What's wrong with porn?

[Fiona]

On 22 January 2008, The House of Lords will consider the proposed Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, part of which seeks to criminalise the possession of what the British government calls ‘extreme pornography.’

Is there a right or wrong type of porn? Is porn just harmless fun or to quote the old feminist adage, ‘porn is the theory, rape the practice.’

Red Pepper website commissioned various opinions: pro and anti-porn, personal and political, addressing the question, what’s wrong with porn? Read them here...


http://www.redpepper.org.uk/article938.html

[treborc]

depends if they pay the min wage.

[Gitfinger]

No doubt this will be a highly volatile topic but having had more than a passing interest in smut other the years, even including submitting a paper as an undergraduate on filth, here goes (PS: I use "smut" and "filth" as sarcasm before anyone gets upset):

The paper I wrote (admittedly 11 years ago) looked at the efforts to censor porn in the UK. Admittedly I'm using "porn" only its broadest meaning to cover sexually explicit material. There have been a myriad of attempts to ban porn for decades, with numerous bills all offering a different spin on what porn actually is. When you distill it all down you end up with two sides of the same coin, either it's legally framed as a hazard to the performer or a hazard to the viewer or sometimes, both. James Ferman got the right idea about 8 years ago when the BBFC decided to allow hard core pornography in licenced sex shops provided that it fell within the law. As long as it was legal within the constrains of the Obscene Publications Act (a deeply flawed act but still open to reasonable interpretation).

The question of porn always seems to revolve around the single question of harm, does it harm the performers, the viewers or society at large? Clearly the problems are both profound and frankly intractable without reducing society to authoritarian rule regardless of whether you are on the "pro" or "anti" sides of porn. Perhaps this new bill is really just another expression of the authoritarian left, there's nothing better than letting a lot of old busybodies into the nation's bedrooms and start telling us how to behave (given the sexual improprieties of our political rulers I don't know how they go about this with any credibility).

I have to admit that some of the articles on Red Pepper repeat the same old soft-left nonsense we've heard for years, Peter Tatchell claims special pleading for gay and lesbian porn that it's some how morally superior to heterosexual porn, none of it substantiated beyond repeating his own prejudices and clichés about porn that must be 20 years out of date. His romantic notion that in gay porn "many of the participants are using porn to fund an empowering goal like financing a college education" is just a kind of rationalisation for enjoying porn. No wonder few on the left take him seriously any more.

Tracey Jones reckons we need even more laws to outlaw "sexual hatred" which is clearly a net thrown so wide to be almost useless and will catch everyone from heavy metal bands to stand-up comics. Poor Asha Anderson relates to us the story of being married to a vile pervert that probably has less to do with porn and more to do with being married to a cretin. You can be certain this chap's love of porn is probably one of his many other "charming" characteristics. You don't have to be Germaine Greer to spot a misogynist a mile away.

Alison Fisher made the most lucid points in discussing the fact that men can already be fucked up before they even discover porn. The problem with this new bill is that it seems to me they imply that porn makes people bad, if by defining "extreme pornography" as harmful I'm really at a loss to explain that if we're using that as a yardstick how all porn isn't dangerous. Sexually explicit images are either harmful or they're not, inventing qualitative differences sounds an incredibly difficult thing to implement and police.

One thing is clear: every time the law tips a toe into regulating sexually explicit material it becomes an ever more complex issue where the edifice of statutory legislation becomes overwhelming and impossible to enforce. You end up with a dragnet where almost everything from the lingerie section in the Gratton's catalogue to anything on the Internet can be prosecuted under the same law as if they were all the same.

[treborc]

Ban porn and they will make more money out of making it, selling it, and buying.


And once it's banned more people will want to know why, amd more people will look for it.

What more dealy, two people looking at sex, or Tony Blair talking about WMD, well I'll take the sex

[Mukkinese]

Nothing is inherently wrong with porn, it is just another form of entertainment that focuses on a particular aspect of being human; sexual fantasies.

As for this law, which will ban the owning of images of what the Government call 'extreme porn'.  The attempt to restrict images of real illegal acts (real bestiality, necrophilia and rape/sexual abuse) seems fairly reasonable, but the proposal goes much further than that.

The proposed law is deliberately worded in order to catch acted or fictional scenes as well as scenes of real abuse.

Using vague phrases like "appears to be real" or "appears to be likely to cause serious injury" and goes into some really extreme contortions when it tries to exclude BBFC certifed films, but not images "extracted from those films for the sole purpose of sexual gratification".

The violence shown in this stuff is usually no more than can be seen in many mainstream films, but what 'magically' makes it somehow unacceptable is that the people involved may be naked or even having sex...oo-er!

The Government was railroaded into supporting a media campaign lead by a very sympathetic figure, the mother of a murder victim and the murderer was known to have frequented sites which showed sexual asphyxiation and fake 'death by asphyxiation' images. The victim died in what he claims was an accident during 'erotic asphyxiation'. From this the media immediately decided "The porn made him do it".

Now this stuff isn't to my taste, at first it scared the crap out of me, but again the violence is rarely worse than mainstream films (rarely as bad as Hostel- which I can't watch, I'm a wimp) and we have seen no evidence that a significant proportion of this material is real (actually the Government has to date not been able to name a single site that it can show has images of real abuse - other than bestiality).

For the over-excited and plain gullible; No one has yet been able to show a real example of a 'Snuff film' (where someone is really killed for sexual gratification) anywhere in the world.

So what are we talking about? People pretending or role-playing at Bondage, Domination and Sado-masochism. Though often made to look worse than it is, the injuries rarely go beyond sore nipples and red bums.

The Government says it must invade our privacy (this is about what the individual does in their own home - not about publishing and distribution) in order to protect us from ourselves and society from the rampaging rapists that this material will turn us all into.

Unfortunately they could not back this up with credible evidence. This little hitch got so bad they decided on a ripping wheeze to supply a 'smoking gun' piece of evidence to support the mad law. Hoping no one would notice, they commissioned three well established anti-pornography campaigners to compile a report on "the harm of viewing extreme pornography".

Guess what the reports conclusion was?  Porn is bad. To be precise "viewing extreme pornography may influence some of the most sexually aggressive men to be more pro-rape and commit sexual offences".

Sounds good?

Look closer; may, influence, some? Well the Bible may influence some too. We know that researchers say that riding a bike or any activity that raises the heart rate and body temperature will increase certain responses; including both aggression and kindness.

Some? Just who are these "most sexually aggressive men", some of whom may be influenced? Well, looking closely at the evidence the authors chose to assess, it turns out they are convicted sex offenders. Men who have already crossed that line and presumably on some level think real sexual abuse is acceptable.

So all the Government has, and has been touting around parliament as the 'smoking gun' is this fatally compromised, incredibly weak 'evidence' and even that is criticised as "biased, one-sided, flawed and ignoring any contrary evidence" by large numbers of academics, but that wont stop our plucky heroes, they continue to push this monster through parliament like they were on a crusade.

Whatever you may think of this material, the fact remains if this proposal becomes law, an individual can be prosecuted, for a sex offence, with all the stigma that carries, for looking, in private, at images of consenting adults taking part in perfectly legal activities.

sorry for the long post.

[Graham]

Is there a right or wrong type of porn? Is porn just harmless fun or to quote the old feminist adage, ‘porn is the theory, rape the practice.’

Many years ago, on the bridge leading out of Bristol to the A4, someone had painted "Porn = Theory, Rape = Practice".

Under it, someone else had added Y=MX+C (the mathematical formula for a line).

Three statements, one provable, two which are purely opinion.

If, as is alleged, "porn causes rape", how do those asserting it respond to this research by Milton Diamond PhD of the University of Hawai'i where he studied the number of sexual crimes in the USA and Japan following the massive increase in the availability of of pornography (including, especially in Japan, some *very* extreme material that wouldn't be allowed elsewhere) and concluded:

It is certainly clear from the data reviewed, and the new data and analysis presented, that a massive increase in available pornography in Japan, the United States and elsewhere has been correlated with a dramatic decrease in sexual crimes and most so among youngsters as perpetrators or victims.

What was that again? A "massive increase" in pornography has lead to a *dramatic decrease* in sexual crimes!

Perhaps Porn is not the Theory and Rape is not the Practice after all.

One other point I'd like to address is where Peter Tatchell says:

For these reasons, abusive images produced by consenting participants who act out extreme SM fantasies should not be banned; although there may be a case for discouraging and campaigning against them on the grounds that a minority of disordered people might be unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality and may come to view such abuse as normal and valid – to the detriment of their partners.

There have been examples of people who have been so unable to distinguish fantasy from reality that Soap Opera fans have physically attacked *actors* because what their *characters* have done on TV!

Should we therefore "discourage and campaign against" people doing nasty things on TV?

No, of course not.

The fact is that the Government wants to introduce what amounts to nothing less than a Thought Crime, based on the principle that "We don't like this stuff and we think it makes people do bad things, so we're going to ban it because if people don't see it they won't do bad things"!

[Gitfinger]

The interesting things is Madonna's Sex book from 1992 had images in it that probably would fall foul of this new act; there are S&M scenes, bondage and suggestions of forced sex. So, is anyone going to haul Mrs. Ritchie off to prison? One photo has a woman pointing a flick-knife at Madonna's crotch which I would have said absolutely comes within the new context of "extreme pornography" -- the fact the subject was in charge of every aspect of the production appears not to matter. It would also appear this was an artwork, I know defining art is absolutely subjective but this book had more to do with art than pornography.

The other problem that has been suggested is that a syllogism of men+pornography = rape and/or violence. The problem I have with it, other than the most obvious one of it being a broad generality, is it's almost impossible to prove. In fact I'd go as far to suggest that it has more to do with being an urban legend than it does in having anything to do with demonstrable fact.

Personally I think it's much more likely than men who are prone to violence and committing rapes will do so whether they have access to pornography or not. Obviously rape predates pornography, it predates the printing-press, pre-dates the lithograph in fact pre-dates any of the technology to produce even the earliest pornography. There are still plenty of countries where possession of porn is absolutely outlawed but sexual crimes and violence against women still flourish.

No doubt there are deeply unpleasant things people want to look at and obviously the law must be there to protect people from non-consenting sex, to protect children, juveniles and animals. But for consenting sex between adults I can't help but ask myself as to whether any further legislation is necessary or workable; protecting ourselves from mental sex crimes is, as others have already pointed out akin to the thought police, what next the anti-sex league?

I don't think there can be any doubt that a good portion of Labour MPs seem to be poorly informed on this subject and are simply doing what the Whips are saying - they're sleepwalking again into another load of terrible legislation that will take years to undo.

[Mukkinese]

Yes, we have seen the police trying to shut down some art exhibits or at least remove individual pieces, using the Child protection act. This law is constructed on that model, so we can expect more daft police decisions on a wider range of images in the future.

[Brian]

My,my, Fiona, how times change.

I recall saying the kind of things included in this thread,when RPD started up 7 years ago, and the 'anti's', spouting all the kind of nonsense left over from the 1980s, were a lot more vocal than they seem to be now.

I must add that ,sometimes I take a quick peek in the kind of soho shops that were illegal 10 years ago ,and the one thing that strikes me immediately is the presence of several women in each shop - on both sides of the counter.

Not so long ago women would not have been seen within a mile of these kinds of places, run as they were by criminal thugs.

When we had the big debate on porn and censorship in general ,about 8 years ago, I was one of the participants invited to the ICA by Channel 4 for a showing of some bete-noir movies (such as Straw Dogs and the excellent and genuinely disturbing Salo), introduced by Mark Kermode.

So when I note the relaxation of censorship and the state of present-day porn shops, I do feel good that I contributed my own small fraction to all of this.

The present attempt by this criminal government to introduce new catch-all laws is a transparently pathetic attempt to look as though it is doing something to tackle broader social problems, by a government that knows that it is on it's way out , dragging the Labour Party into a downward spiral of international lawlessness and domestic corruption and sleaze.

yours,

Brian Precious

[treborc]

This government is not illegal, it's lost it's way. somebody said it was a socialist government, Brown asked Blair whats that, and Blair said it's must be evil, so they think socialism is a sex porn and those evil working type people.

Sex is sex, we mostly do it, we mostly enjoy it. sadly Governments have problems with people being adults, for those that break the law, well these days we put a tag on them and say naughty naughty.

[Mukkinese]

As expected the government has got its way and the new law banning the owning of images of extreme pornography is going to be passed. It has yet to go through the final commons reading and get Royal assent, but that is a formality, this wont even be discussed in the commons and the government has already said it will be law by May 8.

If anyone is interested here is the whole mad law;



Possession of extreme pornographic images


(1) It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an extreme pornographic image.

(2) An “extreme pornographic image” is an image which is both—
(a) pornographic, and
(b) an extreme image.

(3) An image is “pornographic” if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.

(4) Where (as found in the person’s possession) an image forms part of a series of images, the question whether the image is of such a nature as is mentioned in subsection (3) is to be determined by reference to—
(a) the image itself, and
(b) (if the series of images is such as to be capable of providing a context for the image) the context in which it occurs in the series of images.

(5) So, for example, where—
(a) an image forms an integral part of a narrative constituted by a series of images, and
(b) having regard to those images as a whole, they are not of such a nature that they must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal, the image may, by virtue of being part of that narrative, be found not to be pornographic, even though it might have been found to be pornographic if taken by itself.

(6) An “extreme image” is an image which—
(a) falls within subsection (7), and
(b) is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.

(7) An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following—
(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.

(8 ) In this section “image” means—
(a) a moving or still image (produced by any means); or
(b) data (stored by any means) which is capable of conversion into an image within paragraph (a).

(9) In this section references to a part of the body include references to a part surgically constructed (in particular through gender reassignment surgery).

(10) Proceedings for an offence under this section may not be instituted—
(a) in England and Wales, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions; or
(b) in Northern Ireland, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.


63 Exclusion of classified films etc.

(1) Section 62 does not apply to excluded images.

(2) An “excluded image” is an image which forms part of a series of images contained in a recording of the whole or part of a classified work.

(3) But such an image is not an “excluded image” if—
(a) it is contained in a recording of an extract from a classified work, and
(b) it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been extracted (whether with or without other images) solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.

(4) Where an extracted image is one of a series of images contained in the recording, the question whether the image is of such a nature as is mentioned in subsection (3)(b) is to be determined by reference to—

(a) the image itself, and
(b) (if the series of images is such as to be capable of providing a context for the image) the context in which it occurs in the series of images; and section 62(5) applies in connection with determining that question as it applies in connection with determining whether an image is pornographic.

(5) In determining for the purposes of this section whether a recording is a recording of the whole or part of a classified work, any alteration attributable to—
(a) a defect caused for technical reasons or by inadvertence on the part of any person, or
(b) the inclusion in the recording of any extraneous material (such as advertisements), is to be disregarded.

(6) Nothing in this section is to be taken as affecting any duty of a designated authority to have regard to section 62 (along with other enactments creating criminal offences) in determining whether a video work is suitable for a classification certificate to be issued in respect of it.

(7) In this section—

“classified work” means (subject to subsection (8 )) a video work in respect of which a classification certificate has been issued by a designated authority (whether before or after the commencement of this section);

“classification certificate” and “video work” have the same meanings as in the Video Recordings Act 1984 (c. 39);

“designated authority” means an authority which has been designated by the Secretary of State under section 4 of that Act;

“extract” includes an extract consisting of a single image;

“image” and “pornographic” have the same meanings as in section 62;

“recording” means any disc, tape or other device capable of storing data electronically and from which images may be produced (by any means).

(8 ) Section 22(3) of the Video Recordings Act 1984 (effect of alterations) applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that Act.


64 Defence

(1) Where a person is charged with an offence under section 62, it is a defence for the person to prove any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2).

(2) The matters are—
(a) that the person had a legitimate reason for being in possession of the
image concerned;
(b) that the person had not seen the image concerned and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be an extreme pornographic image;
(c) that the person—
(i) was sent the image concerned without any prior request having been made by or on behalf of the person, and
(ii) did not keep it for an unreasonable time.

(3) In this section “extreme pornographic image” and “image” have the same meanings as in section 62.

"Defence: participation in consensual acts

(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person ("D") is charged with an offence under section 62, and
(b) the offence relates to an image that portrays an act or acts within paragraphs (a) to (c) (but none within paragraph (d)) of subsection (7) of that section.

(2) It is a defence for D to prove—
(a) that D directly participated in the act or any of the acts portrayed, and
(b) that the act or acts did not involve the infliction of any non-consensual harm on any person, and
(c) if the image portrays an act within section 62(7)(c), that what is portrayed as a human corpse was not in fact a corpse.
(3) For the purposes of this section harm inflicted on a person is "non-consensual" harm if—
(a) the harm is of such a nature that the person cannot, in law, consent to it being inflicted on himself or herself; or
(b) where the person can, in law, consent to it being so inflicted, the person does not in fact consent to it being so inflicted."


65 Penalties etc. for possession of extreme pornographic images

(1) This section has effect where a person is guilty of an offence under section 62.

(2) Except where subsection (3) applies to the offence, the offender is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the relevant period or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or a fine or both.

(3) If the offence relates to an image that does not portray any act within section 62(7)(a) or (b), the offender is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the relevant period or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine or both.

(4) In subsection (2)(a) or (3)(a) “the relevant period” means—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, 12 months;
(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, 6 months.

[Brian]

As expected the government has got its way and the new law banning the owning of images of extreme pornography is going to be passed. It has yet to go through the final commons reading and get Royal assent, but that is a formality, this wont even be discussed in the commons and the government has already said it will be law by May 8.

If anyone is interested here is the whole mad law;



Possession of extreme pornographic images


(1) It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an extreme pornographic image.

(2) An “extreme pornographic image” is an image which is both—
(a) pornographic, and
(b) an extreme image.

(3) An image is “pornographic” if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.

(4) Where (as found in the person’s possession) an image forms part of a series of images, the question whether the image is of such a nature as is mentioned in subsection (3) is to be determined by reference to—
(a) the image itself, and
(b) (if the series of images is such as to be capable of providing a context for the image) the context in which it occurs in the series of images.

(5) So, for example, where—
(a) an image forms an integral part of a narrative constituted by a series of images, and
(b) having regard to those images as a whole, they are not of such a nature that they must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal, the image may, by virtue of being part of that narrative, be found not to be pornographic, even though it might have been found to be pornographic if taken by itself.

(6) An “extreme image” is an image which—
(a) falls within subsection (7), and
(b) is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.

(7) An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following—
(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.

(8 ) In this section “image” means—
(a) a moving or still image (produced by any means); or
(b) data (stored by any means) which is capable of conversion into an image within paragraph (a).

(9) In this section references to a part of the body include references to a part surgically constructed (in particular through gender reassignment surgery).

(10) Proceedings for an offence under this section may not be instituted—
(a) in England and Wales, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions; or
(b) in Northern Ireland, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.


63 Exclusion of classified films etc.

(1) Section 62 does not apply to excluded images.

(2) An “excluded image” is an image which forms part of a series of images contained in a recording of the whole or part of a classified work.

(3) But such an image is not an “excluded image” if—
(a) it is contained in a recording of an extract from a classified work, and
(b) it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been extracted (whether with or without other images) solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.

(4) Where an extracted image is one of a series of images contained in the recording, the question whether the image is of such a nature as is mentioned in subsection (3)(b) is to be determined by reference to—

(a) the image itself, and
(b) (if the series of images is such as to be capable of providing a context for the image) the context in which it occurs in the series of images; and section 62(5) applies in connection with determining that question as it applies in connection with determining whether an image is pornographic.

(5) In determining for the purposes of this section whether a recording is a recording of the whole or part of a classified work, any alteration attributable to—
(a) a defect caused for technical reasons or by inadvertence on the part of any person, or
(b) the inclusion in the recording of any extraneous material (such as advertisements), is to be disregarded.

(6) Nothing in this section is to be taken as affecting any duty of a designated authority to have regard to section 62 (along with other enactments creating criminal offences) in determining whether a video work is suitable for a classification certificate to be issued in respect of it.

(7) In this section—

“classified work” means (subject to subsection (8 )) a video work in respect of which a classification certificate has been issued by a designated authority (whether before or after the commencement of this section);

“classification certificate” and “video work” have the same meanings as in the Video Recordings Act 1984 (c. 39);

“designated authority” means an authority which has been designated by the Secretary of State under section 4 of that Act;

“extract” includes an extract consisting of a single image;

“image” and “pornographic” have the same meanings as in section 62;

“recording” means any disc, tape or other device capable of storing data electronically and from which images may be produced (by any means).

(8 ) Section 22(3) of the Video Recordings Act 1984 (effect of alterations) applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that Act.


64 Defence

(1) Where a person is charged with an offence under section 62, it is a defence for the person to prove any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2).

(2) The matters are—
(a) that the person had a legitimate reason for being in possession of the
image concerned;
(b) that the person had not seen the image concerned and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be an extreme pornographic image;
(c) that the person—
(i) was sent the image concerned without any prior request having been made by or on behalf of the person, and
(ii) did not keep it for an unreasonable time.

(3) In this section “extreme pornographic image” and “image” have the same meanings as in section 62.

"Defence: participation in consensual acts

(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person ("D") is charged with an offence under section 62, and
(b) the offence relates to an image that portrays an act or acts within paragraphs (a) to (c) (but none within paragraph (d)) of subsection (7) of that section.

(2) It is a defence for D to prove—
(a) that D directly participated in the act or any of the acts portrayed, and
(b) that the act or acts did not involve the infliction of any non-consensual harm on any person, and
(c) if the image portrays an act within section 62(7)(c), that what is portrayed as a human corpse was not in fact a corpse.
(3) For the purposes of this section harm inflicted on a person is "non-consensual" harm if—
(a) the harm is of such a nature that the person cannot, in law, consent to it being inflicted on himself or herself; or
(b) where the person can, in law, consent to it being so inflicted, the person does not in fact consent to it being so inflicted."


65 Penalties etc. for possession of extreme pornographic images

(1) This section has effect where a person is guilty of an offence under section 62.

(2) Except where subsection (3) applies to the offence, the offender is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the relevant period or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or a fine or both.

(3) If the offence relates to an image that does not portray any act within section 62(7)(a) or (b), the offender is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the relevant period or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine or both.

(4) In subsection (2)(a) or (3)(a) “the relevant period” means—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, 12 months;
(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, 6 months.

Thank you very much for this.

The SFC had a campaign against this lunatic law - which may outlaw some videos given and R18 certificate by the BBFC!

yours,

Brian Precious

[Mukkinese]

Well, I think the section you are referring to, covering extracts from BBFC certified films, says that it is illegal if the extracts were kept for the purpose of sexual arousal. How they would go about proving what the accused motives were is beyond me, unless they keep it in a folder labelled "sexy pictures".

The very fact that this law covers material that has been certified by the BBFC and therefore, presumably, considered 'safe' by them for adults to look at, shows that the definitions of what is 'extreme pornography' are much wider than the government keeps saying.

I still stand by the maxim, that if the government cannot show clear and credible evidence of harm, then they have no right to interfere.

[Mukkinese]

From various discussions and advice on these laws, we now know what it will likely mean in practice.

The law is clearly aimed to include fictional images which show no real abuse, further the context of an image can only be introduced when deciding on extracts from BBFC certified material.

So the wording of this law means that the prosecution can argue that taking images out of context can fundamentally change the way they are viewed, but this argument cannot be used by the defence.

That is, if you have a series of images or a video which show, as part of that series, that the performers were happy and unharmed after the scene, the jury will not be allowed to consider that.

You cannot argue on the grounds of harm done, because the government have moved Heaven and Earth and made some ridiculous twists of logic, to make sure that their 'evidence' of harm, which is their reason to bring  in this law, is not tested in the courts.

The situation is that you can now be locked up for up to three years, for looking at images, in private, of consenting adults taking part in perfectly legal activities.

[treborc]

When did this happen.

[Mukkinese]

The bill got its third reading in the Lords last week and will be pushed through the commons under guillotine (it wont be debated) this week, the government say it will have Royal assent by the 8 May.

[treborc]

Anyone else getting spam emails from red pepper because I'm getting lots.