egafd.com

Jim wrote:

Terry, you should realise people like Max Hardcore, drag us all down, into their squalid cess-pits. We are tarred with their brush by the general public and make us all vulnerable in the future.

I honestly dont think we are Jim. The only feather we are tarred with in this game is the moral issue regarding what we do...Oh and the curious asking do you make videos with under aged girls...Thats the one that really annoys me. Like I have no moral scruples because I shoot porn flicks!!!

I'd like to think anyone who knows anything about porn here on this forum do not associate me in anyway with the likes of Max Hardcore. Max is in a totally different league.

The nice guy thing I heard from Rebekah Jordan who worked with him way back when. Its not from my personal experience

But Terry, people outside the porn bubble, ie the general public, can't help but put us all in the same boat. They want to think that underneath we are all like Max Hardcore.

Personally I think it's great he's being fried, because it keeps the Establishment rottweiler busy and leaves the rest of us alone. See him as a sacrificial lamb to The Cause.

The question is when the first prosecution occurs here under the, Criminal Justice Act 1998, Clause 64: Possession of extreme pornographic images.....which I've read in detail.

Studying law many years ago, is quite handy sometimes, since I noticed something interesting:

"390. However, subsection (3) goes on to state that an image is not excluded if it is contained in a recording of an extract from a classified work and it appears that the image was extracted solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal. Subsection (7) defines "extract" to include a single image. So, for example, if a video recording contains images extracted from a number of classified films and it appears that they have been extracted for the purpose of sexual arousal, those images would not be excluded images, notwithstanding that they have been taken from films which have been classified by a designated authority."

This would mean that if an image was taken, either from a BBFC'd work or during the production of a film and placed on a box cover, (Which producers can opt out of submitting) a person could be prosecuted, if the picture contravened the Act.

Also by making the act of "Possession" rather than "Distribution" as a reason for prosecution, it would mean that a producer of extreme porn, BBFC'D or not, could be vulnerable to prosecution, since he would be in possession of material, both on rushes and finished work, pictures etc, which could all fall foul of the law. So the bits rejected by the BBFC and in the producer's possession, could be potentially unlawful!

So if your were a producer of "Extreme" material, you would have to potentially destroy, everything, rushes, pictures etc, other than the finished work, within the BBFC'd cleared production and the BBFC'd cleared box cover!

You are right Jim but should we be breeding fear and paranoia here on the BGAFD?

You know as well as I do that any law or contract written by the establishment is going to be in its favour but the great thing about all that is it can be challenged.

According to the BBFC Online interview (gosh a big fat plug) these new laws were set up to deal with the Chris Langhams etc. I seriously dont see the system wasting time on girls getting rogered up the bum.

Otherwise we'll all be standing tall before the judge come 9pm next Monday morning.