When is too much?

[one eyed jack]

Just asking man

I'm chilled.

Sometimes things have to be spelled out to me

[mrchapel]

Well its a white woman being slashed, with the kitchen knife in the foreground. A joke about Jeffrey Dahmer wouldn`t have worked. Race never entered into it. You should know by now I ain`t a bigot, or at least try not to be.

[Essex Lad]

charles wrote:

> It just looks like a still from the average slasher
> movie...ie..not scary.

It's supposed to be erotic not scary

>
> Is there a market for this type of thing?

That's what I was asking...

[one eyed jack]

Thanks for clearing that up Mr Chapel

[jimslip]

The image would portray different things to different people. The technical aspects of the picture are irrelevant, it is the subject matter that is nasty and disturbing.

To me it depicts a post brutal rape and murder scene, where the victim is either dead or, as a last act, trying to reach for the murder weapon that has been dropped by her assailant. Or perhaps as she gasps her final, dying breaths, she is pleading for mercy from her attacker and he has just dropped the knife in the foreground near her hand. Presumably it has been shot for the purpose of "Sexual gratification".

If the picture has indeed been made for this purpose, I wonder if it would fall foul of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, Sec 63, Subsection 1 thru 7b and possibly 7c if it was argued that the girl depicted was in fact supposed to be dead in the picture?




Let's put it this way, under a charge of possession or producing such a pic under the above Act, I wouldn't want to find myself defending the "Artistic/ erotic merits" of this picture to counsel for the prosecution at the Old Bailey, he'd eat you alive! lol

[jimslip]

Reading through the Act again, I cannot see how the pic wouldn't at the very least be subject to Section 63, subsection 6 (b)

The image, being for the sole purpose of sexual gratification,

"is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character."

This clause is actually a "catch all" and a very good bit of legaleese, because it allows the law to change and evolve over time. So at this moment in time I think a jury of normal people would be horrified by the pic, but maybe in ten years time, it wont be so shocking to the , "Man in the street".

[jimslip]

Many of the comments about this picture are as to whether "She's a good actress", whether the, "Blood is fake" or "it's only acting so it's ok" etc etc

At the end of the day all of this is totally irrelevent.

The subject matter of the picture is the depiction, presumably for sexual gratification, of an act of wanton brutality, possible murder and the strong suggestion of rape, that exists within the carefully made tableux. (Note the perfectly placed bloody handprint on the model's upper leg, the absence of knickers and her top lifted up.)

I think you'd have to really hate women to get excited by this picture.

[Essex Lad]

Toni, the model in question, says that she gets off on this sort of thing. She is over 18 so obviously can make her own decisions but we don't allow people to drink and drive or sell heroin or sit in a car without a seatbelt or ride a motorbike without a crash helmet - is what Toni does (freely it would appear) immoral, illegal or none of anyone else's business? Should she be protected whether she wants it or not or are we all being sanctimonious?

Do these pics make you change your mind?

[img]http://www.rgbphotohost.com/images/0911/Toni%201.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.rgbphotohost.com/images/0911/Toni%202.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.rgbphotohost.com/images/0911/Toni%203.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.rgbphotohost.com/images/0911/Toni%204.jpg[/img]

[jimslip]

The "Extreme pictures" section of the Criminal Justice Act is quite interesting and unique in terms of legislating against a particular type of porn. For example in other areas of legislation, the word, "Distribute" is used alot. So in other words, you can make and film what you like in the traditional world of porn, but you only break the law when you attempt to distribute it within the UK. So your material must be either BBFC'd for R18 and in the case of a porn site, not uploaded from a telephone line in the UK, even to a foreign server as a judge deemed this as, "Having been published in the UK", although the actual material had merely travelled as data down a telephone line to a server in the USA. But there's judges for you.

The " extreme pictures" section of the Criminal Justice Act would be VERY easy to fall foul of. Basically, your model Toni in the picture could organise a mega gang bang with 5 ex Broadmoor detainees thrashing around with knives and wielding buckets of false blood and they could all have a great time.

1/ As long as it is all consensual, 2/ Actual bodily harm is not visited upon any person as part of this role play.

However, the instant someone shouts out, "Hey guys, let me take a pic" and snaps one off on his Iphone, everything dramatically changes. During that time for the picture to be saved, the recording of the event in a photographic form could possibly have become illegal under the "Extreme pictures" section of the CJA 2008, if a series of pictures of the event were taken and it was obvious by the content that said pictures were for the "Sole purpose of sexual gratification" then the possessor and the taker of the pics could be prosecuted.

The particular sections of the Act that would be invoked if a pic was found of the above event, bearing in mind there is "Blood", knives, distress, bondage and gagging would be:

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,

As you can imagine, many role plays that people do, in their own homes, if enacted for real could, "Threaten a persons life". The problem is taking a picture of the role play and it appearing to look real!

No distribution or sale needs to occur, just having a pic on you PC for your own use could be deemed illegal. So again I must say, that the views of the model within such a picture are totally irrelevent. The law doesn't care a hoot if she loves being strung up by the nipples to scaffolding, having jam poured all over her by a troupe of dwarves and then attacked by a lunatic with a fake chain saw. As soon as that shutter falls on the camera you are on dangerous ground if you simply possess this picture and no more.

Anyway here are the defences should you find yourself in trouble:

65Defences: general

(1)Where a person is charged with an offence under section 63, 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 63

So there are quite a few get outs as you can see!