UK violent image laws

[mkemse]

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.u...130.43-46.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 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