New law criminalising possesion of ''offensive'' images.....

29 Apr 2008

"A bill outlawing the possession of "extreme pornography" is set to become law next week. But many fear it has been rushed through and will criminalise innocent people with a harmless taste for unconventional sex." (BBC News website)
This is the culmination of a campaign buy the parent of Jane Longhurst who was murdered 5 years ago by some nutter who had been found to have been accessing 'extreme' porn on the net.
Does this mean that our internet usage will be monitored and our equipment confiscated? Wheres the line that defines extreme porn and how easily will it be shifted? Was George Orwell right, albeit 24 years too early? What do you think?

29 Apr 2008

http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/279678.html
is this on the same subject?

29 Apr 2008

i believe it is!!!! lol

29 Apr 2008

How do you define 'extreme' though? dunno

Some boring normals may call what we do as extreme and filthy whereas someone who's into heavy BDSM, animals and the like could view their own activities as pretty normal ( well, normal for them! )
It's the whole 'how long is a piece of string?' arguement I guess

29 Apr 2008

Quote by Sassy-Seren
How do you define 'extreme' though?

Pictures of people shagging on picnic tables in the pouring rain ?
Pictures of people shagging on picnic tables in the pouring rain with a dog watching (cruelty to animals)
Pictures of Gordon Brown with no kit on ?
Any more suggestions ?

29 Apr 2008

Quote by JTS
How do you define 'extreme' though?

Pictures of people shagging on picnic tables in the pouring rain ? Where's the problem?
Pictures of people shagging on picnic tables in the pouring rain with a dog watching (cruelty to animals)Blindfold the dog!
Pictures of Gordon Brown with no kit on ? Nuff said!:scared:
Any more suggestions ?

29 Apr 2008

apparently 2 million people have offensive images on their hard disk. So lets see £1000 fine each= £2bn blimey

29 Apr 2008

Im normal............well normally I am anyway

29 Apr 2008

Quote by de_sade
How do you define 'extreme' though?

"Any image which can be classified as an extreme depiction of an unnatural or an illegal act or which causes significant offence or is considered an offront to public decency..."
So on the plus side no more pictures of Camilla Parker-Bowles.
lol

:lol: :lol: :lol:

30 Apr 2008

Quote by Sassy-Seren
How do you define 'extreme' though?

From the bill (page 44, lines 32-39 and page 45, lines 14-27)

Quote by The Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
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 appears to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.

(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,
(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 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
(b) data (stored by any means) which is capable of conversion into an image within paragraph (a).

Full text at
I've read in some places a suggestion that clause 6b above can be extended to refer to BDSM and/or fisting, maybe even double anal or vaginal penetration... I suppose that'll just depend on the predilictions of the magistrate...

Quote by de_sade
"Any image which causes significant offence or is considered an offront to public decency..."

Yeah. The question in this sort of phrasing always is "significant offence" to whom in particular? It always seems that the law is designed to protect conservative, Christian, middle-aged and middle class people from being offended and doesn't really care about anyone else. Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ caused me significant offence and nobody seems the slightest bit bothered.
Let alone images of The Wombats and Russell Brand...

30 Apr 2008

Quote by tomu
I suppose that'll just depend on the predilictions of the magistrate...

No. Since the penalties involve significant terms of imprisonment the mags will indict for trial by jury.
Since it is vague just what and who will cause distress to whom, I foresee that it will require legal definition and case law to be built. So a senior court will decide and the law will develop about those cases.
Children are catered for in various other acts, as are animals. So it comes down to what human/human, or human/human/human, is decided to be distressing to who.
Just another stitch in the fabric of life.