The ban on "extreme" porn is soon.

[number 6]

Referring to Captain Dibbles point about Middle Class Nu Labour pontificating about what we can and cant watch(and i can't stand nosey do gooder Harman either) i think its a safe bet that any tory govt would not be in a rush to turn this law around when they get in power,in fact id say most tories are more anti porn than labour people.

[Officer Dibble]

"i think its a safe bet that any tory govt would not be in a rush to turn this law around when they get in power"





No government is ever in any rush to repeal any law. The answer lies in not letting them pass their twatish laws in the first place. You must understand that the Labour Party are particularly prone to anti sex legislation because (to simplify things) they have a wimmin's lib, wimmin's equality, agenda. The shrieking middleclass lezzy nutters who drive this agenda forward are of the view that sex was invented by men to both oppress and demean wimmin'. And thus the power of the state must be brought to bear on men to redress the balance.

The stereotypical view of the Tories is that they are a hypocritical, back to basics, family values, party. Of course in the past there was a lot of truth in this. But what we see today is a new 21st century Conservative party ? the crucial difference being that it is now a socially, as well as economically, liberal party. Indeed today?s Conservative party is arguably more socially liberal than the NuLabour Party. Tory MP, Theresa May, has already rubbished Harriet Harman?s nutty anti-sex plans in the House of Commons.





Officer Dibble

[JonnyHungwell]

The Tories would have brought in similar legislation had they been in power. This has nothing to do with parties, because they're all basically the same - it comes down more to the British desire to censor and ban - and to control through fear. The vaguesnee of the law is there on purpose as an attempt to scare Mr Average off looking for porn, knowing full well if he gets caught his neighbours will assume he's a paedophile or rapist, although all he did was look at a picture or two of consenting adults. The law is a load of bollocks, but it is consistent with the type of bollocks you'd expect from any UK government. I gave up worrying a long time ago about any laws passed in the UK because good or bad, most have one thing in common - they usually persecute the wrong people. Shite country, shite politicians, shite laws --- and shite weather, just about sum the country up

[andy ide]

Agree with most of your post, JonnyHungwell. I don't think this law is particularly forceable as regards 'tame miscreants' for the simple fact that there's a broad consensus among the population that hardcore pornography is an accepted part of our (increasingly tolerant) culture now and pretty much harmless. There's also a recognition that many people have very colourful sex lives, some of which involve pain, and that one should live and let live so long as all sex in consensual. These kinds of attitude do not stop governments passing legislation such as they're going to do next week of course, but implementation is a different matter. I'm not scared enough to stop watching sexandsubmission.com, not by a long way. I just don't think any charges against me would be held up in court.

[Trumpton]

Am I correct in thinking that the government has brought this legislation onto the statue after only one incident, i.e., the Longhurst case? If so, it is yet another example of the classic knee-jerk reaction that British governments are all too famed for.

[Flat_Eric]

Trumpton wrote:

>>


Quite right, Trumps.

Another classic example of knee-jerk legislation that failed miserably was of course the post-Dunblane ban on hand guns - brought in to supposedly eliminate gun crime!

The effect? Legitimate, responsible gun clubs were put out of business, while gun crime soared to record levels in the decade afterwards and is now a massive problem in many inner cities - far more so than it was back in 1996.

- Eric

[JonnyHungwell]

A solution by the Fuckwits of Westminster, the biggest bunch of perverts/criminals going. Actually they don't give a toss about extreme porn, it's only a token gesture to prove they're tough and make it look as if they want to protect society. It'll not stop the next madman/rapist/murderer, because madmen/rapists/murderers don't obey laws --- just like MP's.

[eroticartist]

Alice,
Are you an imbecile? The child porn laws are to protect paedophiles in high places as the Dangerous Pictures Act is there to protect the SM devotees in high places. The Scottish Herald published a report that named members of the government were practising paedophiles but all mention of this article in the English press was banned by a D notice issued by the government.
Freeman.

[Arch Stanton]

genitalia, anus or breasts be considered any more serious than any other part of the body - it is complete madness.

Why is sexual violence any worse than any other type of violence ? If depiction of sexual violence is banned why not ban all depictions of violence which effectively means banning about 90% of films ever made.

Incidentally in law if a violent assault has a sexual element it is automatically considered more seriously.

Also the idea that a well adjusted person suddenly becomes a crazed killer if he sees some sexual violence is madness. He must have to be a psychopath in the first place.

[johnsix]

The amendment failed by 134 to 91.
The bill is now likely to be rubber stamped at a guillotined 3rd reading in the Commons.

The bill as it stands;

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.


66 Special rules relating to providers of information society services

Schedule 14 makes special provision in connection with the operation of section 62 in relation to persons providing information society services within the meaning of that Schedule.