View Full Version : UK violent image laws
the new laws have been passed and anyone found with violent images or what appears to be realistic and produced for the purpose of sexual arousal can recieve 3 yrs imprisonment and automatically placed on the sex offenders register.
the term violent covers,anything APPEARING to be realistic, anything that MAY leave bruises, cuts, red marks etc
they've been extremely careful and covered every eventuality in wording the bill so that no-one can slip through the net.... this is a basic guideline,try reading it its very very cleverly done!
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/07130.43-46.html
(scroll down to part 6)
but its not that clever though ...every classified film with any similar content including the torture scene in the last Bond movie has broken every single one of those guidelines and laws!
its also now the first time in modern history that instead of the prosecutor having to prove your guilt (all he has to do is show the pics lol) you have to prove your innocence!
and the only defence you can have is that you can prove that you were sent the pics without your knowledge, or that you didnt keep them for a reasonable length of time or if you did then you must be able to prove WHY you kept them for a reasonable length of time.
oh and the best one!!! if its images you've taken yourself that when taking them you found them obscene and disgusting therefore they were not produced for the purpose of sexual arousal :confused: of course you go back then to have to explain why you had taken them and why you had 'disgusting and obscene' violent pornographic images in your possesion.
and beware America because they're planning on petitioning for very similar laws in the near future in your neck of the woods too!
mkemse
03-15-2008, 05:10 PM
the new laws have been passed and anyone found with violent images or what appears to be realistic and produced for the purpose of sexual arousal can recieve 3 yrs imprisonment and automatically placed on the sex offenders register.
the term violent covers,anything APPEARING to be realistic, anything that MAY leave bruises, cuts, red marks etc
they've been extremely careful and covered every eventuality in wording the bill so that no-one can slip through the net.... this is a basic guideline,try reading it its very very cleverly done!
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/07130.43-46.html
(scroll down to part 6)
but its not that clever though ...every classified film with any similar content including the torture scene in the last Bond movie has broken every single one of those guidelines and laws!
its also now the first time in modern history that instead of the prosecutor having to prove your guilt (all he has to do is show the pics lol) you have to prove your innocence!
and the only defence you can have is that you can prove that you were sent the pics without your knowledge, or that you didnt keep them for a reasonable length of time or if you did then you must be able to prove WHY you kept them for a reasonable length of time.
oh and the best one!!! if its images you've taken yourself that when taking them you found them obscene and disgusting therefore they were not produced for the purpose of sexual arousal :confused: of course you go back then to have to explain why you had taken them and why you had 'disgusting and obscene' violent pornographic images in your possesion.
and beware America because they're planning on petitioning for very similar laws in the near future in your neck of the woods too!
Child Porn Cases Hurt By Photo Technology
Millions Spent To Verify Images After High Court Struck Ban On Computer-Generated Porn
Comments 1
NEW YORK, Feb. 25, 2008
In America, the Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that banning drawn representations of child sexual abuse was unconsitutional. However the Child Protection Act of 2003 did make possession of such material an offense, a law that has not yet been tested in the Supreme court. Legal opinions differ on whether the law would stand up.
Although challenges to digital photos come in all types of criminal and civil cases, they are especially pronounced in child-pornography cases because of a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down a ban on computer-generated child pornography. Defense attorneys are trying to use the ruling to introduce reasonable doubt in jurors' minds about the images' authenticity
you can ban a real ife image you vcan not ban something from a persons mind wherethe digital come in
The Supreme Court concluded that the government could not overcome these problems. If it is not obscene and it does not actually involve children, then the government has failed to articulate a compelling interest justifying censorship. Plenty of legitimate material falls within the wide gambit. Regardless of the difficulty of distinguishing kiddie porn from virtual kiddie porn, it is a fundamental first amendment principle that "the government may not suppress lawful speech as a means to suppress unlawful speech." [Free Speech Coalition Slip at 17] The state cannot "reduce the adult population . . . to reading only what is fit for children." [Free Speech Coalition Slip at 14] Thus, the Supreme Court struck down the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 as unconstitutional.
Interesting because if my memory is coorect the Unites State suprmem Court Rules a year back that animation can not be demmed obscence even to the point of a computer gnenerates sene with minors, it was someting to the effect that cartoons and computer gnenerated images are not deememd real, thus they can not be regarded as "child porn"
The Suprmem court ruled in animation or computer generated image of "Children: it can not be defintely proved that the images or acutaly of children or are meant to look ilike children
Meaning i guess that it cannot be proven through animation or computer generated images that those image are in reality minor children
I AM NOT TAKING A STAND ON THIS, KIDDIE POEN TIO ME IS ILLEGAL be it real or computer generated, al i am doing is posting information i found
its also now the first time in modern history that instead of the prosecutor having to prove your guilt (all he has to do is show the pics lol) you have to prove your innocence!
I'm not sure you have got that right. It is necessary first for the prosecution to prove that the image comes within the meaning of "extreme pornographic image" as defined in s64(2), then, if it does, you can produce as your defence, evidence that one of the matters mentioned in s66(2) applies. You may have other defences as well.
There have always been pornography laws in England - cf Lady Chatterley's Lover. Look what they did to Oscar Wilde. Do you remember the prosecution of the producers of The Romans in Britain?
Not to seem complacent, I think the judiciary will probably apply this new legislation with a degree of caution and prudence. Otherwise, many of our avatars would come within s64(6)(b), and I don't think that's what's intended.
mkemse
03-15-2008, 07:11 PM
I'm not sure you have got that right. It is necessary first for the prosecution to prove that the image comes within the meaning of "extreme pornographic image" as defined in s64(2), then, if it does, you can produce as your defence, evidence that one of the matters mentioned in s66(2) applies. You may have other defences as well.
There have always been pornography laws in England - cf Lady Chatterley's Lover. Look what they did to Oscar Wilde. Do you remember the prosecution of the producers of The Romans in Britain?
Not to seem complacent, I think the judiciary will probably apply this new legislation with a degree of caution and prudence. Otherwise, many of our avatars would come within s64(6)(b), and I don't think that's what's intended.
it is all just a quote from the same article i posted by date, all i did was look it, but it did say a Federal Judge ruled that the burden of Proof was on the Prosecution not the Defendent
A Judge even rules that a man who was cgaredwith child pornogrpahy both real and "virutal" did not have toopne his computer hard drivr since the password was a "virtual one" in his head and that of ot was in a wall safe the key would be a real physcial item the wholei ssue here i guess is the use of the world "virutal" what is what in not
i have no opinoin on it one way or another justreplying to a post on the topic, but do i condone child poronography NO WAY be it i real or virutal, to me both are still illegal regardless of what the courts say, but that is just my opnion
My bad, Mkemse, I was replying to Icey's original post.
I think the accepted definition of pornography in England was, for a considerable period of time, something that "tends to deprave or corrupt". The new legislation defines a pornographic image as a picture that appears to have been produced solely and principally for the purposes of sexual arousal.
I can see clever barristers who are defending people charged with an offence under this Act having a whale of a time with this definition: it creates more uncertainty than it resolves! "Appears"? Appears to whom? The man on the Clapham Omnibus?
Solely and principally - are these two terms not mutually exclusive? Or are images that have a variety of purposes, but the main purpose of which is sexual arousal also caught by this definition. Can we expect to see Playboy Magazine withdrawn because of this; it contains articles written for entertainment as well as pin-up pictures.
Sexual arousal: What constitutes "sexual arousal"? An erection? Sticky panties?
Finally, it should be noted that only extreme pornographic images are rendered illegal by this Act - images of "snuff", serious genital injury (not just spankings or pussy whipping), necrophilia and bestiality. I believe that all of those acts are generally regarded by British society as unacceptable. I am surprised paedophilia isn't also mentioned, but perhaps other laws provide protection there.
mkemse
03-16-2008, 07:42 AM
My bad, Mkemse, I was replying to Icey's original post.
I think the accepted definition of pornography in England was, for a considerable period of time, something that "tends to deprave or corrupt". The new legislation defines a pornographic image as a picture that appears to have been produced solely and principally for the purposes of sexual arousal.
I can see clever barristers who are defending people charged with an offence under this Act having a whale of a time with this definition: it creates more uncertainty than it resolves! "Appears"? Appears to whom? The man on the Clapham Omnibus?
Solely and principally - are these two terms not mutually exclusive? Or are images that have a variety of purposes, but the main purpose of which is sexual arousal also caught by this definition. Can we expect to see Playboy Magazine withdrawn because of this; it contains articles written for entertainment as well as pin-up pictures.
Sexual arousal: What constitutes "sexual arousal"? An erection? Sticky panties?
Finally, it should be noted that only extreme pornographic images are rendered illegal by this Act - images of "snuff", serious genital injury (not just spankings or pussy whipping), necrophilia and bestiality. I believe that all of those acts are generally regarded by British society as unacceptable. I am surprised paedophilia isn't also mentioned, but perhaps other laws provide protection there.
not sure what you meran by bad mke, i only posted what i found personal i do not defend anyonewho has child porn bur rather was pointedout what the Unites States Suprmem court rules, then more nothing else
where this makes me bad i have no clue
mkemse
03-16-2008, 07:46 AM
to me whether it is real or virtual "kiddie porn" is wrong, the posts i made to do repepresent my pesonals view only the Laws of the United States as our Supreme has ruled
I'm not sure you have got that right. It is necessary first for the prosecution to prove that the image comes within the meaning of "extreme pornographic image" as defined in s64(2), then, if it does, you can produce as your defence, evidence that one of the matters mentioned in s66(2) applies. You may have other defences as well.
There have always been pornography laws in England - cf Lady Chatterley's Lover. Look what they did to Oscar Wilde. Do you remember the prosecution of the producers of The Romans in Britain?
Not to seem complacent, I think the judiciary will probably apply this new legislation with a degree of caution and prudence. Otherwise, many of our avatars would come within s64(6)(b), and I don't think that's what's intended.
we looked into it at length and the burden is on the defence to prove their innocence, its actually at the prosecutors personal discretion as to whether he/she feels it to be pornographic and violent its the first time that personal opinion will come into play (legally anyway) and as far as we can see (though i have been known to be wrong many times lol) those are the defences as stated in OP,the bill was passed only a couple of days ago as re-wording and some revisions were deemed necassary ie as to what constitutes violent pornographic images,what defence can be used, what appears to be realistic actually includes,to make it as water tight as possible.
already in some districts sergeant officers have stated to the media they will be cracking down on these 'terrible' criminals and will be making as many raids and arrests as possible.
im wondering if i can use having them for educational or artistic purposes as a defence :)
in fact going off subject a little,when we began really researching we came across so many new or proposed rulings covering all areas its frightening, for eg a judge now in most trials other than serious offences such as rape,murder etc can decide whether a jury should be used or not.
parts of a defendants statement may now be blacked out if the judge deems it not neccasary, the defendant at the judges and prosecutors discretion may not be allowed to see any statements or be informed of anything used as evidence. its amazing what you dig up when you really look into it.
anyone over the age of 14 has to provide dna samples if stopped in the street and faces arrest and possible prosecution on refusal.
people will not be able to add anything to their first original statements ..not sure if that ones actually being passed at this moment in time.
It still remains for the prosecution to prove that you are in possession of extreme pornographic images first. But if the prosecution can do this, then you are committing an offence: possession of these images is a crime per se in the same way that unlawful possession of drugs is. However, if you are found to be in such a position, the law lays down four reasons which exonerate you.
It's not as easy as you might think to prove possession of images on a computer. For example, if several people use the same machine, and you don't all have seperate passwords, which one of those people is "in possession"? All of them? Or the person who downloaded them? And how does the CPS prove who that was?
The law will not allow prosecutions based solely on the say-so of a police constable, and if there are not yet standards by which to measure whether an image satisfies the definition of "extreme pornography", it won't be long before there are. And it willl be some kind of reasonableness test.
The prosecution must establish that you are in possession of the images "beyond reasonable doubt". The existence of the photographs on your own personal computer is probably sufficient to do that in the same way that possession of car keys is probably sufficient if you are charged with being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle. If you cannot avail yourself of the prescribed defences, then you will be guilty.
But to use one of the prescribed defences, you only have to show "on the balance of probabilities" that it applies in your case. If you are not the exclusive user, then it becomes easier for you to show you did not know of their existence.
I don't see this as an attack on people with "kinks", or even people who go in for body modification. This does not, so far as I can see, outlaw pictures of Prince Albert piercings or of someone sitting on a butt plug with pegs attached to her nipples. It's an attack on conduct which goes beyond that, to a form of perversion/deviancy which is (a) extreme in nature and (b) of four specific types, namely, possession for sexual gratification of images which purport to show killings, genital mutilation, sex with a corpse or with an animal.
Our lawmakers perceive that such conduct is reprehensible, and I have strong doubts that there will be any groundswell of opinion against the new laws. I also think your concerns are misplaced, unless you do have images portraying those activities, which I doubt could be regarded as "educational" in any circumstances except, perhaps, for training sessions to show the police what to look for in their raids.
there has been a fair bit of opposition (check out backlash and the spanner trus too) including from some politicians ,even tony blair reputedly when speaking with george bush said it was his opinion and belief that people should be allowed to have their personal tastes and lifestyles respected and left alone,and simply keep with the real and violent crimes,
it isnt solely for killings,sex with dead bodies etc those i do feel should have the strongest of laws...one of the definitions is for depicting activities which may cause bruising,marking etc.
i dont take it as a personal attack what pisses me off is that there reasoning behind it is that all murderers and rapists have been fuelled and encouraged by bdsm and that it is likely to encourage others into the same!
maybe i should have worded my posts better,im not too good at this stuff lol and bookmarked the links.
I have to accept what you say about opposition, but I wonder if those organisations really are into snuff, torture, necrophilia and bestiality, or if they've jumped onto a bandwagon they really ought not to have. I'm sure everyone on this site agrees that personal tastes and lifestyles are private matters to be left alone by the legislature. But I also expect everyone on this site is against violent crime.
I can't see the reference to bruising and marking, but the presence of bruises and marks on the person photographed doesn't make the image one which is "extreme" even if it is pornographic (produced for sexual arousal).
I agree with you that, if by enacting this legislation Parliament hopes to eradicate sexually inspired crimes, it is profoundly misguided and is in for deep disappointment. I suspect, however, it was done for different motives - political approval and votes. If pictures of dead bodies being used for sex cease to be available, a necrophile will find other means of titillation.
DOMLORD
04-23-2008, 05:41 AM
"(c)an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse,"
NO CORPSES!?
maybe this is why america rebelled!
fetishdj
04-23-2008, 05:59 AM
The paedophillia aspects are covered in another law... though if you have violent pornography of children you may be prosecuted under two laws...
Oscar Wilde (afaik) was imprisoned for the crime of homosexuality rather than anything under the pornography laws. After this, homosexuality moved from being a crime to a mental abberation (which allowed you to be sectioned under the mental health act) and finally to the acceptable sexual choice it is today. And speaking of bizarre sexuality based laws, are you aware that it was illegal to be a male homosexual but not a lesbian because (to quote Queen Victoria) 'ladies don't do those things'. She refused to sign the law making lesbianism illegal as well as male homosexuality for that very reason.
It is interesting to get better definitions of what they mean by 'violent' as well. Very useful to know.
I came across an article the other day discussing this new law. It wasn't very interesting or informative until I read that it is now a criminal offence in the UK to possess photographs of activities which are not in themselves illegal!
The mind boggles!
this is taken from the Criminal justice bill.
btw unfortunately i dont have the link to the legal site we looked at but the proof of wether or not its intended for the purpose of sexual arousal will lay with the judge! there are some new laws proposed in regards to this where the judge will have the decision as to whether or not a jury will be necassary!
i'll try finding it, Icehawk had it but im not sure if he still has :rolleyes:
30
Pornography etc.
64
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—
35
(a)
pornographic, and
(b)
an extreme image.
(3)
An image is “pornographic” if it appears to have been produced solely or
principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
Part 6 — Criminal law
45
(4)
Where an image forms part of a series of images, the question whether the
image appears to have been so produced 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
(5)
So, for example, where—
(a)
an image forms an integral part of a narrative constituted by a series of
images, and
(b)
it appears that the series of images as a whole was not produced solely
or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal,
10
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 of any of the following—
(a)
an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life,
15
(b)
an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in
serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
(c)
an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a
human corpse,
(d)
a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or
20
oral sex with an animal,
where (in each case) any such act, person or animal depicted in the image is or
appears to be real.
(7)
In this section “image” means—
(a)
a moving or still image (produced by any means); or
25
(b)
data (stored by any means) which is capable of conversion into an
image within paragraph (a).
(8)
In this section references to a part of the body include references to a part
surgically constructed (in particular through gender reassignment surgery).
(9)
Proceedings for an offence under this section may not be instituted—
30
(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
Defence
(1)
Where a person is charged with an offence under section 64, it is a defence for
the person to prove any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2).
35
(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;
40
(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.
I go the OPSI website when I want to look at recent legislation ... well, it beats mowing the lawn on Sundays, doesn't it?
www.opsi.gov.uk/
... the proof of wether or not its intended for the purpose of sexual arousal will lay with the judge!
That's exactly the way it should be, icey. Let the police and the Crown Prosecution Service say what they want about the images, it's up to the barrister at the bar to convince the judge that the accused is guilty of the crime by proving that the pictures come within the definition in the Act.
And of course, the defence will also want to put as many obstacles as they can in that barrister's way while he tries to make his case.
Then the learned judge will come to a decision. (And we all know what a bunch of pervs the judges are, don't we!)
stripedangel
05-07-2008, 11:23 AM
Wow, i saw this on another site...
One of the posters had this to say:
"The new legilation covers bestiality, ALREADY ILLEGAL. Necrophylia, ALREADY ILLEGAL. Abuse of minors THANKFULLY ALREADY ILLEGAL. Anyone caught in the act of commiting ANY of those crimes IMO deserves to get some serious time behind the door.
....[should we]Stop boxing, rugby, martial arts, battle re-enactments, motor sports?"
Really, is it up to everyone else to decide what's best for the rest of us?
funny, it seems that this situation is similar to the beginning of the gay rights movement.
Maybe instead of letting these laws pass, we should mobilize and fight!
Rational Head
05-07-2008, 02:20 PM
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Ayn Rand
stripedangel
05-07-2008, 02:36 PM
yep.
and more money from the fines, and higher taxes to pay everyone who is involved in the enforcement...and for those who use it for their own driveways and swimming pools...and call girls.
Really, is it up to everyone else to decide what's best for the rest of us?
To some extent, yes. We can't go around murdering people, for example, even if we do get a buzz out of doing it. We mustn't take other people's property away from them, no matter how much we might want to have it for ourselves. Because it's better for everyone concerned that we live in a peaceful society that respects rights of ownership.
We should be prevented from fornicating with animals because that is unacceptable behaviour in society. We should also be prevented from committing acts of incest, for the same reason. If an act is illegal, it follows that photographs of such acts must also be tainted, and the new Act confirms this by making it clear that possession of such images ARE illegal.
Homosexuality was once unacceptable, and it had to be prevented to preserve public order and decency. It no longer is unacceptable, so public order and morality are no longer under threat by gays. The law can be relaxed.
But now we are getting into grey areas. Should a man co-habit with more than one woman? Should acts of submission be outlawed? (What's the feminist movement's take on BDSM, btw? Anyone know?) Is consensual whipping and bondage something that should be outlawed?
In UK, consensual whipping and bondage are not illegal, even if the whipping is on the genitalia. But the new Act of Parliament makes it illegal to possess photographs of such acts. That is a nonsense: "The law is a ass!"
I think icey's fears are that there will be some kind of legislative creep, and that whatever the law enforcement fascisti deem to be an extreme pornographic image, will automatically become one. My own view is that there may well be a number of attempted prosecutions for possession of photographs of S/M scenes, but most of them will fail.
Meanwhile, slightly off-topic, somewhere in the family photograph album is a picture of my sister when she was about 5, standing up in a tin bathtub, naked and full frontal, watching the bathwater leak through a hole in the tub. The photograph was taken in 1952.
Also, we have another picture of my younger son when he was about the same age, just out of the bath and naked, wearing a pirate hat and a pair of rubber boots, and laughing his head off at some joke or other which I don't remember. This was taken in the early 90's. (We also have pictures of both of my sons having a water fight in the bath. The greatest harm that was done when those pictures were taken was that the bathroom floor got flooded!)
I wouldn't dare have any of those pictures developed now, and I suspect if they were seen I might be accused of paedophilia. I think this is a reflection of the puritan society we have once again become, and, just as "ungodliness" was shameful in the 17th century, so anything that is remotely sexual is shameful today.
Also, we have another picture of my younger son when he was about the same age, just out of the bath and naked, wearing a pirate hat and a pair of rubber boots, and laughing his head off at some joke or other which I don't remember. .
i had a cpl baby pics like that of my own son but i got rid of them..paranoia or what lol
i agree with beastiality and all the other laws necrophilia peadophila but i dont think consensual s/m should be illegal they dont have the right (or shouldnt) to tell us what sexual activitys we can/cant do in our own homes.
and it isnt just fears i have,ive not done too good a job at posting i never know how to word things correctly lol
but i do know that as well as reading up about it all and research from my barrister from when we were in court that the pics that my ex had could have landed us in prison! and they were milder ones his solicitor dloaded them and because it was for a family law case she couldnt risk dloading the stronger ones, this was before the new law was fully passed.
the pics of me were one of me hogtied,one of me bound and gagged naked and one of me with a few welts and cpl mild bruises, not only would we have been charged with transmitting violent images, Icehawk would have been done for assault and i would have been dont for aiding and assisting said assualt...we were extremely lucky that the judge dismissed it as irrelevant to the case and spiteful of my ex and that she decided not to report us to the correct authorities because it would have a detrimental effect on my children and on the proviso we removed our site and any images which we had already done by then immediately after we recieved the pics from our solicitor.although the few images we have left on my laptop we havnt removed and luckily because she didnt report us nobody has ever looked.
had it been a cpl more days later when part of the bill was passed the outcome would probably have been much more drastic.
Razor7826
05-08-2008, 02:39 PM
I'm curious as to how long this ban will last. I'm not familiar with UK law, but is there any sort of appeals process, or does the government now have the right to arrest anyone at all interested in a BDSM lifestyle or kinks?
the laws have all been passed and were also added to a month later despite appeals against it even by some MPs
the law was fought for by Liz Longhurst (not sure if name are allowed) who's daughter was murdered by a man who had an obsession for strangulation and looked at inernet sites connected with it
she launched a campaign backed by most prominent MPs including the home officer and over 50,000 signatures on a petition and with as you can guess a large part of the 'vanilla' population supporting her.
as an aside one of the few MPs who wasnt too happy or convinced about the (then) proposed law was Tony Blair ...George Bush was also in agreement ...so you americans should be safe lol
the people who will be targeted will be those found transmitting violent images, such as on websites or anyone caught with possesion of or images on their pcs, very few people in all liklihood are going to have their pc's seized.
but when they criminalise possession then they are giving police inquisitorial powers to come into your home and see what you've got, and that we didnt have before.
stripedangel
05-08-2008, 04:28 PM
Wow, icey, what luck!
i hope they can't grandfather anything in tht would allow them to have another go at you.
You might like the site i found while googling for Saffron's site (which She has taken down).
http://lawandsexuality.blogspot.com/
That is, if you haven't already checked it out. You seem to kow quite a bit about the laws...
cherry-uk
05-09-2008, 02:24 AM
So would images of me holding a dagger to my throat be classed as illegal then? I'm a little concerned as I have a set of photos including this due to go on my new website next week....I'm also working on some ideas which will include my subs surely a slightly bruised backside isn't going to get me into trouble with the law its not as if they are extreme images (to my mind anyway). Surely this cant be enforced there are thousands of images out there already where would they start?
whilst some of its very clear it is also intentionally (to my mind anyway) very vague in other areas leaving a lot of loopholes, we dont consider some bruiing violent or a knife to the throat...however because of it's cleverly worded things such as knife to the throat or any other part of the body for that matter will come under the heading of appears to be violent or life threatening.
bruising,marks etc has to be considered severe or appear to look severe, it will mostly depend upon the judges interpretation not the jurys
any actions depicted in the images ae act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
again the judges interpretation but when you look further into it in the more detailed papers you find that any action which results in markage is considered serious injury.
the onus is also on the defence to prove there innocence rather than the prosecution to prove the charges which is a first in uk law as far as im aware.
you have to prove that you didnt have it for the sole purpose of sexual arousal (how the hell do you prove that!)
or you have to prove that you didnt have it for an unreasonable length of time
you have to prove that the images were sent to you unknowingly
there are only certain defences you can use.
if you look around now more and more you will find that many uk sites have dissapeared some time ago and that most new photo sets show the model at the beginning of the shoot smiling and usually dressed before any 'activitys' smiling and afterwards dressed and smiling.
people are unlikely to be found in possesion but if someone reports you you may find yourself in a bit of s**t though the chances of that are small, they are more likely more interested in catching 'bigger fish'
although it is still worth knowing the law and your rights, or lack of them!
thee will be quite a large crackdown and a few showcases to begin with as with any new law, ive already seen many interviews with head of police forces in various areas of the country asserting that they will take action and will take it extremely seriously and quite a few judges have said the same.
in case you're wondering being in possesion of hentai pics can also possibly become part of the new laws, many MPs feel that the new laws ae not strong enough,that there are too many loopholes and are looking at new ways of tightening them down.
prison sentences are 3 yrs for possesion, it also becomes more complicated with an extra 4 yrs if you are the 'perpetrator' of the violence (assault) and an extra 18 mths if you are the 'victim' in the pics (aiding and abetting assault) and up to 8 yrs if you are the person transmitting them, if you run a site and have a us server or any other country for that matter it makes no difference (our server was in the us) you are still breaking uk laws even if any pics you keep are uploaded onto your server and not your harddrive doesnt matter same rules apply.
there is a way legally of protecting yourself a little if you are thinking about setting up a site , you can do it in a way that your less traceable but as with anything eventually they can catch up with you if they wanted to go to extreme lengths.
and for anyone using an encrpytion programme such as pgp to save your images while it take a lot to crack it they can, you can refuse to give the password but there is up to a 10yr sentence for this lol.
but i think you'd have to be into it pretty bigtime for that,unfortunately there has been a lot of panicking and as i already mentioned quite a few sites have dissapeared, even none uk ones
cherry-uk
05-09-2008, 04:56 AM
Yes I've noticed the smiling before and after photos on some sites I think its kinda cute actually :) maybe I'll use something along those lines. I'll keep watching this thread with interest.
x cherry
Cherry,
IMHO the picture would fall foul of the new law if it was produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual gratification, because it quite clearly appears to threaten your own life.
Contrary to icey's opinion, I believe it is for the prosecution to prove that such a picture meets the definition of extreme pornography in the first instance, not for the defence to prove it does not. But in this case, I think the prosecution would have a pretty easy time of it - the hardest part would be to prove the photograph was taken for purposes of sexual gratification. That cannot be assumed, but it might be held that it is self-evident.
If and when the prosecution make their case, and it looks like they have established beyond resonable doubt that the image is an extreme pornographic one, you can then produce your defences or rebuttals. If you raise any doubt in the judge's mind (or if it goes before a jury, in their minds) then you should be acquitted.
If, for example, a picture displayed a kitchen knife on a worktop, next to a sliced apple, say, with you standing apart from that worktop, but naked and with a dotted line drawn across your throat, the prosecution would have a much harder time proving your life appeared to be under threat, even though the same elements were present, and there was a clear sexual undertone (overtone?).
But regardless of what is in the picture, rest assured that it is not illegal to point a knife to your throat in order to get (or give) a sexual thrill: the crime is in having a photograph of it!
That's my take on the law: I don't think icey agrees. I wonder if any English Law Lords are reading this thread who would like to comment?
I've deleted this posting because it was a duplication ...
But, Hey, everyone: this is my 69th message!!!!
^ lol ..congrats on your 69'er :)
regardless of what is in the picture, rest assured that it is not illegal to point a knife to your throat in order to get (or give) a sexual thrill: the crime is in having a photograph of it!
doing it is fine, unless there's an accident and you appear at a&e they can then report it if they have any concerns, although its unlikely they will, there has been the odd case.such as the spanner case.
'operation spanner'
background
The police had obtained a video which they believed depicted acts of sadistic torture, and they launched a murder investigation, convinced that the people in the video were being tortured before being killed. This resulted in raids on a number of properties, and a number of arrests.
The apparent "victims" were alive and well, and soon told the police that they were participating in private homosexual BDSM activities. Although all of those seen in the videos stated that they were willing participants in the activities depicted on the videos, the police and Crown Prosecution Service insisted on pressing charges. Sixteen men were charged with various offences, including "assault occasioning actual bodily harm" (ABH).
Heavily influenced by the nineteenth century boxing case of R v. Coney, the trial judge ruled that consent was not a valid defence to ABH, and the defendants pleaded guilty. The case was appealed first to the High Court, then to the House of Lords. In March 1993, the appeal was dismissed (R v Brown (1993) 2 All ER 75) by 3-2 majority of the Lords, with Lord Templeman in particular declaring that:
"In principle there is a difference between violence which is incidental and violence which is inflicted for the indulgence of cruelty. The violence of sadomasochistic encounters involves the indulgence of cruelty by sadists and the degradation of victims. Such violence is injurious to the participants and unpredictably dangerous. I am not prepared to invent a defence of consent for sadomasochistic encounters which breed and glorify cruelty [...]. Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing. Cruelty is uncivilized."
An attempt to overturn the convictions in the European Court of Human Rights in 1997 failed (see Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v. United Kingdom).
The legal rationale for the decisions were broadly speaking as follows:
(UK courts) A person does not have the legal ability to consent to receive an act which will seriously harm them, such as branding or other intense activities of a sadomasochistic nature.
(European Courts) Whilst a person has a general right of free will, a state may as a matter of public policy restrict that in certain cases, for example for the general public good and for the protection of morals. The present case was judged by the European Court to have fallen within the sovereign scope of the UK Government's right to determine its legality, and human rights legislation would not overrule this.
That's my take on the law: I don't think icey agrees. I wonder if any English Law Lords are reading this thread who would like to comment?
ive looked and looked and all ive found is that the defences in the 'papers' i posted above are the only defences you can have, in this case its more a guilty until proven innocent than innocent until proven guilty and that was never the case before ..or at least not officially.. as you can see you have to 'prove' your innocence, though im certainly not a law expert in anyway and would love to hear from english law lord myelf as im not the smartest brick in the block when it comes to interpretation and relaying things :( lol, the explanation of it was given in a presentation/speech by representatives of backlash at a fetish fair/demos we attended, our barrister and looking around on the net, but i appreciate as with anything things can get misinterpreted ...by me especially and i hope they or i am wrong!
Thanks for the congrats, icey :) ... If only I'd had someone to do it with ...
You case histories are very interesting. I do not have access to the law reports you cite, but I'm scouting round to get some background.
However, it seems to me, your concern is now about the commission of acts which are deemed illegal, rather than just the possession of extereme pornographic images. The Coney case and the AG's Reference, so far as I can see, have nothing to do with images of any kind, but are concerned with whether or not one can consent to being injured. And the answer appears to be, yes you can, unless the act causing the injury is illegal itself.
In the Brown case, Templeman LJ appears to confirm that sadomasochism is an illegal act. If that is so, then a masochist cannot give legal consent to a sadistic act against him.
S/M has always taken place and has always been an "underground" activity. If the law is as stated above, it will continue to be an undeground activity: but it won't stop. BDSM clubs will adopt a "front" - a fetish group, perhaps. If we had thought it was legal for a while in today's more enlightened society, we were wrong: society isn't more enlightened, it's more puritanical. The difference is, now society is focused against sexual deviancy where as before it was against moral corruption.
DOMLORD
05-10-2008, 09:26 PM
Hmmmm..... have they started to take away firearms to, on the basis that to own one would obviously mean rectal, vaginal, or oral harm and penis action isn't a serious enough punishment. this all smells like the congressional inquest into heavy metal music led by Al Gore (saviour of the human race).
cherry-uk
05-12-2008, 02:52 AM
Damn! looks like I'm gonna have to thin the set down then just to be on the safe side.....I guess I'll have to be more careful in the future....thanks for your help on this its really appreciated
x cherry
Rubberwolf
05-13-2008, 12:10 PM
Time to put my three peneth worth in about this one. I met the news that the govt were passing this law with the same dread as Icey. The idea that, just in case you are doing something you shouldn't the govt have passed a law that allows them to monitor your behaviour/actions even more closely. They can also seize your pc and have a lot of fun snooping your hard drive. Does anybody remember those two way TVs that people were so affraid of in 1984.
As for sexually violent content. Hmmm.
Evil Dead - Guilty
Elm St - Guilty
Saw - Guilty
You name the Horror movie, it is probably covered by this law. Damn, there goes my DVD collection.
You could also include 8mm, and other block busters. Hell, there is even a lot of bondage and death in Dr Who. Damn, I think I will just have to hand myself in to the local nick.
Hold on a minute. If I suddenly developed a crucifixion fetish, then owning a little gold crucifix (Complete with naked bloke nailed to cross) that I should also be found guilty?
Oh dear, I think I will just have to confess all and be done with it.
(By the way, does the law just cover images, or can they imply what they want just from looking at your favourates menu?)
If I were a judge and cherry's picture (as she described it) was under consideration as a potentially extreme pornographic image, I would be inclined to say that I was convinced that the picture appeared to be one where her life was threatened, by reference to the fact that she had a knife at her throat. As for whether the picture had been produced for sexual gratification, that would depend on circumstances, as the Act itself says, and I would expect the prosecution to prove it. If they failed to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, I would be acquit cherry without her having even to defend herself. IF the prosecution presented a convincing case, cherry would then be able to present whatever defence she had in order to raise a doubt in my mind.
Rubberwolf - 1984 is happening in UK, where CCTV cameras are festooned everywhere you go!
Dr Who's primary purpose is not sexual gratification (although I bet Georgia Moffett has caused a surge in the sales of Kleenex!) Nor are crucifixes worn for sexual gratification.
And, so far as I am aware, the police cannot look at your computer without a search warrant, and they need reasonable grounds for suspicion to get one.
So if you keep your perverted thoughts to yourself, you can watch Dr Who destroy the Daleks and then go to Mass without any fear. (Best not to watch the episodes with the Cybermen in, though!)
Thorne
05-13-2008, 07:37 PM
Rubberwolf - 1984 is happening in UK, where CCTV cameras are festooned everywhere you go!
I don't have any problem with CCTV in public places. Ultimately they are for the safety of the public. Sure, they can be used for illicit purposes but that's what oversight committees are for. But in general, if you aren't committing a crime you have nothing to fear. If you are committing a crime you're more likely to get caught. The real problem is, What does the government consider a crime?
Dr Who's primary purpose is not sexual gratification (although I bet Georgia Moffett has caused a surge in the sales of Kleenex!) Nor are crucifixes worn for sexual gratification.
For most people this is probably true. But what about those fringe elements who are watching Dr. Who for sexual gratification? Or someone who uses a crucifix to stimulate themselves sexually? Should these items be banned because they can be used to stimulate? And what if the judge should find something sexually stimulating that you do not? There are many different fetishes out there. Not everyone is stimulated by them all. Which ones should be banned?
No, it's a crapshoot when you let the government run the bedroom. Especially since a seemingly large percentage of government officials are among the worst offenders.
For most people this is probably true. But what about those fringe elements who are watching Dr. Who for sexual gratification? Or someone who uses a crucifix to stimulate themselves sexually? Should these items be banned because they can be used to stimulate? And what if the judge should find something sexually stimulating that you do not? There are many different fetishes out there. Not everyone is stimulated by them all. Which ones should be banned?
The key here, I think, is that the Act in question specifies that the images must be produced (not looked at) "solely or principally" for purposes of sexual gratification.
No, it's a crapshoot when you let the government run the bedroom. Especially since a seemingly large percentage of government officials are among the worst offenders.
I'm in full agreement. But it seems that the militant wing of the modern puritan movement is more influential, at least, here in the UK
Thorne
05-14-2008, 01:11 PM
I'm in full agreement. But it seems that the militant wing of the modern puritan movement is more influential, at least, here in the UK
This is even worse! That means that any images on your drive, whether you actually looked at them or not, can be used to convict you! Many ads, some even on this site, could be considered violent, and would leave images in the Temporary Internet Folder, whether you actually look at them or not. Unless you have at least a modicum of computer skills and are able to figure out how to delete those files you can be held liable for them. Is that what the law is saying?
This is even worse! That means that any images on your drive, whether you actually looked at them or not, can be used to convict you!
This is icey's point. She believes that is what the law says. And, to a point, I agree, it does. Where icey and I differ is that she believes we have moved to a "guilty-until-proved-innocent" regime, whereas I don't.
It is now illegal to be in possession of certain types of image. If it can be shown that an image on your hard drive is an "extreme pornographic image" (the prosecution must demonstrate that it is, but sometimes things are so obvious they prove themselves), and that you know - or should have known - they were there, then you are guilty of the crime. The prosecution must also prove, for example, that it is your hard drive - there have been cases which have failed because it could not be said that even though the accused was the owner of the computer, it was not certain that he was the person who downloaded the images because several people had access to and used the same computer. He might not even have been aware that the pictures were there at all.
"Possession" of an image in this context is a legal term and the definition is necessarily complex. Knowledge of possession and control are key elements, however.
Once all these things have been proved beyond reasonable doubt - and in many cases, it will be the easiest thing in the world to do that (what possible reason could I have for having dozens of photgraphs of weeping women chained naked to a bed or to a wall, with needles pushed through her nipples and weights dangling from her clitoris, other than sexual gratification?) - then it is up to the defence to show that there was, in fact, a valid purpose for having them. That's refuting the prosecution's case, not proving your innocence.
Thorne
05-14-2008, 07:51 PM
Okay, MMI. Given that all this is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, can anyone tell me why ANYTHING to do with sexual stimulation or gratification should be prosecuted as a felony? From what I'm reading, you can spend more time in prison for this than you could for selling heroin to grade school kids! Do the powers that be really think that arresting people for enjoying erotic images, even if they are "edgy", will do anything to stem the tide of real crime?
My recommendation to the good people of the UK is to have petitions passed to force lawmakers to open their own computers to oversight, just to make certain that they aren't violating their own laws. Then do your damndest to vote the idiots who are supporting this kind of trash out of office.
Of course, if politics over there is anything like it is over here, that isn't likely to happen. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see some dizzy congressperson try to institute a similar law here, based on the "enormous success" of the UK law.
What a crock. I think it's time to find a lonely cabin in the mountains and start building a moat.
Given that all this is true, and I have no reason to doubt it ...
The Act is a fact (sorry about the silly rhyme!). I have given my interpretation of it, and (to be frank) I am in no position to do so: I am not a lawyer or a politician, nor even a policeman. But these threads give us the opportunity to sound pompous, and I can never pass up an opportunity like that!
... Do the powers that be really think that arresting people for enjoying erotic images, even if they are "edgy", will do anything to stem the tide of real crime?
Let's see. I'm the Home Secretary, responsible for law and order. Maybe during quiet periods, I'm canoodling with my personal secretary without my wife's knowledge or approval. Meanwhile, there's a spate of arrests of people - ordinary Joe Soaps, actors, businessmen, priests, glittering pop stars and (yes) politicians and judges - who have been caught exchanging pictures of an obscene nature, mostly involving the rape and torture of minors. What shall I do to let it be known I'm "on the case?" I know - I'll make it illegal to possess pictures of such activities. That way people will see what an effective politician I am, and maybe no-one'll find out that my secretary enjoys more than one form of "dictation".
So I pass the law (or, rather, I submit a Bill to Parliament). It is debated. Various pressure groups and lobbies try to get particular amendments made to the Bill before it is passed - including, as I have said earlier, the militant wing of the Puritan Party, and by the time the Bill becomes an Act (passed into law), lo and behold, photographs depicting acts of depravity have become outlawed.
"But," you interject, "that cannot possibly include pictures of a private nature showing consensual BDSM activities, can it?"
As a result of this discussion, I have learnt that under English law, you cannot consent to receive injuries (other than of the mildest and trivial kind) and thereby confer legality on an illegal act. This was originally decided in a case involving an illegal boxing match in the 19th century, but icey has brought us up-to-date with her summary of "Operation Spanner" where acts of sadomasochism were stated to be illegal by Lord Templeman and 2 other Law Lords (there were, by the way, 2 more judges who dissented from the judgement). Lord Templeman said:
The violence of sadomasochistic encounters involves the indulgence of cruelty by sadists and the degradation of victims. Such violence is injurious to the participants and unpredictably dangerous. I am not prepared to invent a defence of consent for sadomasochistic encounters which breed and glorify cruelty [...]. Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing. Cruelty is uncivilized."
Summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spanner
Case report: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/R_v._Brown
Then do your damndest to vote the idiots who are supporting this kind of trash out of office.
Trouble is, they're not idiots, and most are not in office. They're self-glorifying lobbyists on a mission to rid the country of whatever particular bee they have in their bonnets for the time being. And it's a form of fascism. People who do not agree are branded as perverts or decadents, or downright criminals, whose opinions are not worth considering because they are wrong!
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see some dizzy congressperson try to institute a similar law here, based on the "enormous success" of the UK law.
... see you in jail, then - lol
denuseri
05-15-2008, 03:56 PM
allmost societies try and fail to monitor as well as control the behavioral compunctions of its members,, from before Agustus to modern days,, people find a way to indulge in just about anything with or without societal aproval, the goverments are like beating the ocean for having waves,lmao
denuseri
05-15-2008, 03:58 PM
as for the individual fanatic purist movements,, look at the recent so called super religious sect that got busted for polygamy and child abuse, oxymoronic huh?
I've been fighting against injustice such as this for so long I don't have much fight left.
As far as having to prove your innocence- geez where have you guys been? If you're charged with a crime, it's been up to you to prove your innocence for many years. (My bond ends next month btw.....)
This thread reminds me, I still haven't heard back from our new Government re the censorship of the Internet in Australia. They're proposing all sorts of things, whereby any PC which could concievably be viewed by kids won't be able to view 'adult' sites.
As I've said- these things move in cycles- we appear to be entering a conservative era. People will get tired of that & it'll change again.
That's a point of view. A cynical one. But then, it seems to me that, under any Common Law system, truth comes a very poor second to a cogent and convincing argument.
However, I'm aware of many cases where the Crown Prosecution Service has not prosecuted because they felt they could not prove the charges, and of other instancces where the courts have dismissed the case because the prosecution failed to convince the judge/jury of the accused's guilt.
This thread reminds me, I still haven't heard back from our new Government re the censorship of the Internet in Australia. They're proposing all sorts of things, whereby any PC which could concievably be viewed by kids won't be able to view 'adult' sites.
I wonder if they'll consult China on how to do this ...
denuseri
05-16-2008, 11:09 AM
yeah china is building rapidly into a majior player on the world stage, but hey, its the europeans and americans that are helping push thier ox cart with all the imports we buy
IvanDobsky
05-25-2008, 03:11 PM
From the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7364475.stm
Also:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7370807.stm
I find it entertaining that you can legally commit certain acts but if you take photographs of you doing so you are breaking the new law.
Madness!
underdog
05-25-2008, 03:41 PM
personally i coulnt give a bleeping hoot....if some beaurocrat decides to have a pop at my images id love to ask the vanilla sales man what he gets up to behind doors.
age of consent ect well thats fine...one of the main reasons i left the uk is because of the big brother rules...i dont buy there crap they dont have to buy mine....i can only hope like all of the other privacy laws that are being abused are being so by somone who doesnt enjoy abuse before knowledge and understanding...lol
Thorne
05-25-2008, 06:54 PM
Just wondering here, but how about a law requiring public officials, both elected and appointed, to submit their own personal computers, as well as any computers they use in their positions, and any computers used by their families, to periodic, random testing, to insure they are abiding by their own laws?
Well, it's a nice dream, anyway.
denuseri
05-25-2008, 11:45 PM
its an excellent dream sir, unfortunately i dont think they will ever do it ,,sighs
underdog
05-26-2008, 08:42 AM
Just wondering here, but how about a law requiring public officials, both elected and appointed, to submit their own personal computers, as well as any computers they use in their positions, and any computers used by their families, to periodic, random testing, to insure they are abiding by their own laws?
Well, it's a nice dream, anyway.
totally agree...and we could probably swap photos...lol :)