Erotic artist urges spanking for Jacqui Smith

She's bad news, literally

IMHO she's an electoral liability, look at the news associated with her:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=jacqui+smith&btnG=Search+News

"Smith blames contractor for data loss"

"Smith bans Westwood bondage book"

"Jacqui Smith's 'Stasi': Now council posts 'Wanted' pictures of litterbugs"

"Cannabis: police seizures show drop in drug's strength" (i.e. evidence is opposite of what she says.)

"Our citizens, their law" (how US law is being directly applied to UK citizens)

"new maps won't tackle crime"

"Smith launches airport trial" (her biometric trail blazing)

"Jacqui Smith’s Secret Police Force’s Balls Up" (civilians given police powers)

"Smith's Stasi are a menace to freedom"

"MPs demand explanation from Home Secretary over prisoner data loss"

...

The one 'positive' thing is the Biometric airport trial, however that's going to blow up in her face because it doesn't work.

If she's asked them to detect just one item on the passport: is the face male or female? that system would fail. The facial biometrics are so bad they don't reliably identify even the sex of ordinary people.

So there's bad news, poor judgement, knee jerk legislation that backfires and trials done *live* that are doomed to failure. She is bad news, and Brown apparently can't sack her, so your Labour MPs will have to defend her choices at the next election.

What?

"We cannot just lie back and watch this ludicrous Act slip in the back door".

Extreme contortionism, anyone? My mind is boggled.

Fnar!

"We cannot just lie back and watch this ludicrous Act slip in the back door."

Classic punnage, intended or no.

"However, if writers and artists believe their works may be illegal, they will tread more carefully, erring on the side of caution."

Cobblers. There will be an immediate rush to produce exhibitions of artworks specifically to fall foul of this (particularly stupid) piece of legislation, as publicity seeking artists scramble to be the first 'martyr' to our new pernicious censorship regime.

Nothing boosts an artists profile like controversy. The first person past the line will be assured of a place on the international gallery circuit for years to come. The tag line "So controversial that the British government banned it and imprisoned the artist" is a licence to print money for any gallery that hosts such an exhibition, and the fact that these will all be offshore is all the better for the artist, who will no doubt be up for a bit of foreign travel once they get out of chokey.

The publicity generated by al this will no doubt make the current government look even more like a bunch of spiteful childish puritan fuckwit control freaks than they already do, it's just a shame they won't be in power to suffer the consequences since galleries typically have their exhibition schedules planned 12 months or more in advance.

So well done New Labour, for yet another pointless, unneeded, poorly thought out piece of knee jerk legislation that poses a solution to a problem no one actually seems to have. This is what happens when you let the Daily Mail make policy for you. You get to look stupid. Again.

There isn't an icon that suitably represents the populace rounding up all those who would seek to be our moral guardians and stringing them up from lamp posts, but there should be.

I can't say it better than that!

"We cannot just lie back and watch this ludicrous Act slip in the back door."

Not without poppers we can't!

@Andrew Thomas

And what exactly is an act that threatens a persons life?

Crossing the road could threaten a persons life, being tied up could be a threat to ones life, being held at knife point could be a threat to a persons life.

The law makes fantasy illegal, and at the end of the day not even the Chinese make the actual fantasy illegal.

People who support this law are blinkered idiots.

re: Good law, well-defined, end-of

Let's think of this another way. It's fairly well accepted that murder is bad. Killing people with no reason is not something we want people to be doing. But doing is very different from viewing recreations of...

Would you ban all tv shows, pictures, comics and books wherein someone is killed?

The four things you listed are considered bad but they are already covered by existing legislation. You're already not allowed to do them. What they are now banning is the viewing of people who appear to possibly be doing them. And the laws are suitably vaguely written to allow for project creep...

@Good law, well-defined, end-of

"(a) an act which threatens a person’s life...."

"These acts are all unacceptable in civilised society. It's a good law. Bring it on."

Except it isn't defining any *ACT* at all it's defining an IMAGE of an act. You fall into the usual trap of confusing the act with the witness. So murder is bad, but witness seeing it is good. And a CCTV operator seeing it on a video is also a positive thing. The witness didn't murder the person, they witnessed the crime.

"These acts are all unacceptable in civilised society."

So the witness is inacceptable? That's what this law is about, it doesn't criminalize the making of it, it criminalizes the viewing of it..... so a slasher movie that's been approved by the BBFC is shown in movies, but the same movie BEFORE it was classified in a criminal offence that has no place in a civilised society?

We urgently need some grown ups to run this country.

Rather than the child actors currently performing.

"Portrays" = fiction

The other big problem with this law is in one word 'portrays'. So the video doesn't need to record something that actually happened, it is enough to portray it in fiction.

So we're locking people up for viewing fiction.

Bans amateur film-makers

My biggest problem with the act is the inequitability of it.

As a poster mentions already it says something along the lines 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 or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse,

(d) a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive).

Hold on... wouldn't that ban almost every single movie ever? No it won't. The act has exemptions written into it so a Hollywood film studio could film necrophilia or a woman getting her breasts sliced off and that would be legal. If you or I made such a film that didn't actually result in physical harm but simply "appeared to" as amateur film-makers we would get arrested. Not only does it ban sex videos, it also bans amateur film-making. For example, are vampires corpses? They appear to be dead, or are they undead and therefore exempt?

But someone needs to be punished....

If you can't punish the murderer because it was a fictional murder, then punish the film maker instead. (They did that, outlawed violent movies, it fixed nothing).

If you can't punish the film maker because he's in a different country and it's not a crime to make films there, then punish the distributor. (They did that, outlawed distribution of unclassified movies, nothing improved).

If there is no distributor in the UK then punish the viewer. (That's where we are now).

So that's where we are. It comes down to Jacqui's desire to see someone punished for every crime. The idea that there is a fix for every crime, even a fictional crime.

But to do that the viewer of this fictional murder has to be conflated with the fictional murderer in the movie.

Tough on crime, tough on viewers of fictional crimes....

Better to lock up 1 million innocent men than to let one fictional murderer go free.....

Law by tabloid

We do seem to keep doing this. A series of tabloid shock horror headlines, followed by a demand that the government does something to stop all this hideousness. Thus we get the Dangerous Dogs Act (Pit bull terrier panic); Criminal Justice Act (parties outdoors, often with drugs); Having information likely to be of use to a terrorist (crap terrorists, but on TV more often); taking your shoes off at airports (Richard Reid); No liquids on flights (Jury still out on TAPT bombers); Suitability checks based on rumour, not convictions (Ian Huntley); The list goes on, but this and prior governments interest in Law by tabloid has created a range of stupidity for the police to enforce.

The problem is that what is printed in the tabloids combines with peoples opinions to create an unholy mass of "public opinion". The only way out of this horror is to never buy the Sun and the Daily Mail ever.

Repression, not censorship

This isn't about censorship or such images (whatever they are) would be illegal in all forms of media. Its really about creating a catch all offence for putting away people those in authority don't like. If you've come to some officials attention for creating a nuisance, such as vocally protesting against some government policy, the all encompassing anti-terror laws can be used to drag you in, giving them 42 days to dig up something on you. If fingerprint and DNA don't match anything, a quick trawl of your computer is bound to reveal something dubious. Obviously they were inexplicably finding a few people didn't have any kiddie porn, so instead they've criminalised anything that the rotting corpse of Mary Whitehouse might find offensive.

Now reading that back, I sound like a foaming at the mouth conspiracy nutcase banging on the twat-o-thon, but can anyone honestly say with such laws now on the statute, anyone disagreeing with the government is any safer from arbitrary prosecution than a Chinese citizen?

Coming up to two million unemployed

Should create a cascading effect very soon, that will hit the taxation feeder, and a lot of government jobs will be lost.

Now, in a time of recession people like to take their mind off things, perhaps with a good natured five finger shuffle, or watching a bit of hardcore porn with the nearest and dearest, before / whist or hell why not both and keep the light on, making the two backed beast.

If you remove this and make it illegal in society, you will create very annoyed and very pissed off people, not to mention the jobs lost in the porn industry. I think the current government is going to put themselves in the unenviable position of either having their heads hoisted on pikes across of all the major cities in the UK to serve as a warning to others, or having them and their families living in permanent exile, with the national debt liability transferred directly to them and any of their descendants.

I suspect things will get so bad, that the various politicians of today will have to make ends meet by parading in the sickest most grotesque form of pornography, reserved only for the lowest of the low, namely POLITICAL PORN, the sort of anti fluffer of the porn industry for when you have taken one viagra too many and you need your Miss Jenna Jamison to turn into a Mrs Jacqui Smith.

Really when you google for Jacqui Smith it should show just a limp dick, and the driest of dry gussets; the sahara of parched flange, I suspect the porn industry which now operate primarily abroad will have some retort to this, and boy do they have a lot of computing power.

all I can say

Is that any porn involving Jacqui Smith is too extreme for my tastes and as for the Opus dei lassie well that's taking extreme to the ridiculous

Re: Good law, well-defined, end-of

@Andrew Thomas: "These acts are all unacceptable in civilised society. It's a good law. Bring it on."

Did you not read the rest of the Wikipedia article? It covers fictional images and images of role-played acts between consenting adults. If fictional depictions of "unacceptable" acts should be criminialised, that would criminalise most 18+ films (and, come to that, screenshots from a legal film can come under this law).

This doesn't just affect porn (BDSM or otherwise), it criminalises consenting adults role-playing or practicing BDSM in their bedroom, who decide to take a photo for their own amusement.

@Anonymous Coward: "Are you seriously suggesting that the courts and the police use the Whackipedia.org article as a guideline on how to interpret the Law."

Actually, the Wikipedia article is referenced directly from the Government documents. Unfortunately, he decided to ignore the bits that note it covers consensual and staged material, or the bits that explain just how vague the definitions are (e.g., that threats to a person's life can include simply pretending to threaten someone with a weapon).

Can't imagine it without PlayMobil

The sight of Jack Straw and Jacqui Smith bound and gagged needs to be created in El Reg's favourite childrens' toy.

As for it being the most disturbing image possible - n'ah, just think of David Miliband lashed to Hazel Blears; cheek to cheek with only a small meringue between them - now THAT'S scary kinky!

@Definition of Extreme Porn

EP is any image that a "Reasonable Person" (ie a random clueless individual) believes looks like it "risks" doing "serious harm" to a person's anus, genitals or breasts.

Frankly, have you ever watched a woman waxing down there? I assure you there are plenty of "Reasonable people" who would wince at that and argue that to them yes it does indeed look like it risks doing serious harm to her genitals. Just hope that they're not in the jury if you took a photo of it and forgot.

Oh and I forgot

Risks serious injury to breasts: Bulgarian airbags

Risks serious injury to genitals: Piercings, riding a big cock.

Endangers a person's life: nude bungee-jumping, sex while driving (yes, I know it's bluescreened but a "Resonable Person" has never heard of a bluescreen let alone being able to understand the concept), that Paris Hilton video with people doing cocaine in the nude.

Risks serious injury to anus: Anything anal at all. "Reasonable People" will be ~90% heterosexual and a jury only needs a ~90% majority to pass verdict. These "Reasonable People" will find anal porn painful to watch and thus conclude that it must hurt the recipient as badly as it does their eyes.

Well then...

Who here is in favour of action against child porn ?

The idea is that by restricting access to such images, less images are produced and therefore less children are harmed to make the images.

"But but but that's different " I hear you cry - " kids aren't old enough to consent to these acts and are being abused".

Yes that's true, but have you ever heard of the "white slave trade" ?

How do you *know* that the extreme porn you are looking at is performed by "willing" participants ?

Answer - you can't, unless you're in the pictures and so is your wife/boyfriend/dog.

So someone please explain the difference in intent between this proposed law, and the law against indecent images of kids.

@Alan

Let's extend your argument slightly.

How do you know whether the model on Page 3 of the Sun consented to being photographed topless? How do you know whether any porn star consents or is being sexually abused?

Your argument is an argument for a total ban on porn, not a selective one on the type of porn you don't like.

Re: Well then...

Alan:

Sex with children is, and should be, illegal. Images of sex with children are illegal.

Sex between consenting adults is legal. Images involving consenting adults should be legal.

Now sure, there is some argument that if images of non-consensual sex between adults was widespread, that should be an argument for criminalising all of them. But:

Firstly, this would be an argument for criminalising depictions of adult sex, on the grounds that they might not be consensual or staged. This law does not target hardcore porn, instead focusing unfairly on acts that might be practiced by sadomasochists. Similarly, it would be an argument for banning all violent films, in case the participants hadn't consented and people were really being harmed.

Secondly, not a single example of "extreme porn" involving non-consenting adults has ever been produced (adult sexual slavery is a serious issue, but no link has been shown between this and the "extreme porn" sites). It certainly is not widespread. We might as well criminalise any film that shows someone dying, out of fear that it's a mythical snuff film.

Thirdly, there should at least be a defence where it can be proven that the participants consented. But under the new law, sadomasochists who photograph their own acts will be criminalised (the defence for participating in the image would not apply to sadomasochists, because the law does not consider their consent valid); you might have cases where only one partner is in the image, and it would be illegal for their partner to possess - not to mention say, a threesome where two of them decide to make a kinky picture, and then give to the third. Other examples would be images from BBFC legal films, or legal porn sites that are regulated, keep records, and where the participants turn up to court to say they consented (if you are going to quibble "what if they were threatened into it" - well, again that's an argument for criminalising _all_ pornography). Also consider staged acts - it can obviously be shown that the participants were in fact unharmed.

I would be more than happy with such a defence, even if the burden of proof was on the defendant - but the Government refused to allow such a defence, because this law is not about protecting participants, but about the depictions themselves:

"So someone please explain the difference in intent between this proposed law, and the law against indecent images of kids."

The Government themselves explain this - this law is not about protecting participants, it's about the claim that looking at images turns people into violent criminals. The Government's own Rapid Evidence Assessment couldn't find any evidence of people harmed in the production of "extreme porn", and instead focused on alleged affects of viewing material. The law came about after Graham Coutts murdered Jane Longhurst, because Coutts had access certain sites - that are known to be staged with consenting adults. Please read some of the House of Lords debates:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2008-04-21a.1336.2

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

In responding to criticisms, Lord Hunt's justification is basically that these images are "disgusting". In particular, he states:

"I do not take this very liberal approach of "If it does no harm to the people taking part, why should we worry about it?" I do worry about it, and about the access that people have to that kind of disgusting material."

When asked if a crime is committed in their production, he states: "some would be covered by offences in this country and some would not, but they were all disgusting."

Whether people are harmed or not is irrelevant, because the Government's position is to do with the depictions themselves, not how they are produced.

Also see the Government's justifications under the ECHR ( http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/en/07130x-n.htm#index_link_206 ) - only one of the clauses refers to protecting participants (and even there, it states staged activities - not a single clause claims the existence of non-consensual injuries); the rest are about controlling images of consenting sadomasochists; that the material "may be harmful" to viewers; that the depictions should be banned because the activities are "not considered acceptable"; and Please Won't Somebody Think Of The Children...

If you wish to believe that viewing some material turns people into violent murderers, that's up to you - but please don't think that this is about protecting participants.

Consider, can you explain why a BBFC film is exempt from the law, but a screenshot from the same film isn't exempt?

60/40 chance of getting the law right

From the article: "The ambiguities inherent in the Act were highlighted when pictures from Madonna’s once controversial Sex book were laid before five lawyers, and two declared them potentially illegal."

I'm staggered that three lawyers were prepared to get off the fence.

Jesus Christ!

What about the millions of Catholics who worship the image of a young man who suffers a prolonged and agonising death at the hands of sadistic perverts who get their rocks off by nailing him to a couple of planks of wood? Do they fall within the ambit of this legislation?

Jacqui, put the dunce's cap on and go stand in the corner, you gormless idiot.

You are as thick as those two planks.

Canada

I express my gratitude for the invitations to flee to Canada - though it should be noted that even Scotland will be safe for this law. Nevermind getting an international consensual on "extreme images" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3515797.stm) - extreme porn will in fact still be legal in Gordon Brown's own constituency!

(The new law will apply to England, Wales and NI, but *not* Scotland. As yet, they do not appear to have decided whether to introduce a similar law.)

Re: Oh noes

Hylas and the Nymphs wouldn't be affected, as the law covers "realistic" depictions. So films and other images of staged acts are at risk, but paintings are fine.

However, you should be more worried about another (proposed) law to criminalise all non-realistic sexual images of under-18s: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/28/government_outlaws_pictures/ . As you say, those paintings of naked young girls do not have their proof of age on file, and who can be sure that they are really 18 or older?

How would a photo of

Jacqui Smith with her eyelids stapled to her forehead being forced to watch Andrew Thomas having his tiny little John Thomas nailed to a bench fare under this legislation? I thought so, but how about we just do it now anyway, while we can and just burn the evidence after?

arrestng developments

Like the terrorism laws it will be of Phi Alpha use for what the government PRETENDED it was for, and Not used for that at all, but will be used instead to stop people mocking Nu Labour politicians (beware, Bo Beau D'Or?) or even to close down public events they don't care for. It won't be possible to prevent anything (crooks don't obey the law, right?) , but it will be useful to stop us going about our business.

Rather like ID cards

Re: Not quite how we imagine it...

"The scenario I'm trying to paint is this - people won't be arrested for simple possession of whichever material your average Daily Mail reader doesn't like. They will have been picked up or raided for something else, and a charge of possessing said materials will be tacked on the end."

More worringly though I think is the possibility of police raiding your computer for whatever reason, but when they can't find any evidence for what they originally suspected you for, this law is something they could do you for instead.