal computer technical to escape justice.
When a woman goes visits the casualty ward to get a broken arm treated, she does not expect the doctor to do a gynaecological examination.
If the doctor did do a gynaecological examination, he might well be struck off.
So why is it okay for computer technicians to go snooping around playing people's video clips?
Was the technician perhaps looking for porn or credit card information he could steal?
I could see stumbling across an ordinary image file in the root of C: if the user had set the view to thumbnails. But that is really unlikely.
And the video file, the technical must have intentionally played it.
So what is the story behind how the technician "stumbled" across this illegal file? How did he accidentally see it in the process of carrying out the necessary duties of his work? What is his excuse?
-
Tuesday 23rd March 2010 09:45 GMT Keith T
@Twisted Justice #
You say this law was motivated by the "far right".
Are you by any chance in the USA or Canada, because what you said would make sense to someone living there.
This law was actually put in by a UK Labour government under Tony Blair. Labour is the UK's left-wing party.
That is the problem with trying to label something as multi-dimensional as political beliefs using a scalar.
Left-wing parties, especially extremist left-wing parties, are as likely to invent ridiculous crimes and penalties as right-wing parties and extremist right-wing parties.
Lots of politically socialist parties, lots of parties that believe in state intervention in economics, are at the same time socially very conservative. So left-wing and right-wing at the same time.
-
Tuesday 23rd March 2010 15:23 GMT Anonymous Coward
Wake up, Keith
You say that Labour is the UK's left-wing party.
Are you by any chance living in 1970 or 80?, because what you said would make sense to someone living then.
The Labour party under Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell moved so far to the right that the Tories have struggled to find any reason for their own continued existence ever since and are only looking at a possible victory in the next election because of 10 years worth of young voters who can't remember the mess they made last time.
I'm sure that what you said about socialist parties is true - while it's pretty well a defining characteristic of a socialist government that it intervenes in economics, that's really something all governments do; those that don't invariably get some version of the Credit Crunch as the invisible hand of the market once more fails to materialise and their stint in office ends in some economic disaster.
The failure to learn this, and the blind dogmatism of economic advisers peddling yet another forlorn utopia, is what has marked out every "new broom" in British politics for the last 30 years. "Just one more try" should be the official motto of the LSE and its hopelessly untalented ilk as they knock on the door of Downing Street, "This time," they promise, "we've worked out what we did wrong". But they never have. Economies of any size or complexity need constant intervention to prevent them from collapsing to singularities of one sort or another. There are no counter-examples in all of history, yet free-market fantasists continue to label anyone that realises this as "socialists" as if that were some sort of insult.
Be that as it may, Labour is not a socialist party in any meaningful sense. It is a free-market devil-take-the-hindmost capitalist party dedicated to removing the state's responsibility for any and all activity in the nation, leaving the government free to consort with the rich and famous to the mutual benefit of the cabinet ministers and billionaires concerned. Exactly the same as the Conservatives, in other words. Reality, in the form of responsibility, is not allowed to impinge at any point.
If you had lived through the last 20 years - or judged political parties by what they do rather than what they call themselves - you'd probably know all that.
-
Tuesday 23rd March 2010 15:50 GMT Anonymous Coward
note
Note, most people get a bit confused with "left and right" there are four points on a political compass, Left/Right/Libertarian/Authoritarian.
Soviet Russia was far Left/Extremely Authoritarian.
China is Left/Extremely Authoritarian.
Nazi Germany Right/Extremely Authoritarian.
UK Center-Right/Authoritarian
US Right/Authoritarian
France Left/Authoritarian
I can't think of any nation that leans more towards liberal then authoritarian... hmmmm, of course I think those levels go -100 to 100 political makeup is more complex then Left or Right.
-
-
-
Tuesday 23rd March 2010 09:45 GMT Keith T
It isn't good enough to just delete it
Ben Rosenthal, relabelling your C: as "Deleted Items" isn't good enough.
Even if the file is in your real deleted items folder, it is still on your computer and you could still be prosecuted for it. (After all, that would be an easy escape for child pornographers.)
There is even some question as to whether you could be successfully prosecuted if it was in your web browser's cache or sitting unread in your inbox.
Also, I suspect "deleted items" is one of the folders unscrupulous computer technicians snoop in first when searching for credit card data.
-
Tuesday 23rd March 2010 09:50 GMT Keith T
re Saw VI & the NSBWP
In my personal opinion, *maybe* Saw and Saw II should be considered porn.
But it seems not matter how cruel and sadistic the film, no matter if it makes heroes of absolute sadists or psychopaths, society will only consider it porn if sex is involved. (This is even more true in the USA.)
This said, there is no excuse for the draconian police state style rules and penalties in Blair's extreme porn law or the RIP Act.
Many of Tony Blair's additions to criminal law and regulations give the impression he thought "New Labour" was a synonym for "National Socialist British Workers Party".
On the content of the film, I am imagining it is either sex with a giant dildo, or the appearance of death or mutilation.
The FBI in the USA launched a massive search for snuff films a few years ago when the main stream media claimed they existed, and came up with nothing but simulated murder.
If snooping computer techs, investigators and prosecutors could be all be fooled into laying charges by an animated tiger, they could be fooled by even amateur make up artists. (Yes I know they dropped the charges on the tiger clip, but dropping charges requires that they first have laid them.)
-
Tuesday 23rd March 2010 09:53 GMT The Evil One
A useful law for the righteous to get rid of their enemies
Authoritarian politicians love moral panic/witchcraft laws such as those against drugs, terrorism and pornography. The beauty of these laws is that anyone can be made vulnerable to them. If you are an official and dislike someone, then email some kiddie porn to them and anonymously notify the police that he/she has it in their possession, it is even easier than planting heroin in someone's house or car.
-
Tuesday 23rd March 2010 09:55 GMT Anonymous Coward
im confused
I dont know what those 6 seconds contains but... I understand its perfectly possible to be prosecuted and jailed for owning a photo/video of an act between two consenting adults that is not illegal......
We can watch all sorts of Police Camera Action stuff, i.e. we watch crimes being commited and there is nothing wrong with that, but we cant watch a legal act between two consenting adults.
Something seriously wrong here..
-
-
-
Tuesday 23rd March 2010 15:06 GMT JEDIDIAH
JEDIDIAH
That seems peculiar. There are any number of "slightly out of the ordinary" venues in Britain that have been advertised on the web since pretty much the dawn of (internet) time. The idea that you could be sent to prison for viewing or posessing content of this kind seems Brazil-esque in the least.
It seems like they will need to imprison a good chunk of London.
-
Tuesday 23rd March 2010 18:05 GMT serviceWithASmile
Yes, probably.
you are already halfway to the sex-offender's register if you DO have thoughts out of the ordinary*.
all we need now is a way to record them so they would be admissable in court....
after thinking about it, i've decided on my opinion for the whole basis of this law and what it represents.
my opinion is: it's bullshit.
certain drugs are illegal. the coppers usually go after the dealers and importers as a priority.
porn is made illegal. so the coppers go for the people watching it, not the actors doing it, or the guys selling it.
considerations of nationality / country of origin aside, the government should not legislate against something they cannot control. by doing so, they look like weak bullies when hauling some poor pleb up for it. I'm not saying they should control it. Just that firstly passing this law, and secondly acting on it, are wrong.
*as defined by government brochure #23535625622-A, titled "How we want you to think", subsection 43, heading "Sex - Don't."
-
-
Tuesday 23rd March 2010 09:55 GMT TheBassJunky
I think this law is a highly stupid idea.
Seems that it covers anything that could be considered slightly out of the ordinary. Bondage/S&M, hentai, it's all here.
Bad news for us kinky sods, eh?
Whatever next - are they going to ban you from having out-of-the-ordinary thoughts?
I hate this country.
-
Tuesday 23rd March 2010 10:38 GMT simoncm
Plea fail
Mr Holland's problem:
"At the Crown Court in Mold, last week, before Mr Justice Medland, Holland pleaded guilty to a charge of possession, in the expectation that this would count as mitigation and lead to a lighter sentence."
He admitted to the "crime".
No one knows what the "crime" is, but because he has pleaded guilty he opens himself up to be prosecuted.
What he needed to do was fight the charge (expensive), and show that the material in his possession was not offensive etc... That would give the judges the opportunity to interpret the law and (ideally) castrate it (so long as they don't video themselves doing so). This would make the extremeness of extreme porn so extreme that no one would/could ever be charged.
Alas the judges now have to sentence a guilty man (he pleaded guilty). I'm not sure they have the freedom to throw out the charges at this point. The best Holland can hope for is that he gets a suspended sentence.
-
Tuesday 23rd March 2010 11:04 GMT Adam 10
Lock down your computers!!!
I made the mistake of letting a friend go on my PC during a barbecue. Hearing a scream I ran back into the living room to find him watching a video of a dog and a woman, with my party guests sat around looking somewhat disturbed.
So, it seems that I could potentially be sent to prison for the actions of an R-tard who came to my house and drank too much...
I think I'll be reinstating the "Party" user account with fully-nannied internet and access only to the music folder! (although for some reason that doesn't allow one to read wikipedia articles about John Lennon or the Beatles... presumably as the powers-that-be in the US thought of them as a bad influence 40 years ago!)
-
Tuesday 23rd March 2010 13:08 GMT Anonymous Coward
Don't worry about it
No one actually gets "caught" committing these crimes. These crimes exist for one reason and one reason only; as part of a bid to reclassify as illegal a broad enough range of material to ensure that everyone in the UK is guilty of something.
Once we're all guilty the police can start searching people at random (sorry, I mean continue searching people at random) and declare that 100% of the people they stop are later found to have contraband in their home. Well what do you know, the police are keeping us safer after all.
But what if the chief of police is found to have some extreme porn on his PC (come on, you know he does) will he be thrown in jail? I'll bet you my life's savings that he won't. Gordon Brown, now there's a guy who looks like he lives off extreme porn. What's the betting he'll be jailed?
-
-
Tuesday 23rd March 2010 11:04 GMT Tony Paulazzo
Ignore the man behind the curtain.
>As far as I can see, this government has fucked us up illegally, and non-consensually , and is keeping doing it even though we are yelling 'STOP!'.<
It's not their fault we forgot the safe word.
Also, I don't understand why he didn't get done for the tiger thing too, after all, didn't some guy get prison time in Australia for Bart and Lisa porn, or is animated porn (even extreme) ok as long as it doesn't involve fictitious children?
-
Tuesday 23rd March 2010 13:13 GMT HippyChippy
Man could face prison...
A carpenter writes: A couple of years ago I received two unsolicited MMS's in quick succession from some long forgotten knuckle-dragger in the building trade, and assumed they were currently doing the rounds. The first was the comic 'Tony the Frosties Tiger' cartoon spoof already discussed, and the second was a 6 second video clip.
"The Lads" gathered round and guffawed at Tony's punchline. The second clip was of some bloke with his trousers round his ankles 'wrangling' a sheep, except that after a short struggle he got the animal under control and the bloke's arse started going in and out, pornstar stylee.
After a second viewing The Lads came to the conclusion that it probably wasn't a spoof or some offbeat viral ad', and was simulated or even the real thing. Whilst my experience could be just pure coincidence, through shocked conversations at the time (I wasn't expecting to see that!), I know of several other blokes who received these two clips concurrently. As I say, they were just 'doing the rounds' and no, I don't still have the MMS's on my phone. Phew!
-
Tuesday 23rd March 2010 16:28 GMT Anonymous Coward
Why is everyone complaining ?
If you Voted for Labour in the last election then you deserve whatever they throw since everyone with a brain saw that the incompetents were building a Police State in their first term and there you went voting Labour in for a 2nd worse term. Really I would say that Labour is more disgusting that any picture this guy is charged with possessing.
-
Tuesday 23rd March 2010 18:07 GMT John Ozimek
Appeal to HippyChippy
(and anyone else out there who may have seen the tiger clip.
I am actually quite interested in getting sight of this (provided it is the one that has the pubchline at the end and therefore the one declared legal to possess) in order to work out for myself just how "realistic" this particular clip was.
Please don't start sending stuff directly (even if you have worked out my e-mail address). However, if you could point to a reasonably virus-free hosting site (which is not otherwise illegal on account of content) would be grateful.
j
-
Wednesday 24th March 2010 09:50 GMT HippyChippy
@ John Ozimek
Wish I could help but have no idea where one would find it again, even for research purposes, as it was doing the rounds two years+ ago. If you know anyone who never deletes MMS's it was circulating around the same time as the "Manc' happy-slapper in wife-beater vest who gets his come-upance from a skinny 'innocent' passer-by" spoof. Errr... hope this helps!
Paris, a happy slapper.
-
-
Wednesday 24th March 2010 16:56 GMT ph0b0s
A few points, sorry not very witty.
First it's a no brainier to me, no 6 second clip, unless evidence of your involvement in a more serious crime (eg murder, GBH, rape or child abuse) should ever be punishable with a prison sentence. End of.
Second for those who blame Labour for this. Who believes any of the opposition parties would be any better? Can you see any of them reversing this after May? I cannot bring myself not to vote (people died to give me the right, etc), so I will be spoiling my ballot come May.
Third, the only other victimless crime I can think of is speeding, which at least arguably has a more causal link to hurting someone if not punished. But speeding offenses are more controversial and the punishment is a fine and some points on your license. In comparison to a max 3 years and membership of sex offenders register (and all that entails)
Lastly, how come we are so worried about animal rights when it comes to having intercourse with them, but not when it comes to killing billions of them a year for food? Yes I'm a veggy...
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
