When is too much?

[andy at handiwork]

I thought one line of defence was if you were the person depicted in the image.

[jimslip]

andy at handiwork wrote:

> I thought one line of defence was if you were the person
> depicted in the image.

It doesn't seem to specify this as a 'Defence", there is good reason for this, but I can't remember what it is! lol Basically, it would appear that once a "Photograph" has been made of the event, it is then transported to another dimension, where the models as persons within the picture, have no relevance anymore. In other words the reality of the actual event or shoot and the picture itself, part company. The picture takes precedence over the event which is of no consequence in the eyes of the law, unless actual bodily harm had taken place and then you'd be done for GBH and for possessing an extreme picture!

All the same, as far as possessing or taking an, "Extreme picture" is concerned, you'd have to either have the most revolting, sick photographs imaginable or the shittest barrister on Earth NOT to be able to get around this section of the CJA.

[one eyed jack]

Personally it doesnt bother me. i dont think I'm being sanctimoniou either but if Jacqui Smith saw that she'd probably be spitting venom and deploying the extreme porn bill that she sperheaded and made law.

If I was on the jury I'd roll my eyes skyward and say: "Puhlease! Dont waste me time with this" Because the person behind that site is not oding it for real and we all know peoples sexual tastes run to extremes.

The point is, it is consensual and implies a lady in distress but thta happens to make wankers dicks harder than regualr normal stuff

I dont see no harm in it.

Now if kids saw that then I would change my tune a bit more than regular "the old in and out" porn because that does look like advance level users only stuff

[jimslip]

Yes, we in the world of porn are unshockable. Problem is people on any jury will NOT be from the world of porn. They will be normal mums and dads, builders, police officers and pilots with kids of their own.

Believe me that when they are told by a prosecutor that people are mocking up pictures of young women being raped and stabbed so that blokes can masterbate over the pictures, I somehow don't think they will be as forgiving and as understanding as perhaps we would be.

Remember there is a HUGE difference if these pictures were, say, shots from a horror scene in a movie. In this context they are indeed not shocking, in fact they are boring and cliched rubbish.

They only become shocking if they have been created for the sole intent for freaks to wank over, ie enjoying sexually, the depiction of death and distress of a young woman.

[Essex Lad]

I am not sure that the "consent" defence would work. I seem to recall a few years back when some gay chaps took part in a private bdsm orgy - nailing their bits to coffee tables etc - and they still got prosecuted.

Yes here it is

[jimslip]

You are right. As I said you can do anything you like as long as it is:

1/ Consenual
2/ No actual bodily harm occurs

In the case of the crazed gays they were inflicting actual bodily harm on consenually on eachother, so thought that it would be OK. However the judge thought otherwise and quite right too. How do you know that the one giving consent isn't by the very fact that he is giving consent to be beaten, in a correct and balanced enough frame of mind to make such a decision? Surely within his very nature there must exist a need to by subdegated, humiliated and controlled. So that person's "Consent"has no value.

The gays were VERY UPSET INDEED as sado masochism is a vital part of their sex fun!

Have a read of this, as an extreme example of someone given consent for a heinous act of violence to be visited upon his person by a homicidal maniac!

[andy at handiwork]

[img]http://www.rgbphotohost.com/images/0911 ... tail-A.jpg[/img]
Picture hosting courtesy of UKPussyTalk.com

This picture by Piero di Cosimo, c 1495, hanging in the National Gallery, is, according to the guide book a depiction of the death of Procris, accidentally killed by her husband Cephalus during a deer hunt. As an article in today's Observer shows, her wounds are not consistent with that description. Rather they show the result of a brutal and savage attack with a knife or sword resulting in a wound to her throat, and her arms, the latter probably from defending herself. The left hand is in a position that suggests serious injury to her cervical cord. This picture is of a woman who has suffered a fatal injury after defending herself from a knife-wielding attacker. Coupled with the fact she is semi-naked, surely the gallery should be getting a visit from plod quite soon with a view to being prosecuted for possession of a dangerous/extreme picture.



The article also has medical appraisals of a number of famous paintings that show any number of other hidden messages about health, often syphillis.

[Peter]

"No problem if its art"

One of the peculiarities of the so called 'dangerous pictures act' is that you could find yourself having to prove the subject of a drawing is over 18. This seems to be a particular worry amongst the anime fans.

So it can be said there could be big problems if it's art.

[andy at handiwork]

I'm afraid I do not class anime as 'Art', at least not as the art I was referring to.

[jimslip]

"Coupled with the fact she is semi-naked, surely the gallery should be getting a visit from plod quite soon with a view to being prosecuted for possession of a dangerous/extreme picture. "

Well er no, there's absolutely wrong with a having a picture that depicts violence, in iteself and the lawyer who wrote the Extreme pictures stuff in the CJA must have been mindfull of the possibility that artists could be prosecuted for innocently producing a picture that could break the law. Hence all the defences and the fundamental point, that for a picture to be illegal it must have been made, "For the SOLE purpose of sexual gratification" AS WELL as being, "Grossly offensive, pornographic and extreme" in a violent sense.

The picture above has been made to depict an event, not for blokes to wank all over.

However, if the same picture was juxtaposition with 2 others of the same bird tied up and a couple of blokes raping her, then the proximity of the other 2 pics would incriminate the first one and then taken together as a whole, deemed illegal. Why? Cos a lawyer could argue that the very point of the picture (s) was for, "Sexual gratification" and none other.