All very ridiculous
What the hell am I supposed to do with all this dead animal porn? I guess this will be a puzzle for most of us?
Mine's the one with the, er, semen-stained chihuahua corpse in the pocket.
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 …
What are they going to do? An amnesty? "Bring in all your dodgy images, no questions asked, give us something to while away those quiet shifts"?
A quiet campaign of knocking on every door in the country, examining hard drives, and arrests at four in the morning?
Or just a 'shop your neighbour' policy?
Two stories, same post applicable:
They really ARE going down the Orwellian path!
Flames, as they'll be having us burn unapproved books (and probably unapproved people) next!
Welcome to NuLabouria.
"Papers please, Citizen"
We really are fucked in this country. I think we DO need to take a lead from Thailand.
To clear the confusion about what is O.K. and what is considered suitable only for Judges and Law Lords, it would be handy for HM Gov to copy the complete waste of time and money known as the 'Citizens Charter' and send us all booklets illustrating what is acceptable for a five knuckle shuffle and what would return a rap over the same knuckles (or is that also counted as pleasure and banned).
We need to know, the tension is unbearable, it's almost exhilarating, in fact it's rather exciting.
Remember folks, that even stuff like Emmanuelle in America is illegal, would get you put on the offenders register like a pervert. It features HC scenes (i.e. unrated in UK) and simulated snuff movies as the plot line. Emmanuelle went to seek out snuff movies in this fictional movie where she has many sexy adventures and finally gets the bad guys at the end.
It may be fictional snuff, but that doesn't matter, this law has a 'simulated' clause in it to catch that. In the minds of Jacqui Smith MP for Reddich your possession of Emmanuelle in Ameria encourages the market for snuff movies that exists only in her head, and the heads of other dysfunctional NuLabour MPs.
It's no different that the people who wanted to ban Harry Potter because they thought it encouraged witch craft, they imagine a world filled with witches they need to battle against like they see in the movie.
You and the bad guy in the movie who makes snuff films are one and the same person in the minds of these people. It's like she can't tell the difference between real life and a movie plot, or the difference between a person watching a movie and the bad guy in the plot.
You will be punished as though you are the movie bad guy. She really thinks so little of you, that she'll lock you up, take your kids and ruin your life for watching Emmanuelle in America.
For god sake don't let her watch any Bruce Willis Die Hard movies or she'll start imagining terrorists infiltrating airport baggage handlers and ..... wait.... forgot the ID card for airport workers things...... never mind.
what if you stream said "extreme" material say from shockingtube?
This held that where an individual no longer had control or custody of images in their possession, it would be unsafe to proceed with a prosecution – and convictions based on such evidence were quashed.
Technically it was never in your possession, you were streaming it...
AC for obvious reasons
Is that a helicopt.....
this feels like one of those laws that is purely there to catch people on technicalities toi avoid any real work to prove someones guilt.
ie. We can't prove you murdered your wife, but during our investigation we turned up this picture on your pc, so you're nicked.
There is no way of enforcing this law by itself, short of the idiot method* it will purely be used to hammer people who have been suspected of committing other crimes. I'm all for a suprise inspection of every mp's computer on the day this law is brought in, just to be sure they are leading by example!!
*such as taking your pc full of kiddie porn in to pcworld for them to repair.
So, are the police going to boost their detection figures by trawling the IP addresses of everyone visiting certain international 'extreme' porn websites? Will ISPs be forced to provide this information? What about fetish sites which are 'on the edge' like the now famous Kink.com? How will this information be disseminated to the public? I wouldn't be surpirsed if the first some people know of it is the po'lice knocking on their door and removing their computer. Backsliding. Just becuase the police are too crap to catch the small number of dangerous individuals they will cover it up by prosecuting huge numbers of norms. I bet there becomes some kind of fixed penalty... £60 per naughty pic or something.
Presumably this will apply to films as well as pictures. Wouldn't most action/horror films fall foul of this law, realistic looking harm wise. As for the bit about being able to tell it's acting, yes it's a film, but people harass soap baddies thinking they're really nasty and not just actors
Time to cleanse the hard disks. Welcome to the ever increasingly puritan NuGov land, the land of 18.5%VAT, massive data snooping and government funded filth fishing trips.
O well, the government can now tell you how you're allowed to abuse your body, what you're allowed to be sexually aroused by and what you're allowed to feel (being racist for example is illegal), you arn't allowed to protest without having a permit, you gotta be tagged bagged and registered.
Man I love this planet. At least the yanks have guns that they can use to take up arms against an insane government. All we can do is sulk and send a few letters to MPs who don't give a toss about our opinions becouse we're just sheep and they know better then us.
I hate them all so very much.
It's not going to be any fun going through prosecution--better to avoid it altogether--but the prosecution has to convince a jury that the picture looks "real".
And what is the definition of an "animal"?
I'm glad I've never had the urge to download Yoda/Skywalker slash comics.
So this article is actually against this stuff, and will probably fall foul of the new law. There are reckless people inciting the mindless masses to revolt against the system.
Me personnally, I'm going to Torr**** Emmanuelle in America, and I've added those sluts to my Favs.
Paris, because even she thinks that this rule sucks. Or because she'd fall foul of it.
> it depicts real harm being carried out in a realistic way
Do the two occurrences of "real" add anything here? Consider what might contradict it. If the harm was unreal? artificial? synthetic? imaginary? All of those are elements of depiction, so the issue is not about depiction but about harm. The concept of fake harm is the concept of fakery, not of harm, of which there is none (unless a stunt went wrong). What about the mode of depiction - would it be contradicted if the depiction were surreal? amateurish? histrionic? enacted by children? by Felix the Cat? in mime? by stick figures? if there's too much blood? too little blood? if it's done to the tune of the Red Flag? In this case we could criticise the depiction on grounds such as bad taste, or an affront to morals and decency (perhaps), but these would be criticisms of the depiction, not of what is depicted. Only children and animals confuse the moon with the finger pointing at it - not rational beings.
The sooner a jury gets to put its mind to this law under proper direction the better. When a schoolteacher is plucked from nowhere to play act as Home Secretary, she's not just temporarily away with the fairies, she has been completely sucked off into the hyperreal - where the concept of depiction has no meaning and peddling simulations is the norm. An opportunity has been wasted by trying to get this law to cover every conceivable fastidious scruple its promoters could think off (except the obvious one - war). But that has been the story of nu labour.
and in the mean time whilst everyone is looking for peados in the bushes and seeing mad rapists whenever someone is into a bit of the rough stuff or looks a bit odd, children will keep getting raped and abused by their relatives and, close familiy friends. Women will keep getting raped by "friends" and aquintances.
The laws against various forms of porn are a waste of time and do nothing but give the useless filth something to boost their stats with and the MPs something to get hard over "ooo we're shafting the commoners again, ooo yes do it some more you naughty justice ministry ooo."
I beleve there is an excemption for anything with a BBFC certificate so buy a dvd of some horror film to "injoy" (a friend just sugested one called "the hostal" and I am realy starting to worry about him) and it is legal but download stills of the same file from the internet and it might not be
I am seriously considering leaving England, with the government plans to make everything from porn to unapproved political parties illegal and to monitor everyone's communications for signs of such 'terrorist' activities as political dissent or sexual activity between consenting adults.
Until then, I will use Truecrypt and PGP.
...because Jim Gamble over at CEOP wants all those Manga comics on the banned list, too, and the subject is up for legitimate consideration in Parliament (already at consultation stage). This, despite the fact that even the most 'graphic' cartoons he's talking about are just that: cartoons (as in 'no actual persons were involved in the creation of this drawing'. Jim and his friends (and he has lots of interested 'friends' ready to hitch their collection tins to his cause) want to convince Parliament that the sexual depiction of a completely fictional cartoon fantasy character represents a 'scene of crime'. Despite there not actually being any crime...or even any actual, you know, victim.
And you know what? He might just get away with it, too.
Congratulations, New Labour! You have decided that anything that in *your* subjective opinion is dangerous to *us* should be banned and that if *we* look at it, we must be locked up for our own safety and the safety of society!
The fact that there's still no "guidance" from the MoJ (oh, it's coming, honest!) let alone a stipulation to the Police that this should not be used as some sort of "Consolation Prize" law (well, we can't do them for the crime we nicked them for, but we found some dodgy stuff on his PC) just confirms that our leaders have lost all touch with reality and because they know they've already lost the next election they're just pushing through every piece of nonsense they can think of which will make the country a "better place" (in their opinions) such as locking men up for paying for sex, calling Lap Dancing clubs "sexual encounter venues" and assuming that every prostitute has been trafficked.
Time to look out that copy of Truecrypt before the Stasi^W err Geheime Staatspolizei^W^W erm Ministry of Love come knocking on my door...
"Do you honestly think that the NSFW image that you linked to qualifies for "a reasonable person would consider the action depicted to be real"?"
Unfortunately the Register article is incorrect here. The test for whether a reasonable person thinks it's real or not only applies to the people being real, *not* the action. In the linked image, the people are clearly real. ("a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real" - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080004_en_9#pt5-pb1-l1g63 ).
The test for the action is merely that the image is "realistic". Images can clearly be realistic, even if we know or suspect it isn't real (e.g., realistic special effects in a film), and I think that the linked image would count.
AC wrote: "Do you honestly think that the NSFW image that you linked to qualifies for "a reasonable person would consider the action depicted to be real"? I would like to consider myself reasonable, and to me it is obviously staged."
You can never put your faith in a law which can only be judged on the criteria of a reasonable person's views. People have hung on differing interpretations of reasonable, take Derek Bentley and the meaning of "Let him have it" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_Him_Have_It
Re: Sooty, you are right in that this legislation is primarily a catch all. If you should cross any branch of authority you can expect to be investigated on some trumped up charge, which will come to nothing. But rummaging around on your computer is bound to find something chargeable, even if you have gone to great lengths to ensure that no one in any picture could be considered to be under 18, the extreme porn law makes anything else fair game for a prosecution.
I'm really struggling to think of one single intelligent, workable idea that has come out of the home office since this person has been the Home Secretary.
She is attempting to 'solve' problems that either dont exist, or 'take action' on stuff that no-one can actually do anything about. I guess to admit either of those two things kind of negates the point in having her and the recently emasculated home office at all.
The feature films that are full of violence & murder will be okay because they are not pornography.
I honestly don't know what they are trying to achieve.. all it will do is waste money and resources.
99.9% of the content they are trying to ban must surely be consensual wherever it is produced.
Surely I can just edit together all my films into one giant stream of consciousness of porn and scenes of pretty flowers.
At the end of the day:- the government choose to believe LizKelly and Co.
"she has been completely sucked off"
I really, REALLY wish you hadn't written that about Ms Smith. It's not something I want to think about and now I can't get it out of my mind. Arrrggghhhhh!!!!!!
I notice they are also calling for men to charged with rape if they take the time to try and ascertain before paying that a prostitute is not being trafficked or kept captive, and are then subsequently proved to be wrong.
By the same token, why bother trying to catch the people who produce pirate DVDs and music (difficult) when you can prosecute people for possessing them? (fish/barrel - especially when the experts of more than one legitimate outlet has been fooled by the quality of the pirate goods)
Yes, that's the way to go. Well done NuLabia.
Is it me? ;-)
I can't express my rage in regards to this... I just can't. It's so very extreme that I think I'm running the risk of my brain turning to pulp.
Suffice to say, such a move would be a move too far, and action would have to be taken. The extreme porn law is one in a slew of fascist puritain moves to control the population, you may aswell ban literature, and conversations, pay people £20 to grass up their neighbours or people in the pub that express interests that are not vetted by our overlords.
It would probably be something that could change a peacful, placid person such as my self into an assasin of some sort, the problem is there are so many MPs to kill and they only represent a small portion of the mind washed puritain freaks that need exterminating.
Just remember that the German province of our brave new European nation is in the process of granting its Polizei permission to plant Trojans on the PCs of those it wishes to surveil. How much longer before that idea is washed through the EU's policy laundry, and comes out as a Directive, or even worse a Regulation? (The difference is that Regulations don't even need to be rubber stamped by the provincial parliaments).
How long will it be before it is illegal to connect a PC to the Internet unless one has some government approved "Safety Software" to mediate (and report on) the use of the connection and the contents of the PC behind it. After all, the Vista EULA gives Microsoft the authority to remove any software from the user's PC that Microsoft in their wisdom do not like! And nobody can stop a "Critical Upgrade" can they? One just has to think of the Windows Genuine Advantage fiascos.
... But of course, "No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition"! (Monty Python).
is this now puts uk law at significent diffrence with the law in the rest of the world there is a clear world wide distenction on child porn but to take an example a lot of pepol have been menting a lot of us sites (like the kink.com mentioned above not that I know what it is about <.< >.> ) are perficetly legal there so pepol are going to have no idar that there content is now illegal in the uk and a lot of site that host legal (in uk tearms) porn might have banner adds depicting seanes that are illagle it is a total mine feilad and only pepol who have no idar how the internet porn inderstry works would ahve thought it up (again not that I am an expert on internet porn maby I should be poting anon?)
I really wish you hadn't reminded me of that. I only recently got the image out of my head from when a friend linked me it....sighs well back to the nightmares.
I know I'm in the states but damn guys, "thought crime"* is only the beginning....when the hell do you guys get the sense offense over there?
"HES A SENSE OFFENDER GET HIM!!!"
*Graham Marsden for reminding me of this movie
/mines the one with the Mona Lisa rolled up inside
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
"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
"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 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....
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019